Monetary

Highlights So what? EM elections bring opportunities as well as risks. Why?   Emerging market equities will benefit as long as China’s stimulus does not fizzle. Modi is on track to win India’s election – which is a positive – though risks lie to the downside. Thailand’s next cycle of political instability is beginning, but we are still cyclically overweight. Indonesia will defy the global “strongman” narrative – go overweight tactically. Populism remains a headwind to Philippine and Turkish assets. Wait for Europe to stabilize before pursuing Turkish plays. Feature Chart 1Risks of China's Stimulus Have Shifted To The Upside China’s official PMIs in March came at just the right time for jittery emerging market investors awaiting the all-important March credit data. EM equities, unlike the most China-sensitive plays, have fallen back since late January, after outperforming their DM peers since October (Chart 1). This occurred amid a stream of negative economic data and policy uncertainties: China’s mixed signals, prolonged U.S.-China trade negotiations, the Fed’s extended “pause” in rate hikes, the inversion of the yield curve, Brexit, and general European gloom. We have been constructive on EM plays since February 20, when we determined that the risks of China’s stimulus had shifted to the upside. However, several of the EM bourses that are best correlated with Chinese stimulus are already richly valued (the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc). The good news is that a series of elections this spring provide a glimpse into the internal politics of several of these countries, which will help determine which ones will outperform if we are correct that global growth will find its footing by Q3.  First, A Word On Turkey … More Monetary Expansion On The Way Local elections in Turkey on March 31 have dealt a black eye to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. His ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has lost control of the capital Ankara for the first time since 2004. Erdogan has also (arguably) conceded the mayoralty of Istanbul, the economic center of the country, where he first rose to power in 1994. Other cities also fell to the opposition. Vote-counting is over and the aftermath will involve a flurry of accusations, investigations, and possibly unrest. Erdogan’s inability to win elections with more than a slim majority is a continual source of insecurity for him and his administration. This weekend’s local elections reinforce the point. The AKP alone failed to cross 45% in terms of popular votes. Combined with its traditional ally – the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) – it received 51.6% of the total vote (in the 2015 elections, the two parties combined for over 60% of the vote). While losing the local elections will not upset the balance in parliament, it is a rebuke to Erdogan over his economic policy and a warning to the AKP for the future. Erdogan does not face general elections until 2023. But judging by his response to the first serious challenge to his rule – the Gezi Park protests of May 2013 – his reaction will be to double down on unorthodox, populist economic policy. Chart 2Erdogan Will Respond With Populist Politics Back in 2013, the government responded to the domestic challenge through expansive monetary policy. The central bank gave extraordinary liquidity provisions to the banking system. Chart 2 clearly shows that the liquidity injections began with the Gezi protests. These provisions only paused in 2016-17, when global growth rebounded on the back of Chinese stimulus and EM asset prices rose, supporting Turkey’s currency and enabling the central bank to hold off. Today, the severe contraction in GDP (by 3% in Q4 2018), with a negative global backdrop, will likely end Erdogan’s patience with tight monetary policy.1 To illustrate how tight policy has been, note that bank loan growth denominated in lira is contracting at a rate of 17% in real terms. Given the authorities’ populist track record, rising unemployment will likely lead to further “backdoor” liquidity easing. A new bout of unorthodox monetary policy will be negative for domestic bank equities, local-currency bonds, and the lira. As one of the first EM currencies and bourses to begin outperforming in September 2018, Turkey has been at the forefront of the EM mini-rally over the past six months. But with global growth still tepid, this mini-cycle is likely to come to an end for the time being. Watch for the bottoming in Chinese followed by European growth before seeking new opportunities in Turkish assets. Erdogan’s domestic troubles could also prompt him to renew his foreign combativeness, which raises tail risks to Turkish risk assets, such as through U.S. punitive measures. Last year, Erdogan responded to the economic downswing by toning down his belligerent rhetoric and mending fences with Europe and the U.S. However, a reversion to populism may require him to seek a convenient distraction. The U.S. is withdrawing from Syria and the Middle East, leaving Turkey in a position where it needs other relationships to pursue its interests. Russia is a key example. Currently Erdogan is bickering with the U.S. over the planned purchase of a missile defense system from Russia. But the consequence is that relations with the U.S. could deteriorate further, potentially leading to new sanctions. Bottom Line: Turkey is still in the grip of populist politics and will respond to the recession and domestic discontent with easier monetary policy which would bode ill for the lira and lira-denominated assets. The stabilization of the European economy is necessary before investors attempt to take advantage of the de-rating of Turkish assets. India: Focus On Modi’s Political Capital We have long maintained that Modi is likely to stay in power after India’s general election on April 11-May 19. His coalition has recovered in public opinion polling since the Valentine’s Day attack on Indian security forces in Indian Kashmir (Chart 3). The government responded to the attacks by ordering airstrikes on February 26 against Pakistani targets in Pakistani territory for the first time since 1974. The attack was theatrical but the subsequent rally-around-the-flag effect gave Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a badly needed popular boost. The market rallied on the back of Modi’s higher chances of reelection. Modi is the more business-friendly candidate, as opposed to his chief rival, Rahul Gandhi of the Indian Congress Party. Nevertheless, election risks still lie to the downside: Modi and his party are hardly likely to outperform their current 58% share of seats in the lower house of parliament, since the conditions for a wave election – similar to the one that delivered the BJP a single-party majority in 2014 – do not exist today. While the range of outcomes is extremely broad (Chart 4), the current seat projections shown in Chart 3 put Modi’s coalition right on the majority line. Meanwhile his power is already waning in the state legislatures. Thus Modi’s reform agenda has lost momentum, at least until he can form a new coalition. This will take time and markets may ultimately be disappointed by the insufficiency of the tools at his disposal in his second term. Indian equities are the most expensive in the EM space, and only more so after the sharp rally in March on the back of the Kashmir clash and Modi’s recovering reelection chances (Chart 5). Additional clashes with Pakistan are not unlikely during the election season, despite the current appearance of calm. This is because Modi’s patriotic dividend in the polls could fade. Since even voters who lack confidence in Modi as a leader believe that Pakistan is a serious threat (Chart 6), he could be encouraged to stir up tensions yet again. This would be playing with fire but he may be tempted to do it if his polling relapses or if Pakistan takes additional actions. Chart 5...And Lofty Valuations Further escalation would be positive for markets only so long as it boosts Modi’s chances of reelection without triggering a wider conflict. Yet the standoff revealed that these two powers continue to run high risks of miscalculation: their signaling is not crystal clear; deterrence could fail. Thus, further escalation could become harder to control and could spook the financial markets.2 Even if Modi eschews any further jingoism, his lead is tenuous. First, the economic slowdown is taking a toll – even the official unemployment rate is rising (Chart 7) and the government has been caught manipulating statistics. There is no time for the economy to recover enough to change voters’ minds. Opinion polls show that even BJP voters are not very happy about the past five years. They care more about jobs and inflation than they do about terrorism, and a majority thinks these factors have deteriorated over Modi’s five-year term (Chart 8). Chart 7Manipulated Stats Can't Hide Deteriorating Economy   If the polling does not change, Modi will win with a weak mandate at best. A minority government or a hung parliament is possible. A Congress Party-led coalition, which would be a market-negative event, cannot be ruled out. The latter especially would prompt a big selloff, but anything short of a single-party majority for Modi will register as a disappointment. Bottom Line: There may be a relief rally after Modi is seen to survive as prime minister, but his likely weak political capital in parliament will be disappointing for markets. The market will want additional, ambitious structural reforms on top of what Modi has already done, but he will struggle to deliver in the near term. While we are structurally bullish, in the context of this election cycle –  which includes rising oil prices that hinder Indian equity outperformance – we urge readers to remain underweight Indian equities within emerging markets. Thailand: An Outperformer Despite Quasi-Military Rule A new cycle of political instability is beginning in Thailand as the country transitions back into civilian rule after five years under a military junta. However, this is not an immediate problem for investors, who should remain overweight Thai equities relative to other EMs on a cyclical time horizon. The source of Thai instability is inequality – both regional and economic. Regionally, 49% of the population resides in the north, northeast, and center, deprived of full representation by the royalist political and military establishment seated in Bangkok (Map 1). Economically, household wealth is extremely unevenly distributed. Thailand’s mean-to-median wealth ratio is among the highest in the world (Chart 9). Eventually these factors will drive the regional populist movement – embodied by exiled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family and allies – to reassert itself against the elites (the military, the palace, and the civil bureaucracy). New demands will be made for greater representation and a fairer distribution of wealth. The result will be mass street protests and disruptions of business sentiment and activity that will grab headlines sometime in the coming years, as occurred most recently in 2008-10 and 2013-14.   Chart 10Social Spending Did Not Hinder Populism The seeds of the next rebellion are apparent in the results of the election on March 24. The junta has sought to undercut the populists by increasing infrastructure spending and social welfare (Chart 10), and controlling rice prices for farmers. Yet the populists have still managed to garner enough seats in the lower house to frustrate the junta’s plans for a seamless transition to “guided” civilian rule. The final vote count is not due until May 9 but unofficial estimates suggest that the opposition parties have won a majority or very nearly a majority in the lower house. This is despite the fact that the junta rewrote the constitution, redesigned the electoral system to be proportional (thus watering down the biggest opposition parties), and hand-picked the 250-seat senate. Such results point to the irrepressible population dynamics of the “Red Shirt” opposition in Thailand, which has won every free election since 2001. Nevertheless, the military and its allies (the “Yellow Shirt” political establishment) are too powerful at present for the opposition to challenge them directly. The junta has several tools to shape the election results to its liking in the short run.3 It would not have gone ahead with the election were this not the case. As a result, the cycle of instability is only likely to pick up over time. Investors should note the silver lining to the period of military rule: it put a halt to the spiral of polarization at a critical time for the country. The unspoken origin of the political crisis was the royal succession. The traditional elites could not tolerate the rise of a populist movement that flirted with revolutionary ideas at the same time that the revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej drew near to passing away. This combination threatened both a succession crisis and possibly the survival of the traditional political system, a constitutional monarchy backed by a powerful army. With the 2014 coup and five-year period of military rule (lengthy even by Thai standards), the military drew a stark red line: there is no alternative to the constitutional monarchy. The royalist faction had its bottom line preserved, at the cost of an erosion of governance and democracy. The result is that going forward, there is a degree of policy certainty. Chart 11Thai Confidence Has Bottomed Chart 12Strong Demand Sans Risk Of Being Overleveraged The long-term trend of Thai consumer confidence tells the story (Chart 11). Optimism surged with the election of populist Thaksin in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis in 2001. The long national conflict that ensued – in which the elites and generals exiled Thaksin and ousted his successors, and the country dealt with a global financial crisis and natural disasters – saw consumer confidence decline. However, the coup of 2014 and the royal succession (to be completed May 4-6 with the new king’s coronation) has reversed this trend, with confidence trending upward since then. Revolution is foreclosed yet the population is looking up. Military rule is generally disinflationary in Thailand and this time around it initiated a phase of private sector deleveraging. Yet the economy has held up reasonably well. Private consumption has improved along with confidence and investment has followed, albeit sluggishly (Chart 12). The advantage is that Thailand has had slow-burn growth and has avoided becoming overleveraged again, like many EM peers. Chart 13Thailand Outperformed EM Despite Military Interference Furthermore, Thailand is not vulnerable to external shocks. It has a 7% current account surplus and ample foreign exchange reserves. It is not too exposed to China, either economically or geopolitically: China makes up only 12% of exports, while Bangkok has no maritime-territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea. In fact, Thailand maintains good diplomatic relations with China and yet has a mutual defense treaty with the United States (the oldest such treaty in Asia). It is perhaps the most secure of any of the Southeast Asian states from the point of view of the secular U.S.-China conflict. Finally, if our forecast proves wrong and political instability returns sooner than we expect, it is important to remember that Thailand’s domestic political conflicts rarely affect equity prices in a lasting way. Global financial crises and natural disasters have had a greater impact on Thai assets over the past two decades than the long succession crisis. Thailand has outperformed both EM and EM Asia during the period of military interference, though democratic Indonesia has done better (Chart 13). Bottom Line: Thailand’s political risks are domestic and stem from regional and economic inequality, which will result in a revived opposition movement that will clash with the traditional military and political elite. This clash will eventually create policy uncertainty and political risk. But it will need to build up over time, since the military junta has strict control over the current environment. Meanwhile macro fundamentals are positive. Indonesia: Rejecting Strongman Populism We do not expect any major surprises from the Indonesian election. Instead, we expect policy continuity, a marginal positive for the country’s equities. However, stocks are overvalued, overexposed to the financial sector,4 and vulnerable if global growth does not stabilize. The most important trend since the near collapse of Indonesia in the late 1990s has been the stabilization of the secular democratic political system and peaceful transition of power. That trend looks to continue with President Joko Widodo’s likely victory in the election on April 17. President Jokowi defeated former general Prabowo Subianto in the 2014 election and has maintained a double-digit lead over his rival in the intervening years (Chart 14). Prabowo is a nationalist and would-be strongman leader who was accused of human rights violations during the fall of his father-in-law Suharto’s dictatorship in 1998. Emerging market polls are not always reliable but a lead of this size for this long suggests that the public knows Prabowo and does not prefer him to Jokowi. In fact he never polled above 35% support while Jokowi has generally polled above 45%. The incumbent advantage favors Jokowi. Household consumption is perking up slightly and consumer confidence is high (see Chart 11 above). Wages have received a big boost during Jokowi’s term and are now picking up again, in real as well as nominal terms and for rural as well as urban workers. Jokowi’s minimum wage law has not resulted in extravagant windfalls to labor, as was feared, and inflation remains under control (Chart 15). Government spending has been ramped up ahead of the vote (and yet Jokowi is not profligate). All of these factors support the incumbent. Real GDP growth is sluggish but has trended slightly upward for most of Jokowi’s term. Chart 15Favorable Economic Conditions Support Incumbent Jokowi Jokowi has been building badly needed infrastructure with success and has been attracting FDI to try to improve productivity (Chart 16). This is the most positive feature of his government and is set to continue if he wins. A coalition in parliament has largely supported him after an initial period of drift. The biggest challenge for Jokowi and Indonesia are lackluster macro fundamentals. For instance, twin deficits, which show a lack of savings and invite pressure on the currency, which has been very weak. The twin deficits have worsened since 2012 because China’s economic maturation has forced a painful transition on Indonesia, which it has not yet recovered from. There is some risk to governance as Jokowi has chosen Ma’ruf Amin, the top cleric of the world’s largest Muslim organization, as his running mate. Jokowi wants to counteract criticisms that he is not Islamic enough (or is a hidden Christian), which cost his ally the governorship of Jakarta in 2017. However, Jokowi is not a strongman leader like Erdogan in Turkey, whose combination of Islamism and populism has been disastrous for the country’s economy. As mentioned, Jokowi will be defeating the would-be strongman Prabowo, who has also allied with Islamism. In fact, Indonesia is a relatively secular and modern Muslim-majority country and Amin is the definition of an establishment religious leader. The security forces have succeeded in cracking down on militancy in the past decade, greatly improving Indonesia’s stability and security as a whole (Chart 17). Governance is weak on some measures in Indonesia, but Jokowi is better than the opposition on this front and neither his own policies nor his vice presidential pick signals a shift in a Turkey-like, Islamist, populist direction. Bottom Line: We should see Indonesian equities continue to outperform EM and EM Asia as long as China’s stimulus efforts do not collapse and global growth picks up as expected in the second half of the year. Peaceful democratic transitions and economic policy continuity have been repeatedly demonstrated in Indonesia despite the inherent difficulties of developing a populous, multi-ethnic archipelago. Nationalism is a constant risk but it would be more virulent under Jokowi’s opponent. The Philippines: Embracing Strongman Populism The May 13 midterm elections mark the three-year halfway point in President Rodrigo Duterte’s presidential term. Duterte is still popular, with approval ratings in the 75%-85% range. These numbers likely overstate his support, but it is clearly above 50% and superior to that of his immediate predecessors (Chart 18). Further, his daughter’s party, Faction for Change, has gained national popularity, reinforcing the signal that he can expand his power base in the vote. The senate is the root of opposition to Duterte. His supporters control nine out of 24 seats. But of the twelve senators up for election, only three are Duterte’s supporters. So he could make gains in the senate which would increase his ability to push through controversial constitutional reforms. (He needs 75% of both houses of parliament plus a majority in a national referendum to make constitutional changes.) In terms of the economy, we maintain the view that Duterte is a true “populist” – pursuing nominal GDP growth to the neglect of everything else. His fiscal policy of tax cuts and big spending have supercharged the economy but macro fundamentals have deteriorated (Chart 19). He has broken the budget deficit ceiling of 3%, up from 2.2% in 2017. His reflationary policies have turned the current account surplus into a deficit, weighing heavily on the peso, which peaked against other EM currencies when he came to power in 2016 (Chart 20). Inflation peaked last year but we expect it to remain elevated over the course of Duterte’s leadership. He has appointed a reputed dove, Benjamin Diokno, as his new central banker. Chart 19Reflationary Policies Created Twin Deficits...   Chart 20...And Twin Deficits Weigh On The Peso Rule of law has deteriorated, as symbolized by the removal of the chief justice of the Supreme Court for questioning Duterte’s extension of martial law in Mindanao. Duterte also imprisoned his top critic in the senate, Leila de Lima, on trumped-up drug charges. He tried but failed to do so with Senator Antonio Trillanes, a former army officer and quondam coup ring-leader who has substantial support in the military. The army is pushing back against any prosecution of Trillanes, and against Duterte’s ongoing détente with China, prompting Duterte to warn of the risk of a coup.   Duterte’s China policy is to attract Chinese investment while avoiding a conflict in the South China Sea. His administration has failed to downgrade relations with the U.S. thus far, but further attempts could be made. This strategy could make the Philippines a beneficiary of Chinese investment if it succeeds. However, China knows that the Philippine public is very pro-American (more so than most countries) and that Duterte could be replaced by a pro-U.S. president in as little as three years, so it is not blindly pouring money into the country. Pressure to finance the current account deficit will persist. If pro-Duterte parties gain seats in the senate the question will be whether he comes within reach of the 75% threshold required for constitutional changes. His desire to change the country into a federal system has not gained momentum so far. He claims he will stand down at the end of his single six-year term but he could conceivably attempt to use any constitutional change to stay in power longer. If the revision goes forward, it will be a hugely divisive and unproductive use of political capital. Bottom Line: The Philippine equity market is highly coordinated with China’s credit cycle and so should benefit from China’s stimulus measures this year (as well as the Fed’s backing off). Nevertheless, Philippine equities are overvalued and macro fundamentals and quality of governance have all deteriorated. Duterte’s emphasis on building infrastructure and human capital is positive, but the means are ill-matched to the ends: savings are insufficient and inflation will be a persistent problem. We would favor South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia over the Philippines in the EM space. Investment Implications We expect China’s stimulus to be significant and to generate increasingly positive economic data over the course of the year. China is a key factor in the bottoming of global growth, which in turn will catalyze the conditions for a weaker dollar and outperformance of international equities relative to U.S. equities. Caveat: In the very near term, it is possible that China plays could relapse and EM stocks could fall further due to the fact that Chinese and global growth have not yet clearly bottomed. We are structurally bullish India, but recommend sitting on the sidelines until financial markets discount the disappointment of a Modi government with insufficient political capital to pursue structural reforms as ambitious as the ones undertaken in 2014-19. Go long Thai equities relative to EM on a cyclical basis. Stay long Thai local-currency government bonds relative to their Malaysian counterparts. Go long Indonesian equities relative to EM on a tactical basis. Maintain vigilance regarding Russian and Taiwanese equities: the Ukrainian election, Russia’s involvement in Venezuela, and the unprecedented Taiwanese presidential primary election reinforce our view that Russia and Taiwan are potential geopolitical “black swans” this year.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See BCA Emerging Markets Strategy, “Turkey: Brewing Policy Reversal?” March 21, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2      See Sanjeev Miglani and Drazen Jorgic, “India, Pakistan threatened to unleash missiles at each other: sources,” Reuters, March 16, 2019, available at uk.reuters.com.  3      The junta can disqualify candidates and rerun elections in the same district without that candidate if the candidate is found to have violated a range of very particular laws on campaigning and use of social media. Also, the Election Commission is largely an instrument of the Bangkok establishment and can allocate seats according to the junta’s interests. 4      See BCA Emerging Markets Strategy, “Indonesia: It Is Not All About The Fed,” March 7, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights In this Weekly Report, we present our semi-annual chartbook of the BCA Central Bank Monitors. All of our country Monitors are now forecasting monetary policy on hold, apart from Australia and New Zealand where looser policy is warranted (Chart of the Week). However, with early leading indicators now flagging a trough in global growth, and with labor markets mostly tight, the Monitors may not signal a need for incremental easing since inflationary pressures have not decelerated much. Given how far global bond yields have fallen in response to the weaker growth backdrop over the past year, any sign of the Monitors finding a floor would herald a turnaround in overbought global government bond markets – most notably in the U.S. and core Europe, where a below-benchmark strategic duration stance is most appropriate. Feature Chart of the WeekA Synchronized Pullback In The BCA Central Bank Monitors An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors Chart 2Bond Yields Have Fully Adjusted To Our CB Monitors The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. Readings above the zero line for each Monitor indicate pressures for central banks to raise interest rates, and vice versa. Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the Developed Markets (Chart 2). Our current recommended country allocations for global government bonds reflect the trends seen in the Central Bank Monitors, even as they have all shifted lower. We are favoring countries where the Monitors are falling (Australia, the U.K., Japan, New Zealand and Canada) relative to regions where the Monitors appear to be stabilizing (the U.S., core Europe). In each BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a new chart for each country that we have not shown previously. In this edition, we show the components of the Monitors, grouped into those focusing on economic growth and inflation, plotted against money market yields curves (the spread between 1-year government bond yields and central bank policy rates, to measure expected changes in interest rates). Fed Monitor: No Rate Cuts Needed Our Fed Monitor has drifted lower over the past several months and now sits just above the zero line (Chart 3A). That indicates no pressure to hike interest rates, which is consistent with the Fed’s recent dovish turn. Yet the Monitor is also not yet in the “easier money required” zone that would suggest a need for the Fed to lower the funds rate - even though that is an outcome now discounted in the U.S. yield curve. Markets have gotten ahead of themselves with the expectation of Fed rate cuts. Markets have gotten ahead of themselves with the expectation of Fed rate cuts. Yes, the U.S. has finally seen some negative impact from slower global growth and the late-2018 tightening of U.S. financial conditions. However, those factors are now starting to become less negative for growth – most notably the across-the-board rally in equity and credit markets in Q1 that has eased financial conditions. There is little danger of a shift to a sustained period of below-trend growth (i.e. less than 2%) in 2019 that would free up spare capacity, and ease inflation pressures, in the U.S. economy (Chart 3B).   Chart 3AU.S. Treasury Rally Looks Overdone Chart 3BA Big Pullback In U.S. Inflation Is Unlikely Among the three sub-components of the Fed Monitor (growth, inflation and financial conditions), all are close to the zero lines (Chart 3C), suggesting that the current neutral signal from the Monitor is broad-based. The rally in the U.S. Treasury market now looks stretched, however, with the 10-year yield now lower than levels of a year ago – an outcome that, in that past, has usually coincided with the Fed Monitor falling well below zero (Chart 3D). A below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S. is appropriate, as the risk/reward profile favors higher Treasury yields from current depressed levels. Chart 3CFed Monitor Components All Near Zero, Validating Current Fed Pause Chart 3DU.S. Treasury Rally Looks Overdone BoE Monitor: The Window For A Rate Hike Has Closed Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor, which had been in the “tighter money required” zone between 2016-18, has fallen back to the zero line (Chart 4A). The obvious culprit is the ongoing Brexit uncertainty, which has damaged confidence among both businesses and consumers. Overall economic growth has held in better than expected given the Brexit noise – for example, the manufacturing PMI now sits at 55.1, comfortably above the boom/bust 50 threshold. Yet leading economic indicators continue to deteriorate and growth is likely to remain under downward pressure in the coming months. Despite estimates showing a lack of spare capacity in the U.K. economy (a closed output gap, an unemployment rate well below NAIRU), both headline and core inflation have fallen back to the BoE’s 2% target (Chart 4B). The central bank has changed its policy bias as a result, with even the more hawkish members of the Monetary Policy Committee signaling that there is no longer any pressing need for rate hikes.   Chart 4AU.K.: BoE Monitor Chart 4BU.K. Inflation Back To BoE Target When looking at the split between the growth and inflation components of our BoE Monitor, it is clear that the former has triggered the large fall in the Monitor (Chart 4C). Yet even the inflation component has fallen below the zero line. With no pressure from any corner to alter monetary policy, the BoE can continue to sit on its hands and wait for some clarity to develop on the Brexit front. Chart 4CHit To U.K. Economy From Brexit Uncertainty Keeping BoE On Hold We continue to recommend overweighting U.K. Gilts within global government bond portfolios, given the weakening trend in U.K. leading economic indicators and persistent Brexit uncertainty (Chart 4D). Chart 4DA Deeper U.K. Growth Slowdown Needed To Drive Down Gilt Yields ECB Monitor: Bund Yields Have Fallen Too Far Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor is slightly below the zero line, signaling no real need for any change to euro area monetary policy (Chart 5A). The sharp slowing of economic growth last year, driven primarily by plunging exports, is the main reason why the Monitor has stayed subdued. Despite the weaker growth momentum, however, there remains far less spare capacity in the euro area economy than at any time since before the 2009 global recession (Chart 5B). Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BEuro Area Inflation More Stable At Full Employment   Nonetheless, the ECB has already back-pedaled on policy normalization announced last December. The central bank announced a new program of cheap funding for euro area banks (TLTRO3) to begin this September, replacing the expiring loans from the previous funding program. The backdrop is turning less bullish for core European bond markets, where yields have fallen much further than justified by our ECB Monitor. There are some tentative signs that euro area growth may be stabilizing, such as increases in the expectations component of the ZEW and IFO surveys. If this is the beginning of a true cyclical turnaround, then the downward pressure on our ECB Monitor from a weak economy will soon reverse (Chart 5C). Chart 5COffsetting Growth & Inflation Components In The ECB Monitor The ECB is now signaling that it will keep policy rates unchanged until the end of the year, on top of the new TLTRO. In addition, faster global growth in the latter half of 2019 will provide a boost to the euro area economy via the export channel. The backdrop is turning less bullish for core European bond markets, where yields have fallen much further than justified by our ECB Monitor (Chart 5D). We recommend only a neutral allocation to core European government bonds, but our next move is likely a downgrade. Chart 5DBund Rally Looks Stretched Versus ECB Monitor BoJ Monitor: No Inflation, No Change In Policy Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has drifted back to the zero line after a brief cyclical stay in the “tighter money required” zone in 2017/18 (Chart 6A). Such is life in Japan, where even an unemployment rate of 2.3% – the lowest in decades – cannot generate inflation outcomes anywhere close to the BoJ’s 2% target (Chart 6B). Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BNo Spare Capacity In Japan, But Still No Inflation The slowing of global trade activity and weakness in Chinese economic growth has hit the export-sensitive Japanese economy hard. Industrial production is now contracting, export volumes fell –6.8% year-over-year in January, and the widely-followed Tankan survey showed the biggest quarterly drop in business confidence among manufacturers in Q1/2019 since 2011. Household confidence has also taken a hit and retail sales growth has stagnated. Against such a weak economic backdrop, the soft growth component of our BoJ Monitor is fully offsetting the relative strength of the inflation component (Chart 6C). The latter is mostly related to the tightness of Japan’s labor market, which has pushed nominal wage inflation to 3.0% - the fastest pace since 1990. Core inflation at 0.4% has not followed suit, however. Chart 6CStill Not Enough Growth To Justify Any Reduction in BoJ Accommodation We continue to recommend an overweight stance on JGBs, based on our view that the BoJ will maintain hyper-easy monetary policy settings – especially compared to the rest of the developed markets – until there is much higher realized core inflation in Japan. There is no chance of the BoJ moving any part of the Japanese yield curve it effectively controls (all interest rates with maturity of 10 years of less) until both growth and inflation move durably higher (Chart 6D). Chart 6DNo Pressure On JGB Yields To Rise BoC Monitor: Neutral Across The Board Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has fallen sharply since mid-2018 and now sits right at the zero line, suggesting no pressure to change monetary policy (Chart 7A). The main cause is weakness in the Canadian economy, which has responded negatively to the combination of previous BoC rate hikes, diminished business confidence and slower global growth. The central bank was surprised by how rapidly the Canadian economy lost momentum at the end of last year, when real GDP expanded an anemic 0.4% annualized pace in Q4/2018. That prompted the BoC to signal a halt to the rate hikes, even with core inflation measures hovering close to the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target band (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BIs Economic Slack Underestimated In Canada? Canadian money markets now discount -20bps of rate cuts over the next year. In the past, market pricing of BoC rate expectations has tended to be more correlated to the inflation component of our BoC Monitor (Chart 7C). The latest downturn in the Monitor, however, has been driven by declines in both the growth and inflation components. The BoC’s dovish turn is validated by broad-based weakness in the Canadian data. Chart 7CBoC Monitor Components Both Consistent With No Change In Interest Rates We closed our long-standing underweight recommended allocation for Canadian government bonds on March 19.1 We are now at neutral weight, although we may shift to an overweight stance if the coming rebound in global growth that we expect does not carry over into the Canadian economy and trigger some stabilization in our BoC Monitor (Chart 7D). The BoC’s dovish turn is validated by broad-based weakness in the Canadian data. Chart 7DCanadian Yields Will Not Rise Again Without A Rebound In Growth RBA Monitor: More Pressure To Cut Rates The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has been below the zero line since September 2018, indicating a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 8A). A slumping economy has been weighed down by sluggish consumption, weak exports and falling house prices in the major cities. Combined with inflation stubbornly below the 2-3% RBA target band, this has driven Australian bond yields to new lows. -41bps of RBA rate cuts over the next year are now discounted in the Australian OIS curve. Delivering on those rate cut expectations, however, will likely require some weakening of the labor market (Chart 8B). Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BAustralia: RBA Monitor As depicted in Chart 8C, both the growth and inflation components of our RBA Monitor have fallen below the zero line. Over the past quarter-century, when both components of the RBA Monitor were as far below zero as they are now, shorter-dated bond yields have ended up falling below the Cash Rate as markets move to price in an easing cycle. That 1-year/Cash Rate spread has not yet gone negative, suggesting there is more room for the entire Australian government yield curve to be dragged lower by the front-end if the economy does not soon improve. Chart 8CSoft Inflation Is Why Our RBA Monitor Is Calling For Cuts The positive correlation between the RBA Monitor and changes in the 10-year Australian government bond yield suggests that downward pressure on yields will persist until economic growth or inflation begins to revive. The positive correlation between the RBA Monitor and changes in the 10-year Australian government bond yield suggests that downward pressure on yields will persist until economic growth or inflation begins to revive (Chart 8D). With Australia’s leading economic indicator still decelerating, and with any boost to exports not likely until later this year, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Australian government bonds. Chart 8DStay Long Australian Bonds RBNZ Monitor: Setting Up For A Rate Cut Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) monitor has been below the zero line since September 2018, indicating that easier monetary policy is required. (Chart 9A). The central bank made a significant dovish shift in its forward guidance at the March meeting, noting that the balance of risks for the New Zealand (NZ) economy was now tilted to the downside and the next move is more likely to be a rate cut. That dovish turn is consistent with the underwhelming performance of NZ inflation (Chart 9B). The RBNZ does not expect inflation to hit 2% until the end of 2020, even with the unemployment rate at a ten-year low of 4.3% and wages growing at a 2.9% annual rate. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BNZ Inflation Has Struggled To Breach 2% Over the past two decades, market pricing of RBNZ rate moves has been more correlated to the growth component of our RBNZ Monitor. In the years since the Global Financial Crisis, however, the growth and inflation components have been highly correlated to each other and to expectations for interest rates (Chart 9C). With markets now discounting -45bps of rate cuts over the next year, the NZ yield curve appears appropriately priced relative to our RBNZ Monitor. Chart 9CBoth Inflation & Growth Components Of The RBNZ Monitor Signaling Rate Cuts We have maintained a bullish recommendation on NZ government bonds versus both U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds since mid-2017, and we see no reason to close this highly profitable position, even if the RBNZ fails to fully deliver on discounted rate cuts. Both Treasuries and Bunds look overvalued amid signs of U.S. and European growth stabilizing, while the deterioration in our RBNZ Monitor suggests NZ yields have far less upside (Chart 9D). Chart 9DStay Long New Zealand Government Bonds Riksbank Monitor: Rate Hikes Delayed, Rate Cuts Unlikely Our Riksbank Monitor is currently slightly below zero and market is now priced for -17bps of rate cuts over next year (Chart 10A). The market has judged that the recent bout of weaker Swedish economic data has effectively derailed the Riksbank’s plans to hike rates in the second half of 2019. However, given the dearth of spare capacity in the Swedish economy (Chart 10B), and with the policy rate still negative, rate cuts are unlikely to be delivered. At best, the central bank can delay rate hikes if growth continues to disappoint, which also supports easier monetary conditions via a weaker exchange rate (the krona is down -4.7% year-to-date). Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BSweden Inflation Cooling Off A Bit The Riksbank stated in its February Monetary Policy Report that low Swedish productivity growth is leading to cost pressures through higher unit labor costs. It also forecasts that faster wage growth over the next year will help keep inflation near the 2% Riksbank target. The implication is that it will take much weaker growth, and higher unemployment, before the central bank will completely abandon its quest to normalize Swedish interest rates. The relationship between the growth/inflation components of our Riksbank Monitor and the market’s interest rate expectations has been weak since the central bank cut rates below zero and introduced quantitative easing in late 2014 (Chart 10C). Prior to that, however, it was the growth component that was more correlated to short-term interest rate expectations. On that note, the rebound in global growth that we are expecting will help support the Swedish economy, which is highly geared to global economic activity, and put a floor under Swedish bond yields (Chart 10D). Chart 10CRiksbank Can Stay On Hold Chart 10DNo Pressure For Higher Sweden Bond Yields Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Weekly Report “March Calmness,” published March 19, 2019. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights U.S. growth remains robust, despite some temporary softness in recent months. Ex U.S., growth continues to fall but, with China probably now ramping up monetary stimulus, should bottom in the second half. Central banks everywhere have turned more dovish, partly in an attempt to push up inflation expectations. The combination of resilient growth and easier monetary policy should be good for global equities. We remain overweight equities versus bonds. Bond yields have fallen sharply everywhere. However, with U.S. inflation still trending up, and central banks unlikely to turn any more dovish this year, yields are unlikely to fall much further in 2019. We recommend a slight underweight on duration. We remain overweight U.S. equities, but are on watch to upgrade the euro zone and Emerging Markets when we have stronger conviction about China’s stimulus. Given structural headwinds in both Europe and EM, this would probably be only a tactical upgrade. We have been tilting our equity sector recommendations in a more cyclical direction, last month raising Industrials and Energy to overweight. We also prefer credit over government bonds within the fixed-income category, though we warn that spreads will not fall much further given weak corporate fundamentals. Feature Recommended Allocation Overview Don’t Fight The Doves The performance of risk assets essentially comes down to a battle between growth and monetary policy/interest rates. Last September, despite the fact that global economic growth was clearly slowing, the Fed sounded hawkish; this triggered an 18% drop in global equities in Q4. But, since late last year, all major developed central banks have turned more dovish, culminating in March’s decision of the ECB to push back its guidance for its first rate hike, and the FOMC’s wiping out its two planned hikes for 2019. But, at the same time, U.S. economic growth is showing resilience, and we see the first “green shoots” of a cyclical pickup in growth outside the U.S. This is an environment in which risk assets should continue to perform well. Why did the Fed back off? The most likely explanation is that it wants to give itself more room to act come the next recession. Inflation expectations have become unanchored, with 10-year breakevens over the past decade steadily below a level that would be consistent with the Fed achieving its 2% core PCE inflation target in the long run. In the period since the Fed formally introduced this (supposedly “symmetrical”) target in 2012, it has exceeded it in only four months (Chart 1). Around recessions over the past 50 years, the Fed has on average cut rates by 655 basis points (Table 1). It sees little risk, therefore, in letting the economy “run a little hot” and allowing inflation to rise somewhat above 2%. This would reanchor expectations, and eventually get nominal short- and long-term rates higher before the next recession. Chart 1Market Doesn’t Believe The Fed’s Target Table 1Fed Won’t Be Able To Cut This Much Next Time   Chart 2Financial Conditions Now Much Easier Chart 3Housing Market Bottoming Out Meanwhile, U.S. growth seems to be stabilizing at a decent level after signs of weakness late last year caused by tighter financial conditions, a slowdown elsewhere in the world, and the six-week government shutdown. An easing of financial conditions since the beginning of the year should help to keep U.S. GDP growth above trend at around 2.0-2.5% this year (Chart 2). Most notably, interest-rate sensitive areas of the economy that were under pressure last year, especially housing, are showing signs of bottoming (Chart 3). Consumption also should be robust, given strong wage growth, consumer confidence close to historic record high levels, and amid no signs of a deterioration in the labor market (Chart 4). Chart 4No Signs Of Weaker Labor Market Chart 5Some 'Green Shoots' For Global Growth   A key question for us over the next few months will be when to shift allocations to more cyclical, higher-beta equity markets such as the euro area and Emerging Markets. These have underperformed year-to-date despite the strong risk-on market. China’s nascent reflationary stimulus will decide the timing and level of conviction of this shift. As we explain in detail on page 6, we think the jury is still out on whether China is injecting liquidity on anything like the same scale as it did in 2016. Even if it is, historically it has taken six to 12 months before the effect showed through via a rebound in global trade, commodity prices, and other China-related indicators. The first early signs of a bottoming are emerging: Chinese fixed-asset investment and the Caixin Manufacturing PMI beat expectations last month, the German ZEW Expectations indicator has started to recover, and the diffusion index of the Global Leading Economic Indicator (which often leads the LEI itself by a few months) has picked up (Chart 5). We are on watch to shift our allocation1 but, given the long-term structural headwinds against both Europe and EM, we need to be more convinced about the strength of Chinese stimulus before doing so. The seeds of recession are sown in expansions. Eventually, we see the newly dovish Fed falling behind the curve. The Fed Funds Rate is still below the range of estimates of the neutral rate – hard though this is to estimate in real time (Chart 6). If the economy remains as strong as we expect, sometime next year inflation could begin rising to uncomfortable levels (and asset bubbles start to be of concern), which would push the Fed back into hiking mode. Given that the market is pricing in Fed rate cuts, not hikes, and that the Fed can hardly sound any more dovish than it does now without moving to an outright easing path, it seems to us that long-term rates are very unlikely to fall from here (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Still Below Neutral Chart 7Can The Fed Get Any More Dovish Than This? In this environment, therefore, we continue to expect global equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. However, a recession is possible in 2021 triggered by the Fed late next year needing to put its foot abruptly on the brake.   What Our Clients Are Asking Chart 8Ex-U.S. Equities Driven By China Stimulus When Is The Time To Switch Allocations To Europe And EM? It is slightly surprising that the 12% rally in global equities this year has been led by the low-beta U.S., up 13%, rather than Europe (up 9%) or emerging markets (up 9% - and much less if the strong Chinese market is excluded). Is it time to switch to these underperforming, more cyclical markets? Our answer is, not yet. Global growth ex-U.S. continues to weaken. It is likely to bottom sometime in the second half, as a result of Chinese growth stabilizing. However, the jury is still out on whether the increase in Chinese credit creation in January was a one-off, or major policy reversal. Even if it is the latter, a revival in global growth (and cyclical markets) has typically lagged Chinese stimulus by 6-12 months (Chart 8, panel 1). There are also significant structural headwinds for both the euro zone and Emerging Markets which make us reluctant to overweight them unless there are clear cyclical reasons to do so. Both have lagged global equities fairly consistently since the Global Financial Crisis, with only brief outperformance during periods of economic acceleration, such as in 2016 and 2012 (panel 2). The euro zone remains challenged by its banking system. Loan growth has been stagnant for years, and banks remain undercapitalized relative to their U.S. peers, and highly fragmented (panels 3 and 4). Emerging markets are hampered by their high level of foreign-currency debt (which makes them highly sensitive to U.S. financial conditions), dependence on China, and lack of structural reform. We could see ourselves shifting our recommendation from the U.S. to the euro area and EM, and becoming outright bearish on the U.S. dollar (a counter-cyclical currency), over the coming months if we find confirmation of a bottoming of global cyclical growth and become more confident in the size of China’s stimulus. But given the structural headwinds, and the steady underperformance of these markets, we need stronger evidence first.   Chart 9Oil, Positioning, And Housing Why Is The 10-Year Bond Yield So Depressed? Despite U.S. equities rallying back to within 4% of a record high, the U.S. Treasury bond yield has fallen further this year (Chart 9, panel 1). Moreover, the 3-month/10-year yield curve has briefly inverted. Besides the Fed’s recent more dovish turn, what has depressed bond yields? We would pin the cause on the following factors: Dampened inflation expectations: Over the past few years the 10-year yield has been closely correlated with the oil price via inflation expectations. A temporary supply shock in Q4 caused oil prices to decline sharply. But tighter supply this year should allow the oil price to recover further. This should cause a rise in inflation expectation (panel 2). Trade positioning: Late last year,  speculative short positions in government bonds were at their highest levels since 2015. However, the Q4 equity selloff pushed investors to cover their positions; these are now close to neutral (panel 3). Home Sales: Housing data has been weak over the past few quarters, with both existing and new home sales declining. But there are now signs of recovery: mortgage applications have started to pick up, which should in turn push home sales higher (panel 4). This should also allow for a rise in bond yields. Our key take-away from March’s FOMC meeting, when the tone turned decidedly dovish, is that the Fed is focusing on re-anchoring inflation expectations, which should push nominal yields higher. We think the market is very pessimistic by pricing in 42 and 56 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 and 24 months respectively. It would take a significant further weakening of economic data to make the Fed’s stance turn even more dovish and for nominal yields to fall even further.   How Will U.S. Corporate Bonds Perform In The Next Recession? Historically high levels of U.S. corporate debt, as well as declining credit quality in the investment-grade space, have started to worry investors (Chart 10). Specifically, investors are worried that, when the next default cycle comes, a large portion of investment-grade debt will be downgraded to junk, forcing fund managers who are constrained to hold certain credit qualities to sell. These worries seem to be justified. Investment-grade bonds of lower credit quality tend to experience large increases in migration to junk status during credit recessions (Chart 11). Given the current composition of the U.S. investment-grade corporate bond universe, a credit recession would imply a downgrade to junk status of 4.6% of the index if we assume similar behavior to previous recessions. Depending on the speed of the selloff, such a downgrade could also have grave consequence for liquidity. According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), average daily turnover in the U.S. corporate bond market was 0.34% in 2018. Thus, it is not hard to envision a situation where forced selling could surpass normal levels of liquidity. However, it is hard to tell what would be the effect of such a fire-sale on credit spreads, given that they tend to widen in recessions regardless. While this asset class could perform poorly in the next recession, we don’t expect that its weakness will translate to the real economy. Leveraged institutions such as banks hold just 18% of corporate credit. Furthermore, despite being at all-time highs, U.S. nonfinancial corporate debt to GDP is still at a much healthier level than in other countries (Chart 12). Chart 10Declining Quality In Investment Grade Chart 12U.S. Corporate Debt Levels Are Healthy Relative To The Rest Of The World   Chart 13A Value Rebound?   Is It Time To Favor Value Over Growth Again? Since it peaked in May 2007, the ratio of global value to growth has attempted to rebound several times amid a sustained downtrend (Chart 13). Due to the cyclical nature and the neutral relative valuation of the value/growth indexes, we have preferred to use sector positioning (cyclicals vs. defensives) to implement a value/growth style tilt in our global portfolio since March 20162 (Chart 13, panel 1). Lately, we have received many requests on the topic of the value-versus-growth-ratio. After reaching a historical low in August 2018, the  value/growth ratio slightly rebounded in Q4 2018 before reversing some of its gains so far this year. Additionally, the value/growth valuation gap as measured by both price-to-book and forward P/E has reached a historically low level (Chart 13, panel 4). As we have often noted, the sector composition of both the value and growth indexes changes over time.2 Chart 14 shows the current sector weights of S&P Pure Value and Pure Growth Indexes.3 It’s clear that now a bet on Pure Value versus Pure Growth is essentially a bet on Financials (which account for 35% of the Pure Value index) versus Tech and Healthcare (which together account for 38% of the Pure Growth index) - see also Chart 13, panel 2. Given the cyclical nature of the value/growth ratio and also the sector concentration, it’s not surprising that the value/growth play is also a play on euro area versus U.S. equities (Chart 13, panel 3). Currently, we are neutral on Financials and Tech, while overweight Healthcare in our global sector portfolio, and we are putting the euro area on an upgrade watch (see page 14). Therefore, maintaining a neutral stance between value and growth is in line with our sector and country views. However, a close watch for a possible upgrade of value is also warranted given the extreme valuation measures.   Global Economy Overview: U.S. growth has slowed recently, though it remains more robust than in the more cyclical economies in Europe and emerging markets. Central banks almost everywhere have recently turned dovish. However, China’s increased monetary stimulus should help global growth bottom out in H2. This could lead the Fed and central banks in other healthy economies to return to a rate-hiking path. U.S.: The U.S. economy has been weak in recent months. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 15, panel 1) has collapsed, and the Fed NowCasts point to only 1.3-1.7% QoQ annualized GDP growth in Q1 (compared to 2.2% in Q4). But the slowdown is mostly due to the six-week government shutdown (which probably took 1% off growth), some seasonal adjustment oddities (which leave Q1 as the weakest quarter almost every year), and tighter financial conditions in H2 2018 which have now largely reversed. The manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISMs in February were  still healthy at 54.2 and 59.7 respectively. Consumption (propelled by strong employment growth and accelerating wages) and capex remain strong (panel 3). BCA expects GDP growth in 2019 to be around 2.0-2.5%, still above trend. Euro Area: The European economy continues to slow, driven by weak exports to emerging markets, troubles in the banking sector, and political uncertainty. Q4 GDP growth was only 0.8% QoQ annualized, and the manufacturing PMI has fallen to 47.6 (with Germany as low as 44.7). But there are some early signs of an improvement. The ZEW Expectations index for Germany has bottomed (Chart 16, panel 1), fiscal policy should boost euro area growth this year by around 0.5 percentage points, and wage growth has begun to accelerate. The key remains Chinese stimulus, whose positive effects should help European exports recover sometime in H2. Chart 15U.S. Growth Slowing But Still Robust Chart 16Signs Of Bottoming In Global Ex-U.S.? Japan: Japan also remains highly dependent on a Chinese stimulus. Machine tool orders (the best indicator of capex demand from China) fell by 29% YoY in February. Despite stronger wage growth, now 1.2% YoY, inflation shows no signs of moving up towards the Bank of Japan’s target of 2%: ex energy and food CPI inflation is still only 0.4%. The biggest risk in 2019 is October’s planned consumption tax hike from 8% to 10%. Prime Minister Abe has said that he will cancel this only in the event of a shock on the scale of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy. The government has put in place measures to soften the impact (most notably a 5% rebate on purchases at small retailers after October 1 paid for electronically), but consumption is still likely to fall significantly. Emerging Markets: China seems to have ramped up its monetary stimulus, with total social financing in January and February combined up 12% over the same months last year. Recent data have shown signs of a stabilization of growth: the manufacturing PMI rebounded to 49.9 in February from 48.3, and fixed-asset investment beat expectations at 6.1% YoY in January and February combined. Nonetheless, the size of liquidity injection is likely to be smaller than in previous episodes such as 2016, since Premier Li Keqiang and the PBOC have warned of the risk of excessive speculation. Elsewhere, some emerging economies (notably Brazil and Mexico) have showed signs of recovery after last year’s deterioration, whereas others (such as South Africa, Indonesia, and Poland) continue to suffer. Interest rates: Central banks worldwide have generally turned more dovish in recent months, with the Fed and ECB both moving to signal no rate hikes this year. This has pushed down long-term rates globally, with 10-year bond yields falling below 0% again in Germany and Japan. However, with global growth likely to bottom over the next few months, rates may not stay at current depressed levels. U.S. inflation, in particular, continues to trend up, and the Fed’s target PCE inflation measure is likely to exceed 2% over coming months. We see the Fed turning more hawkish by year-end, and long rates globally more likely to rise than fall from current levels.   Global Equities Chart 17Watch Earnings Remain Cautiously Optimistic: We added risk in our January Portfolio Update4 by putting cash back to work in global equities, and then in the March Portfolio Update5 we reduced the underweight in EM equities and increased the tilt to cyclicals at the expense of defensives, to hedge against a continuing acceleration in Chinese credit growth. All these came after our risk reduction in July 2018.6 GAA’s portfolio approach has always been to take risks where they are most likely to be rewarded. BCA’s macro view is that global economic growth data is likely to be on the weak side in the coming months, but will pick up in the second half. This implies that equities are likely to rally again after a period of congestion within a trading range, supporting a cautiously optimistic portfolio allocation for the next 9-12 months. At the asset-class level, our positioning of overweight equities versus bonds while neutral on cash, reflects the “optimistic” side of our allocation. However, the rebound in global equities since the December sell-off has been driven completely by a valuation re-rating, while earnings growth has been revised down sharply. (Chart 17). As such, within global equities, our preference for low-beta countries (favoring DM versus EM, and favoring the U.S over the rest of DM) reflects the “cautious” aspect of our allocation. Our macro view hinges largely on what happens to China. There are signs that China may have abandoned its focus on deleveraging, yet it is too early to tell if it has switched back to a reflationary path. Therefore, our global equity sector overlay has a slight cyclical tilt by overweighting Industrials and Energy, which are among the main beneficiaries of Chinese reflationary policies or a positive resolution to U.S.-China trade negotiations. Chart 18Warming Up To The Euro Area Euro Area Equities: On Upgrade Watch We have favored U.S. equities relative to the euro area since July 2018.7 Since then, the U.S. has outperformed the euro area by 11% in USD terms and by 8% in local currency terms, with the difference being attributed to the weakness of the euro versus the U.S. dollar. Given BCA’s view on the global economy and the U.S. dollar, however, we are watching closely to switch our recommendation between the U.S. and euro area equities, for the following reasons: First, as shown in Chart 18, panel 1, the relative performance between the euro area and the U.S. is highly correlated with the EUR/USD exchange rate. BCA believes that the U.S. dollar is set for a period of weakness starting in the second half of the year,8 which bodes well for the outperformance of euro area equities. Second, relative earnings growth between the euro area and the U.S. is driven by the underlying strength of the economies, as represented by PMIs (panel 2). Both the relative earnings growth and relative PMI have stopped falling and have begun to bottom in favor of the euro area; Third, even though the euro area’s beta has been declining while that of the U.S. has increased, euro area beta is still higher than that in the U.S., making it more of a beneficiary of a global growth recovery; However, the relative valuation of euro area equities to their U.S. counterparts is now  neutral not at the extreme level which historically has been a good entry-point into eurozone  equities (panel 4).   Chart 19Becoming Less Defensive Global Sector Allocation: Gradually Becoming Less Defensive GAA’s sector portfolio took profits on its pro-cyclical positioning and went defensive in July 20189 and remained so until the March Monthly update10 when we upgraded Energy and Industrials to overweight from neutral, while downgrading Consumer Staples two notches to underweight from overweight (Chart 19). The upgrade of Industrials was mainly a hedge against further acceleration in China’s credit growth. But why did we upgrade Energy to overweight yet maintained an underweight in Materials? Long-term GAA clients know that, in terms of global sector allocation, we have structurally favored the oil-related Energy sector to the metals-related Materials sector since October 2016, because oil supply/demand is more global in nature while the supply/demand of metals, especially industrial metals, is closely linked to China (see also the Commodity section of this Quarterly on page 18). From a cyclical perspective, the relative performance of the two sectors has historically closely correlated with the relative prices of oil and metals, as shown in panel 2. This is not surprising because changes in forward earnings for the two sectors are also closely linked to change in the corresponding commodity prices (panels 3 and 4). BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service has an overweight rating on oil and a neutral stance on metals, implying that the growth in the oil price will outpace that of metal prices, which suggests that the Energy sector will outperform the Materials sector (panel 2).   Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. Global equities have recovered 16% since reaching the low of 2018 on December 24, yet the global bond yield has decreased by 21 bps over the same period. While the directional movement of bond yields is somewhat puzzling given such strong performance in equities (see page 7 for some explanations), it’s evident that the bond markets have been driven by the recent weakness in global growth (Chart 20, panel 3), and are pricing out any expectation of rate hikes over the coming year in major developed economies. Given the surprisingly dovish tone at the March FOMC meeting and BCA’s House View that global economic growth will rebound in the second half, bond yields are now highly exposed to any hawkish shift in central bank policies and any recovery in inflation expectations. As such, it’s still appropriate to maintain a slight underweight on duration over the next 9-12 months. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. Depressed inflation expectations have been one reason why global bond yields have decoupled from equities. However, the crude oil price, which closely correlates with inflation expectations, has stabilized. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects Brent crude to end 2019 at US$75 per barrel (Chart 21). This implies a significant rise in inflation expectations in the second half of the year, supporting our preference for inflation-linked bonds over nominal bonds. However, TIPS are no longer cheap. For those who have not already moved to overweight TIPS, we suggest “buying TIPS on dips”. Inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in Australia and Japan are also still very attractive versus their respective nominal bonds. Overweighting ILBs in those two markets also fits well with our macro themes. Chart 20Rates: Likely More Upside Risk Chart 21Favor Inflation Linkers   Corporate Bonds Chart 22Tactical Upside Remains For Credit In February, we raised credit to overweight within a fixed-income portfolio while underweighting government bonds. So far, this has proven to be the right decision, as corporate bonds have generated excess returns of 90 basis points over duration-matched Treasuries. We based our positioning on the mounting evidence that global growth is turning up: credit impulses are starting to rebound in several major economies, monetary conditions have eased, and our diffusion index of global leading indicators has rebounded sharply, indicating that there remains tactical upside for global credit (Chart 22– panel 1 and 2). When will we close our tactical overweight? Our U.S. Bond Strategy Service has set a target for spreads of U.S. corporate bonds with different credit ratings. According to their targets, which denote the median spread typical of late-cycle environments, there is still some room for further spread compression in non-AAA credits (Chart 22 – panel 3 and 4). However, the upside is limited and, if spreads keep tightening, we will probably close our position by the end of Q2. On a cyclical horizon, the fundamentals of corporate health are still a headwind, with both the interest-coverage and liquidity ratio for U.S. investment-grade corporates standing near 10-year lows.11 Moreover, we expect these ratios to deteriorate further, as corporate profits will likely come under pressure due to increasing wage growth. Finally, we expect that the Fed will turn more hawkish by the end of 2019, turning monetary policy from a tailwind to a headwind. Thus, we recommend investors to remain overweight, but be ready to turn bearish in the back end of the year.   Commodities Chart 23Prefer Oil, Watch Metals Energy (Overweight): Stable demand, declining Venezuelan production due to U.S. sanctions, instability and possible outages in Libya, Iraq, and Nigeria, alongside the GCC’s commitment to cut output through year-end, should support oil prices and allow further upside (Chart 23, panels 1 & 2). While U.S. crude production is on the rise, bottlenecks in its export capabilities should limit market oversupply. Crude supply shocks should outweigh any slowdown in demand, specifically from emerging markets. BCA’s energy strategists expect Brent to average $75 and $80 throughout 2019 and 2020 respectively, and for the gap between WTI and Brent to narrow significantly. Industrial Metals (Neutral): China, the world’s largest consumer, still plays a big role in the direction of industrial metals. Year-to-date, metals prices have been supported partly by a more stable dollar. For now, we maintain a neutral stance until we see confirmation that Chinese stimulus will trigger further upside to metal prices perhaps in the second half. However, a lack of sustained Chinese demand, alongside weaker global growth over the next few months, would weigh down on metal prices (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): Gold has reversed its downslide and rallied by over 10% from its Q4 2018 low. With the market pricing out any Fed rate hikes this year, rising inflation expectations, a weaker USD by year-end, and lower real rates should help gold outperform other commodities in this late-cycle phase. We recommend an allocation to gold as an inflation hedge, as well as a hedge against geopolitical risks (panel 4).     Currencies Chart 24The End Of The Dollar Bull Market U.S. Dollar: Our bullish stance on the dollar has proven to be correct, as the trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 5% in the past 12-months thanks to the slowdown in global growth. However, the two reasons for the growth slowdown – Fed tightening and Chinese deleveraging – have started to ease. On March 20 the Fed revised its forward guidance to no rate hikes in 2019 and only one rate hike in 2020. Meanwhile, Chinese total social financing relative to GDP has bottomed, indicating that Chinese authorities have opted for a pause in their deleveraging campaign (Chart 24, panel 1). These developments will likely boost global growth and hurt the countercyclical greenback. Therefore, we recommend investors to slowly shift to a cyclical underweight on the dollar. Euro: Most of the factors that dragged the euro down last year are fading: political risk in Italy has eased, fiscal policy is moving from a headwind to a tailwind, and the relative LEI between the EU and the US has started to pick up (panel 2). Moreover, we see little scope for euro area monetary policy to turn any more dovish versus the U.S., since forward rate expectations currently stand near 2014 lows (panel 3). Thus, we expect the euro to be one of the best performing currencies this year. Yen: Easy monetary policy by global central banks will boost asset prices and reduce volatility, creating a risk-on environment that is typically negative for the yen (panel 4). Moreover, the IMF still projects Japan to have a negative fiscal drag of 0.7% this year, which will force the BoJ to prolong its yield curve control regime. As a result, we expect the yen to be one of the worst performing currencies this year.       Alternatives Intro: Investors’ allocation to alternatives is on the rise as we get closer to the end of the business cycle along with increasing realized volatility in traditional assets. In the alternatives assets space, we recommend thinking about allocations through three buckets: 1) return enhancers, means of outperforming traditional equity, fixed income, and mixed-asset strategies; 2) inflation hedges, means of preserving capital throughout periods of elevated inflation; and 3) volatility dampeners, means of reducing drawdowns and portfolio volatility during periods of market drawdowns. Return Enhancers: In our July and October 2018 Quarterly reports, we recommended investors trim back on PE allocations and reallocate towards hedge funds. Growing competition in the PE space has pushed up multiples. Given where the business cycle currently is, we favor macro hedge funds, as they tend to outperform in this sort of environment as well as in downturns and recessions (Chart 25, panel 1). Inflation Hedges: In our July 2018 Quarterly, we recommended investors pare back their real estate allocations, given the backdrop of a slowdown/sideways trend in the sector, and specifically within the retail segment. Given that the end of the current cycle is likely to be accompanied by elevated levels of inflation, we recommend clients to modestly allocate to commodity futures on the likelihood of a softer dollar and rising energy prices (panel 2). Volatility Dampeners: We continue to recommend both farmland and timberland since they have lower volatility than other traditional and alternative asset classes (panel 3). While timberland is more impacted by economic growth via the housing market, farmland has a near-zero correlation with economic growth. We do not favor structured products due to their unattractive valuations. Chart 25Prefer Hedge Funds Over Private Equity   Risks To Our View Our economic outlook is quite sanguine. What would undermine this scenario? Many investors have become nervous about the inversion of the U.S. yield curve. And we have shown in the past that an inversion of the 3-month/10-year yield curve has been a reliable indicator of recessions 12-18 months ahead.12 Its inversion in March, then, is a concern. But note that the indicator works only using a three-month moving average (Chart 26); the curve often inverted for a brief period without signaling recession. We expect long-term rates to rise from here, steepening the curve. But a prolongation of the current inversion would clearly be a worrying signal. The direction of China continues to play a key role in defining the macro picture. Our current allocation is based on the view that China is doing some monetary and fiscal stimulus but that, at the current pace, it will be much smaller than in 2016 (Chart 27). The weak response of money supply growth suggests, as Premier Li Keqiang has complained, that the liquidity is mostly going into speculation (note that A-shares have risen by 20% this year) rather than into the real economy. The March Total Social Financing data, released in mid-April, will give a better read of the degree of the reflation. If it is bigger than we expect, this would suggest a quicker shift into euro area and Emerging Market equities than we currently advocate. The U.S. dollar remains a key driver of asset allocation. The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency and, with global growth slowing, has continued to appreciate moderately this year (Chart 28). We see a weakening of the dollar later this year, when global growth picks up. But if this were to happen more quickly or dramatically than we expect – not impossible given the currency’s over-valuation and crowded long-dollar positions – EM stocks and commodity prices, given their strong inverse correlation with the dollar, could bounce sharply. Chart 26Yield Curve Inversion Chart 27How Much Is China Reflating? Chart 28Dollar Is Counter-Cyclical   Garry Evans, Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa Ossa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy,  Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see the Equities Section of this Quarterly on page 14 for more details. 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation “GAA Quarterly,” dated March 31, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology-sp-us-style.pdf 4       Please see Global Asset Allocation “Monthly - January 2019,” dated January 2, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5     Please see Global Asset Allocation “Monthly - March 2019,” dated March 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6       Please see Global Asset Allocation “Quarterly - July 2018,” dated July 2, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 7       Please see Global Asset Allocation “Quarterly - July 2018,” dated July 2, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 8       Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What’s Next For The Dollar?” dated March 15, 2019  available at gis. bcaresearch.com 9       Please see Global Asset Allocation “Quarterly - July 2018,” dated July 2, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 10    Please see Global Asset Allocation “Monthly Portfolio Update,” dated March 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 11    Based on BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy’s bottom-up health monitor. 12   Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Can Asset Allocators Rely On Yield Curves?” dated June 15, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Special Report

Dear Client, Instead of our regular Weekly Report, this week we are sending you a Special Report written on February 20 by our Geopolitical Strategy service colleagues that discusses China’s recent stimulating efforts. We have only made a few minor revisions to account for the past month’s events. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist   Highlights So What? China’s January-February credit data suggest that stimulus is here. Why? China’s early-year credit and fiscal policies suggest that stimulus risks are to the upside. January-February credit was a blowout number and fiscal spending is up. Equity bourses in South Korea and Russia are the most likely to benefit from Chinese stimulus. Industrial metals such as copper will also benefit – with a delay. Feature New credit data for China in January-February improves the chances that Beijing’s stimulus measures will overshoot this year, causing China’s economy to bottom in 2019 and jumpstart global growth. In our annual outlook for this year we argued that while China was stimulating the economy, the magnitude of stimulus would be the decisive factor for the global macro environment in 2019. We argued that the type of stimulus would remain primarily fiscal – tax cuts for households and small and medium-sized enterprises – and hence that it would be modest as fiscal easing would merely offset relatively weak credit growth. This view stemmed from our assessment of the Xi Jinping administration, highlighted in April 2017, as an “elitist” (not populist) administration. Its policy priorities are to discipline the Chinese economy, and in particular to contain systemic financial risk, which President Xi has cited as a national security threat. This view is not wrong, but the latest data clearly show that Xi has decided to pause these painful efforts at limiting leverage and rebalancing China’s economy. Witness January-February’s decisive uptick in both total social financing (total private credit) and local government bond issuance (Chart 1). Chart 1Higher Risk Of An Overshoot A massive spike in new credit is the single most important criterion in our “Checklist For A Stimulus Overshoot.” Thus, from a policy perspective, we are now at higher risk of an overshoot (Table 1). Not only credit as a whole but also informal lending saw a surge in January-February, implying that the government is relenting in its crackdown on the shadow banks. The approval of local government bond issuance for early in the year – and the People’s Bank of China’s announcement of a “Central Bank Bills Swap” program – reinforce this policy shift.1 Table 1Checklist For A Chinese Stimulus Overshoot In 2019   A stimulus overshoot is positive for Chinese demand in the short run but negative for potential GDP in the long run. A “traditional” credit surge of this nature cannot be surgically targeted at SMEs or households. It will go to state-owned enterprises, privileged corporations, property developers, and the like, which have always had the advantage in China’s financial system. SOEs have taken a much larger share of new loans than private companies in recent years,2 and the only silver lining of this trend was the possibility that tighter credit controls would discipline the SOEs. That silver lining is now fading, barring some new and surprising development on the reform front. China needs to create 26 trillion renminbi in new credit over the course of the year to avoid a corporate earnings contraction. These January-February numbers put China on track to do just that (Chart 2), assuming that President Xi and U.S. President Donald Trump agree to a short-term, framework trade deal this year. Chart 2On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction Of course, a few caveats are in order. First, January-February’s credit number is only one data point and credit growth is always abnormally strong in the first month of the year. Early in the year, banks seek to expand their assets rapidly in a bid to get as much market share as possible before administrative credit quotas kick in. Because of Chinese New Year, it is best to combine January and February data to get a sense of the rate of credit expansion in the first part of the year. This year’s January-February numbers are very strong relative to previous years (Chart 3) and the context is more accommodative than the 2017 January-February credit surge, when authorities were beginning to tighten rather than ease macroprudential policy. Still a rapid rate of credit expansion will have to be sustained in the coming months in order to meet the 26 trillion RMB requirement highlighted above. Second, there is some risk that China’s households and private businesses will not respond as positively today as in the past. The intensification of Communist Party control over the society and economy, President Xi’s cancellation of term limits, and the strategic confrontation with the United States have created a bearish sentiment in the private sector. Our Emerging Markets Strategy would point out that if the propensity to consume, and money velocity,3 do not accelerate, then a surge in new credit may fail to ignite a reacceleration in China (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Still, what we now know is that Xi Jinping and his top economic adviser, Vice Premier Liu He, are not initiating the “assault phase of reform” that their predecessors initiated in the late 1990s in order to cleanse China’s economy of bad loans and zombie companies. Instead, they are likely reestablishing the “Socialist Put” in order to reverse the current deceleration, demonstrate China’s continued economic might and face down the United States’ threat of tariffs. Bottom Line: China’s stimulus measures are increasingly likely to overshoot, with positive implications for both Chinese and global growth. China is still facing a corporate earnings recession, but the odds of averting it are increasing. Trade Deadline More Likely To Be Extended What of the trade war? First, we would warn clients that China’s annual credit origination is a much bigger factor for the global economy than China’s exports to the United States (Chart 5). The trade war can escalate from here and yet, if China’s stimulus works as it has in the past, the results will be manageable for China’s economy save for Chinese companies expressly exposed to the U.S. economy through exports. In reality, both the U.S. and China are now effectively stimulating their economies and in this sense global trade as a whole will benefit regardless of bilateral tariffs. Chart 5Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War But it is possible that just as global equity markets ignored China’s economic slowdown and only sold off when the tariffs were levied (Chart 6), they may not continue to rally much on China’s credit data. Given the already considerable rally in global risk assets since October, markets may not be satisfied merely with one or two months of solid credit data out of China without a clear resolution to the trade conflict. After all, if a collapse in U.S.-China trade talks portends a new Cold War, then institutional investors may be justified in taking a wait-and-see approach despite China’s credit cycle upswing. Chart 6Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? In the past, we have highlighted that the U.S. and China are not economically prohibited from engaging in a trade war – the export exposure is too small – and China’s new stimulus reinforces this point. However, President Trump is concerned about causing a sell-off in the tech sector and hence the broad equity market which could translate into a bear market and raise the probability of a recession occurring prior to November 2020. Meanwhile, in China, given Beijing’s reported trade concessions, there is apparently a desire to pacify the relationship and discourage U.S. unilateral tariffs and sanctions that could become seriously destabilizing for the Chinese economy and society. The need to have a happy 2021 centenary celebration for the Communist Party may factor into policymakers’ thinking. The latest news flow is mildly positive for the odds of getting a framework deal sometime this year. President Trump visited the Chinese negotiators in Washington, D.C. while President Xi reciprocated with the American negotiators in Beijing. A new round of two-week shuttle diplomacy is beginning. Trump has extended the tariff ceasefire and the two sides reportedly have arrived at an agreement on currency and are drafting written agreements on other areas of dispute. China’s National People’s Congress has passed a new Foreign Investment Law that ostensibly guarantees many of the American demands on forced tech transfer, intellectual property theft, and discriminatory treatment of U.S. companies (Table 2). Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations However, Presidents Trump and Xi have yet to schedule a new summit, which is probably necessary for a final deal. And there are murmurs from the press suggesting that China’s new law and other concessions are not going to satisfy the U.S. negotiators on the critical point of “structural changes” and a verification process. This leaves us inclined to change our trade war probabilities to increase the odds of an extension (Table 3). The improvement in U.S. financial conditions and China’s stimulus, if anything, make it more likely that negotiations will be extended, as both sides feel their economic and financial constraints less acutely. Table 3Updated Trade War Probabilities Bottom Line: Global and Chinese risk assets should rally on China’s credit uptick, but the lack of resolution of the trade war could continue to inhibit animal spirits – and the odds of a March 1 resolution are declining. Who Are The Equity Winners Of China’s Stimulus? China’s strong January-February credit number is supportive of global equity markets. That much is obvious. But which equity markets will benefit the most? In what follows we examine the relationship between Chinese credit and MSCI equity returns of various countries. We find that Malaysian, Australian, South Korean, and Indonesian equities are the most highly correlated with Chinese credit growth and are thus most likely to benefit from the recent upturn (Chart 7). On the other hand, France and Italy stand out as countries whose bourses are more insulated. Out of the markets that are positively correlated, South Korea and Russia stand out as relatively cheap (Chart 8). Thus we expect these equities to do especially well. By contrast, while Indonesia and the Philippines are highly leveraged to China, these markets are currently relatively expensive. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy is currently overweight Korean and Russian equities within the EM space, neutral Turkey (although recently upgraded from underweight), and underweight Indonesia and the Philippines. In addition to credit stimulus, we expect Chinese household consumption to also gain support going forward. This will likely be driven by policy stimulus targeting the consumer specifically and is best exemplified by the recently announced tax cuts (Chart 9), which we expect to trickle down to greater consumer demand and growth in retail sales. Our base case calls for 8%-10% growth in household consumption over the coming 12 months, up from the current 3.5%. However, consumer sentiment in China is weak. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy’s proxy for household marginal propensity to spend ticked up recently, after falling since early last year (see Chart 4 above). A resumption in the decline would highlight that households are increasingly unwilling to spend, which would translate into weaker retail sales despite policy efforts to boost consumption. Such a scenario – in which credit growth accelerates without a substantial uptick in consumer spending – is plausible, given that it occurred between mid-2015 and mid-2016 (Chart 10). In any case, whether Chinese stimulus comes in the form of the traditional credit channel, or instead in the form of fiscal stimulus to household consumption, the same equity markets will generally benefit the most (Chart 11). Chart 10...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility Indeed, global equity markets react the same way regardless of the type of stimulus implemented. For instance, MSCI returns for the Philippines, Sweden, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey are more closely correlated to both Chinese credit growth and retail sales growth compared to Italy, Japan, and France. The same conclusion is reached when we look at the correlations between Chinese credit growth or consumption growth and individual MSCI sectors such as industrials and consumer discretionary (Chart 12). The relatively stronger correlation between Chinese credit growth and equity returns – as opposed to Chinese retail sales and equity returns – can be put down to the nature of Chinese imports. While industrial goods account for the bulk of China’s purchases of foreign goods, consumer goods excluding autos make up only 15% of China’s imports (Table 4). However, as Chart 12 illustrates, the relationship between China’s retail sales growth and global equities is much tighter in the case of the consumer discretionary sector, whether the latter is compared to global industrials sectors or the overall MSCI index. Table 4Import Composition Of Chinese Imports Equity market exposure to China is not always in line with the extent of each country’s trade exposure to China (Chart 13). There are some clear exceptions – most notably Mexico, which has the highest correlation coefficient with Chinese credit and consumption variables since 2010. However, this is likely due to idiosyncratic factors.4 Correlation does not imply causation, and we cannot conclude with certainty that Mexican equities will outperform amid China’s new round of stimulus. Nevertheless, given that Mexico is a very deeply liquid market that benefits amid EM bull markets, this may not be entirely coincidental. The correlations between global equity markets and Chinese credit peak two months after the stimulus measures are first implemented (Chart 14). This is more or less in line with adjusted total social financing’s correlation versus industrial metals. However, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy has shown that copper’s correlations versus other measures of Chinese money and credit peak after roughly three quarters (Chart 15).5 This is evident in both the 2012 and 2015-16 stimulus episodes in which the bottom in copper prices lagged the bottom in China’s credit growth. Thus we may witness a rebound in equity markets on the back of China’s credit splurge before we see an improvement in annual returns on copper prices. Chart 15Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Bottom Line: South Korean and Russian equities are best positioned to benefit from the positive surprise in China’s credit data. France and Italy are the worst positioned. Copper prices will rebound with a delay.  Investment Implications BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors stay long Chinese equities ex-tech relative to the emerging market benchmark. This is a tactical call initiated in August 2018 that is now becoming a cyclical call on the basis of the credit upswing. We also remain long the “China Play Index,” a basket of China-sensitive assets. A rebound in China’s credit data and stronger global growth will support copper demand. Prices are still 15% below the mid-2018 peak and are poised to benefit in this environment, especially given that global inventories are already falling. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors go long copper. Meanwhile, BCA’s China Investment Strategy recommends (for now) staying only tactically overweight Chinese equities relative to the global benchmark, pending higher conviction that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overwhelm the negative ramifications of a continued deceleration in actual activity over the coming few months on sentiment and 12-month forward earnings expectations. Over the long run, Geopolitical Strategy would look to underweight Chinese equities, as we are not optimistic about China’s productivity and potential GDP. This is because of the negative structural consequences of continuing the Socialist Put (i.e., bad loans, zombie companies, trade protectionism). We would expect CNY/USD to remain relatively buoyant in the context of both trade negotiations with the U.S. and fiscal-and-credit stimulus. The trade talks can hardly succeed if CNY/USD is falling. Depending on whether and how soon China’s stimulus results in a durable economic bottom, global growth could stabilize and the USD could see a substantial countertrend selloff.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled “China: Prepping A Bazooka?” dated February 14, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Nicholas Lardy, “The State Strikes Back: The End Of Economic Reform In China?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, January 29, 2019, available at piie.com. 3          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “Dissecting China’s Stimulus,” dated January 17, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4       The 2012 election of President Enrique Peña Nieto caused Mexican equities to outperform their EM counterparts. Similarly in 2015-16, U.S. outperformance relative to EM also supported Mexico relative to EM because Mexico’s economy is highly leveraged to its northern neighbor. In both periods Mexico’s outperformance was not caused by – but instead coincided with – Chinese credit stimulus. These idiosyncratic events biased the correlation between Mexico’s equity markets and Chinese credit growth to the upside. 5      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets,” dated June 21, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.                  

Highlights The yield curve has inverted: The 10-year Treasury bond yield fell below the 3-month T-bill rate following the March FOMC meeting and has remained there since. We never say it’s different this time, but there is not yet sufficient evidence to change course: The yield curve is almost always early as a standalone signal, and the depressed term premium may make it less sensitive right now. Monetary policy still looks decidedly accommodative to us, … : Our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate says policy’s easy, and that it’ll stay that way until the Fed gets serious about hiking rates again. … so asset allocation should continue to favor risk assets: There are global forces restraining Treasury yields, but the fed funds rate cycle is only partway through a stretch that has been uniformly unfavorable for Treasuries. Feature Last week’s data were soft, as the U.S. economy continues to show signs of decelerating. The consumer confidence survey disappointed hopes for an extended bounce back from January’s shutdown-shadowed release, housing starts were uninspiring, and the Case-Shiller index revealed that home-price gains continue to sag. Beyond the U.S., the message from manufacturing PMIs is glum, although the services sector seems to be holding up just fine. Our traveling colleagues report that investors around the world have developed a decided aversion to European assets. We remind our clients that deceleration is nothing new. It’s been the story so far this year, as the incremental decline in fiscal thrust ensured it would be. The inversion of the yield curve is new, however, and it’s commanding attention from the financial media and from investors drawn to a leading indicator that consistently works. We like the yield curve, too, and it’s one of the three components of our recession indicator, but it’s only one. The other two components have yet to confirm its message, and the way things look now, it may well be awhile before they do. The Yield Curve Has Inverted, The Yield Curve Has Inverted The 3-month-to-10-year segment of the yield curve inverted after the March FOMC meeting, and it dipped a little further into negative territory last week as the 10-year Treasury yield continued to melt. An inverted curve is one of the three components of our simple recession indicator,1 and we believe it can send an important signal about the economy’s vigor and the state of monetary policy. By itself, however, an inverted curve is not a sufficient precondition for a recession. It has also been something less than a timely guide to asset allocation, inverting a year ahead of a recession, on average, and six months before the S&P 500 peaks (Table 1). The yield curve has been a reliable recession warning signal, but it tends to be too early to serve as a practical guide to money management and asset allocation. Table 1Inverted Yield Curves, 1968 - 2018   An inverted yield curve has called eight of the seven recessions that have occurred over the last 50 years, making it a dependable leading indicator (Chart 1). Year-over-year contraction in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index (LEI) has compiled the same enviable track record, calling all seven of the last half-century’s recessions with just one false positive (Chart 2). LEI tends to be timelier, however, sounding the alarm an average of five months after the curve inverts (Table 2). For our recession indicator, we also add a comparison of the fed funds rate to our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, because recessions have only occurred when the fed funds rate has exceeded our estimate of the equilibrium rate (Chart 3). Chart 1The Yield Curve Has Been Reliable, Albeit Early Chart 2LEI Has Been Timelier Table 2LEI Contractions, 1968 - 2018   The cycle is extended, and the inverted curve has made us even more alert for trouble in the economy and financial markets, but we do not think trouble is imminent. The LEI is clearly decelerating, but it has yet to contract. We currently peg the equilibrium fed funds rate at about 3⅛%, and project that it will rise to 3⅜% by the end of the year. We can’t know the equilibrium rate with exact precision in real time, but our estimate has been a reliable guide to financial market performance, and the fact that the fed funds rate is four 25-basis-point hikes from crossing the line gives us some comfort that neither a recession nor a bear market is waiting just around the corner. Chart 3Recessions Only Occur When Policy Is Tight Bottom Line: We are not dismissing the inverted yield curve, but our other recession-indicator inputs are not confirming its warning. Given the Fed’s new guidance, we expect that the next recession will not arrive before mid-to-late 2020. It’s A Little Bit Anomalous This Time At its best, an inverted yield curve is a signal from the bond market that the Fed has tightened monetary policy too much, heralding future rate cuts and a sharp slowdown. Anything affecting yields at the long end, however, has the potential to skew the curve’s signal. If long yields were somehow inflated, the curve would be less prone to invert and the signal would be delayed. If long yields were restrained, the curve would be prone to invert sooner and the signal might come especially early. Rate hikes invert the curve once the bond market decides they’re unnecessary, or expects that they’re going to be reversed soon. We believe that the yield curve currently has a bias to invert even earlier than it otherwise would. The question of how much the Fed’s asset purchases have affected the term premium,2 if at all, is far from settled within either the Fed or BCA, and is beyond the scope of this report. Nonetheless, we do think that QE1, QE2, and QE3 must have made some contribution to the decline in the term premium on long-term bonds (Chart 4). The bottom line is that we think the curve was disposed to invert earlier this time around. Its signal is still worth incorporating into our analysis, but we will seek confirmation from our other recession indicators before revamping our asset-allocation recommendations in line with an approaching inflection point in the business cycle. Chart 4The Curve Inverts More Easily When The Term Premium Is Negative The Fed And The Yield Curve We subscribe to the idea that the Fed induces recessions by removing monetary accommodation in an attempt to keep the economy from overheating. It’s simply too difficult to achieve a soft landing with policy tools that influence activity indirectly and with long and variable lags, given that the dual-mandate metrics are themselves lagging indicators. Compared to the path by which the Fed influences the economy, the path by which it inverts the curve is simple and straightforward. It raises short rates, and the long end rises as well, as the bond market discounts higher inflation and/or stronger growth, until investors no longer believe that inflation or growth prospects merit tighter policy, and long rates fall behind short rates. We reviewed moves in 10-year yields and 3-month rates across the different phases of the fed funds rate cycle (Chart 5) to see how the process has unfolded empirically. As the mechanics of yield curve inversion imply – short rates rise, long rates rise less or fall – the curve bear flattens when the Fed hikes the fed funds rate, and bull steepens when it cuts it (Table 3). The outcome fits the intuition: if the Fed’s attempt to slow the economy with higher short rates is successful, real interest rates will decline, inflation pressure will ease and bond yields should fail to keep pace with bill rates, especially if investors associate tightening campaigns with recessions. Conversely, if the Fed successfully boosts the economy with lower short rates, bond yields should fall less than short rates as the real component of rates rises, and the curve should steepen. Table 3The Yield Curve And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Depicting our stylized fed funds rate as a bell curve makes for an appealing picture, but it obscures the fact that the Fed often pauses for a while after hiking rates to their cyclical peak, or cutting them to their cyclical trough. Phase II doesn’t end until the beginning of the next rate-cutting campaign, and Phase IV doesn’t end until the beginning of the next series of rate hikes. A stricter representation of the fed funds rate cycle would have two phases of active hiking, followed by a state of limbo between the last hike and the first cut, then two phases of active cutting, followed by a lull during which the Fed waits for signs that it should remove accommodation. The expanded fed funds rate cycle is therefore composed of active hiking in Phase I and Phase II(a), pre-easing in Phase II(b), active easing in Phase III and Phase IV(a), and pre-hiking in Phase IV(b). Table 4 shows the average monthly changes in the yield curve and its components in the expanded fed funds rate cycle. There is quite a difference between Phase II(a), when the curve aggressively bear flattens, and Phase II(b), when the curve modestly bull flattens. Phase IV(a) features a sharp bull steepening, while the long end drifts higher in Phase IV(b) and short rates barely budge. Ultimately, the real action happens when the Fed is actively adjusting monetary policy, and the duration positioning implications are quite sensitive to the transitions into and out of the active phases. Table 4The Yield Curve And The Expanded Fed Funds Rate Cycle Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle An inverted yield curve has provided a reliable early-warning signal about recessions, but it can be too early to drive asset-allocation decisions for a manager judged on relative returns. The curve moves in Tables 3 and 4 offer more timely implications for duration positioning within fixed-income portfolios across the fed funds rate cycle. It comes as no surprise that Treasuries perform better when the Fed is cutting rates (Phases III and IV) than they do when the Fed is hiking them (Phases I and II). Their returns should be inversely correlated with the direction of rates, and longer-maturity instruments should exhibit greater sensitivity to changes in the fed funds rate (Table 5). Table 5Treasuries And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Overweight duration within bond portfolios from when the Fed stops hiking rates until it stops cutting them; underweight duration when it’s actively hiking. Expanding the fed funds rate cycle to account for active hiking, active easing, and the pre-hiking/pre-cutting limbo periods makes the duration-positioning road map clearer. Treasuries lose ground in real terms when the Fed is actively hiking, with longer-maturity instruments bearing the brunt (Table 6). They deliver in a big way when the Fed is actively easing (Phase III and Phase IV(a)), with the Barclays Bloomberg Long Treasury Index posting double-digit annualized total returns. Longer Treasuries shoot out the lights once the Fed stops hiking (Phase II (b)), and they generate real total returns that compare favorably with bull-market equities when aggregating Phase II(b)’s pre-easing results with active-easing Phases III and IV(a). Table 6Treasuries And The Expanded Fed Funds Rate Cycle Our terminal and equilibrium fed funds rate estimates are admittedly far from the consensus. Markets are skeptical of the FOMC’s one-more-hike projection, much less our three, four, or more terminal-rate call. With “secular stagnation” searches ascendant on Google Trends (as of Friday morning, the partially complete March 24-30 period already had the most searches of any week over the last twelve months), our equilibrium estimate is also surely out of step with the herd. If the Fed is not done, however, history says it’s not yet time to overweight duration. If we’re right, Treasuries still have the full Phase II(a) ahead of them, and won’t be a buy until the Fed desists, sometime in 2020 or beyond. Investment Implications We have taken note of the inverted yield curve, but we will not overreact to it. While it has been a reliable recession indicator for the last half-century, it consistently sounds the alarm too early to merit immediate investment action. Neither the LEI nor our equilibrium fed funds rate model has yet corroborated its warning, and the bombed-out term premium may have biased it to inverting even sooner than it otherwise would. There’s no need for Paul Revere to ready his horse just yet. We did not anticipate that the 10-year Treasury yield would decline as much as it has. The extent of the Fed’s dovishness caught us off guard, and the 10-year Treasury is having a very hard time escaping the gravity of the decline in major-economy sovereign yields around the world. Our Global Fixed Income Strategy service (GFIS) points out that the global yield decline has become extended (Chart 6), and it contends that global bond prices incorporate too much pessimism about global economic momentum. The GFIS team also notes that there’s no guarantee stock prices will fall to align with bond yields – over the last couple years, stocks and bonds have recoupled following yield scares via bond, not equity, sell-offs (Chart 7). Chart 6Enough Is Enough Chart 7Equities Have Been Smarter Than Bonds The Last Few Years We therefore remain constructive on the economy and financial markets, and advise that balanced portfolios should still maintain exposure to riskier assets. Much of that view depends on Chinese authorities relaxing their deleveraging campaign, global trade tensions easing, and some hint of green shoots appearing in the rest of the world. If those elements of our base-case scenario fail to materialize, we will likely become more cautious. We are not happy that the vindication of our high-conviction view on the terminal fed funds rate has been indefinitely delayed, but the silver lining of the Fed’s dovish surprise is that the bull market in equities and other risk assets has been granted an open-ended extension.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, “How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?,” published August 13, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Long-term bond yields can be decomposed into the expected path of short-term rates and a term premium, which compensates an investor for the uncertainties that can arise over the extended time period that s/he is locking up his/her money by buying a longer-maturity instrument.

Highlights Global equities and other risk assets will trade sideways with elevated volatility over the coming weeks before grinding higher for the remainder of the year, as global growth finally accelerates after a series of false starts.  We now see the Fed raising rates more slowly than we had previously envisioned, but ultimately having to scramble to hike rates in order to quell inflation. The fed funds rate will probably plateau at 4% in 2021, implying nine quarter-point hikes more than the market is currently discounting.   Over a 12-month horizon, investors should overweight global equities, underweight government bonds, and maintain a neutral allocation to cash. The dollar will peak in the second quarter and then weaken over the remainder of the year and into 2020, before starting to strengthen again late next year. Investors should prepare to temporarily upgrade EM and European stocks over the coming weeks, while increasing exposure to cyclical equity sectors. Industrial metals and oil will strengthen over the course of the year. Gold should be bought on any dip. Investors should begin to de-risk their portfolios in late-2020 in anticipation of a recession in 2021.   Feature Here We Go Again? After having become more defensive last June, we turned bullish on stocks following the December post-FOMC meeting plunge. As stocks continued to rebound, we tempered our optimism. In the beginning of March, we wrote that “having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a ‘dead zone’ over the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout.”1 Last Friday’s release of disappointing European PMI data poured some herbicide on the green shoots thesis. Germany’s manufacturing PMI hit a six-year low, with the new orders component registering the weakest reading since the Great Recession. This took the 10-year German bund yield into negative territory for the first time since 2016. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield also fell to a 15-month low, causing the 3-month/10-year curve to invert. Historically, an inverted yield curve has been a reliable predictor of U.S. recessions (Chart 1). Chart 1Yield Curve Inversions, Recessions, And The Term Premium President Trump’s decision to appoint TV commentator Stephen Moore to the Fed’s Board of Governors did not help matters. Recommended by fellow supply-side “economist” Larry Kudlow, Moore is best known for dismissing concerns over the state of the housing market in 2007, his spot-on 2010 prediction that QE would cause hyperinflation, and his belief that the Trump tax cuts would lead to a smaller budget deficit. Global Growth Will Accelerate In The Second Half Of The Year Given all these worrisome developments, is it time to turn cyclically bearish on the economic outlook and risk assets again? We do not think so. While the next few weeks could be challenging for equities – a risk that our MacroQuant model is currently flagging – sentiment should improve as global growth finally accelerates after a series of false starts.  Indeed, some positive signs are already visible: The diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator, which tracks the share of countries with rising LEIs, has moved higher (Chart 2). It leads the global LEI. Service sector PMIs have also generally improved, suggesting that the weakness in global growth remains concentrated in trade and manufacturing. And even on the trade front, a few forward-looking indicators such as the Baltic Dry Index and the weekly Harpex shipping index, which measures global container shipping activity, have bounced off their lows. We would downplay the signal from the yield curve, as it currently is severely distorted by a negative term premium. If the 10-year Treasury term premium were back to where it was in 2004, the 3-month/10-year slope would be more than 200 bps steeper, and nobody would be talking about this issue. In fact, given today’s term premium, the curve would have almost certainly inverted in 1995. Anyone who got out of stocks back then would have missed out on one of the greatest bull markets in history. It should also go without saying that some of the decline in the U.S. 10-year yield reflects a positive development: The Fed has turned more dovish! If one looks at the 10-year/30-year portion of the yield curve, it has actually steepened. This is a sign that the market is seeing the Fed’s actions as being reflationary in nature. There is no clear causal mechanism by which an inverted yield curve slows economic activity, apart from it potentially becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy where the yield-curve inversion scares investors, thereby leading to a tightening in financial conditions (Chart 3). Such “doom loops” are conceptually possible, but as we discussed earlier this year, they are unlikely to occur in the current environment.2 At any rate, financial conditions have eased since the start of the year. This should boost growth in the coming months.   Chart 2Global Growth May Be ##br##Starting To Stabilize Chart 3Easier Financial Conditions Since The Start Of The Year Bode Well For Global Growth Chinese Credit Growth Set To Rise Global growth has been weighed down by a slowing Chinese economy. Last year’s deleveraging campaign led to a significant deceleration in investment spending, which had negative repercussions for capital equipment and commodity producers all over the world (Chart 4). Historically, China has loosened the reins on the financial sector whenever credit growth has fallen towards nominal GDP growth (Chart 5). It appears we have reached this point. Despite a weak seasonally-distorted February print, credit growth has finally accelerated on a year-over-year basis. Chart 4China: The Deleveraging Campaign Had Adverse Effects On Investment Spending Chart 5Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth We do not expect Chinese credit growth to rise as much as in past releveraging cycles. However, this is because the economy is in better shape, not because there is some intrinsic constraint to increasing debt from current levels. China’s elevated savings rate has kept interest rates well below trend nominal GDP growth, which is the key determinant of debt sustainability (Chart 6).3 As long as the central government maintains an implicit guarantee on most local and corporate debt, as it is currently doing, default risk will remain minimal. In any case, given that total debt stands at 240% of GDP, even a one percentage-point increase in credit growth would generate a hefty 2.4% of GDP in credit stimulus. The Chinese credit impulse leads imports by about six-to-nine months (Chart 7). This bodes well for global trade in the second half of the year. Chart 6China's High Savings Rate Has Kept Interest Rates Well Below Trend Nominal GDP Growth Chart 7Global Trade Will Benefit From A Chinese Reflationary Impulse   A Lull In The Trade War? A de-escalation in the trade war would help matters. As a self-professed master negotiator, Donald Trump needs to secure a deal with China before next year‘s presidential election, while also convincing American voters that the agreement was concluded on favorable terms for the United States. Reaching a deal with China early on in his term would have been risky for Trump if it had failed to bring down the bilateral trade deficit – an entirely likely outcome given how pro-cyclical U.S. fiscal policy is. At this point, however, Trump could crow about making a great deal with China while reassuring voters that the product of his brilliance will be realized only after he has been re-elected. Thus, the likelihood that Trump will seek to strike a deal has risen. For their part, the Chinese want as much negotiating leverage as they can muster. This means being able to convincingly demonstrate that their economy is strong enough to handle the repercussions from turning down a trade deal that fails to serve their interests. Since the credit cycle is the dominant driver of Chinese growth, this requires putting the deleveraging campaign on the backburner. Faster Global Growth And Stronger Domestic Demand Will Benefit Europe Stronger Chinese growth will help the European export sector later this year. The export component of the Chinese Caixin PMI has moved up from its lows. It leads the euro area PMI by about three months. Meanwhile, euro area domestic demand will benefit from a more accommodative fiscal policy and lower bond yields. The decline in bond yields will be especially helpful to Italy. The spike in yields and loss of business confidence following the election of a populist government last March plunged the economy into recession (Chart 8). Now that the 10-year BTP yield has fallen more than 100 bps from its highs, the Italian economy should start to perk up. The ECB will not raise rates this year even if domestic growth speeds up, but the market will probably price in a few rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. This will allow for a modest re-steepening of yield curves in core European bond markets, which should be positive for long-suffering bank profits. Brexit remains a concern. The ongoing saga has reached the farcical stage where: 1) The U.K. has voted to leave the EU; but 2) Parliament has voted to stay in the EU unless it reaches a satisfactory deal with Brussels; while 3) rejecting the only deal with Brussels that was on offer. Given that most British voters no longer want Brexit (Chart 9), we think that the government will kick the proverbial can down the road until a second referendum is announced or a “soft Brexit” deal is formulated. Either outcome would be welcomed by markets. Chart 8Italian Bond Yields Are A Headwind No More Chart 9U.K.: In The Case Of A Do-Over, The Remain Side Would Likely Win   What Will The Fed Do? Last year’s “Christmas Crash” clearly shifted the Fed’s reaction function in a more dovish direction. We do not expect Jay Powell to raise rates over the next few months, but a reacceleration in global growth is likely to prompt the Fed to tighten anew in December. The Fed will continue raising rates once per quarter in 2020, before accelerating the pace of tightening in 2021 in response to rising inflation. In all, we see the fed funds rate increasing to around 4% by the end of this cycle. This represents nine quarter-point hikes more than the market is currently discounting (Chart 10). We were stopped out of our short fed funds futures trade, but we recommend that clients short the June-2021 fed funds futures or a similar instrument. The U.S. Economy: Great Again Fundamentally, the U.S. economy is on solid ground and can handle higher interest rates. Unlike a decade ago, the housing market is in good shape (Chart 11). The homeowner vacancy rate stands near a record low. Judging by FICO scores, the quality of mortgage lending remains high. The labor market is also firm, with job openings hitting another record high in February (Chart 12). The combination of a healthy housing and labor market is invariably good for consumers. Chart 11U.S. Housing Fundamentals Are Solid Chart 12The U.S. Labor Market Is Firm The personal savings rate currently stands at 7.6%, notably higher than one would expect based on the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 13). A decline in the savings rate would allow consumer spending to increase more quickly than income. With the latter being propped up by rising wages, this will be bullish for consumption. Capital spending intentions have dipped over the past few months, but remain elevated by historic standards (Chart 14). The real nonresidential capital stock has grown by an average of only 1.7% since the start of the recovery, down from 3% in the pre-recession period (Chart 15). A cyclical upswing in productivity growth, rising labor costs, and low levels of spare capacity should all motivate businesses to invest in new plant and equipment. Chart 14Capital Spending Intentions Have Softened, But Remain Elevated Chart 15There Is Room For More U.S. Capital Investment   Corporate Debt: How Much Of A Risk? Chart 16U.S. Corporate Debt Is Not Extreme By Global Standards Corporate debt levels have increased significantly in recent years, while underwriting standards have deteriorated, as evidenced by the proliferation of covenant-lite loans. Nevertheless, the situation is far from dire. Relative to other countries, U.S. corporate debt is quite low (Chart 16). At 143% of GDP, corporate debt in France is twice that of the United States. This is not to suggest that everything is fine in the French corporate sector; but the fact is that France has not had a corporate debt crisis. This signals that the U.S. is not at imminent risk of one either. Netting out cash, U.S. corporate debt as a share of GDP is at the same level it was in 1989, a year in which the fed funds rate was close to nine percent. The ratio of corporate net debt-to-EBITD remains reasonably low. The interest coverage ratio is above its historic average. In addition, corporate assets have also risen quite briskly over the past few years, which has kept the corporate debt-to-asset ratio broadly stable (Chart 17). The corporate sector financial balance – the difference between corporate income and spending – is still in positive territory at 1% of GDP. Every recession in the past 50 years began when the corporate sector financial balance was in deficit (Chart 18). Chart 17U.S. Corporate Debt: How High? Chart 18Corporate Sector Financial Balance Still In Surplus Unlike mortgages, which are often held by leveraged institutions, most corporate debt is held by unleveraged players such as pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, and ETFs. Bank loans account for only 18% of nonfinancial corporate sector debt, down from 40% in 1980 (Chart 19). The share of leveraged loans held by banks has declined from about 25% a decade ago to less than 10% today. Moreover, banks today hold much more high-quality capital than in the past (Chart 20). This makes corporate debt less systemically important for the economy.   Chart 19Banks Have Reduced Their Exposure To The Corporate Sector Chart 20U.S. Banks Are Well Capitalized One of the reasons we turned more bullish on risk assets in December was because stocks had plunged and corporate spreads widened without much follow-through in financial stress indices. For example, the infamous TED spread barely budged (Chart 21). Chart 21TED Spreads Are Well Behaved, Indicating No Major Signs Of Financial Stress Everyone Agrees With Larry Given the lack of major imbalances in the U.S. economy, why do investors believe that the Fed cannot raise rates further even though the Fed funds rate in real terms is barely above zero? The answer is that investors appear to have bought into Larry Summers’ secular stagnation thesis, which posits that the neutral rate of interest is much lower today than it was in the past. We have some sympathy for this thesis, but it is important to remember that it is a theory about the long-term determinants of interest rates such as productivity and demographic trends. The theory says little about the cyclical drivers of interest rates, including the amount of spare capacity in the economy, the stance of fiscal policy, credit growth, and wage trends. Earlier this decade, when we were still very bullish on bonds, one could have plausibly argued that the economy needed extremely low interest rates: The output gap was still large; the deleveraging cycle had just begun; home and equity prices were depressed; wage growth was anemic; and fiscal policy had turned restrictive after a brief burst of stimulus during the Great Recession. Far From Neutral? All of the forces mentioned above have either fully or partially reversed course over the past few years. Take fiscal policy as one example. The IMF estimates that the U.S. structural budget deficit averaged 3.3% of GDP in 2014-15. In 2019-20, the IMF reckons the deficit will average 5.6% of GDP. To what extent has easier fiscal policy raised the U.S. neutral rate of interest? Let us conservatively assume that every $1 of additional fiscal stimulus adds $1 to aggregate demand. In this case, fiscal policy has added 2.3% of GDP to aggregate demand over the past five years. Suppose that a one-percentage point increase in aggregate demand raises the neutral rate of interest by 1%, which is in line with the specification of the Taylor Rule that former Fed Chair Janet Yellen favored. This implies that fiscal policy alone has raised the neutral rate by over two percentage points. The discussion above suggests that cyclical factors may have pushed up the neutral rate considerably, even if long-term structural factors are still dragging it down. Since the Fed is supposed to set interest rates with an eye on what is appropriate for the economy over the next year or two, rates may end up staying too low for too long. This will cause the economy to overheat, eventually leading to a surge in inflation. The Inflation Boogeyman The good news is that none of our favorite indicators point to a major imminent inflationary upswing (Chart 22): Despite higher tariffs, consumer import price inflation has slowed; core intermediate producer price inflation has decelerated; the prices paid components of the ISM and regional Fed surveys have plunged; inflation surprise indices have rolled over; and both survey and market-based measures of inflation expectations remain below where they were last summer. In keeping with these developments, BCA’s proprietary Pipeline Inflation Indicator has fallen to a two-and-a-half-year low. Wage growth has accelerated, but productivity growth has increased by even more. As a result, unit labor cost inflation has been coming down since the middle of last year. Unit labor costs lead core CPI inflation by about 12 months (Chart 23). This implies that consumer price inflation is unlikely to reach uncomfortably high levels at least until the second half of next year. Chart 22No Symptoms of An Imminent Major Inflationary Upswing In The U.S. ... Chart 23... And Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being At that point, risks are high that inflation will move up. This could force the Fed to start raising rates aggressively in early-2021, a course of action that will push up the dollar and cause equities and spread product to sell off. The resulting tightening in financial conditions will probably plunge the U.S. and the rest of the world into recession in mid-to-late 2021.   Stay Bullish Global Equities For Now, Turn Defensive Late Next Year Chart 24Analyst Expectations Are Quite Muted The two-stage Fed tightening cycle discussed above – gradual rate hikes starting in December and continuing into 2020, and more aggressive hikes thereafter in response to rising inflation – shapes our investment views over the next few years. The Key Financial Market Forecasts Chart at the beginning of this publication provides a rough sketch of where we think the main asset classes are heading. We suspect that equities and other risk assets will be able to digest the first stage of rate tightening, albeit with heightened volatility around the time when the Fed starts preparing the market for another hike later this year. Unlike last September, earnings estimates are much more conservative. Bottom-up estimates foresee EPS rising by 3.9% in the U.S. and 5.4% in the rest of the world in 2019 (Chart 24). The combination of faster growth, easier financial conditions, and ongoing share buybacks implies some upside to these numbers. Perhaps more importantly, unlike in September, the Fed will only start hiking rates if the economy is performing well. Powell erred in saying that “rates were a long way from neutral” just when the U.S. economy was starting to slow. Had he uttered those words when U.S. growth was still accelerating, investors would have probably disregarded them. Jay Powell won’t make the same mistake again. Rather, he will make a different one: He will let the economy overheat to the point where the Fed finds itself clearly behind the curve and forced to scramble to catch up. The resulting stagflationary environment – where growth is slowing due to a shortage of available workers and inflation is on the upswing – will be toxic for equities and other risk assets. While it is difficult to be precise about timing, we recommend that investors maintain a modestly pro-risk stance over the next 12-to-18 months. However, they should pare back exposure to equities and spread product late next year before the Fed ramps up the pace of rate hikes. Prepare To Temporarily Upgrade International Stocks The U.S. stock market tends to be “low beta” compared to other bourses. If global growth accelerates in the second half of this year, international stocks will outperform their U.S. counterparts. We sold our put on the EEM ETF for a gain of 104% on Jan 3rd, and now recommend being outright long EM equities. We will be looking to upgrade both EM and European equities to overweight in the coming weeks in currency-unhedged terms once we see more confirmatory evidence of a global growth revival. We have mixed feeling about Japanese stocks. Stronger global growth will benefit Japanese multinationals, but firms focused on the domestic market may suffer if the government goes ahead and raises the sales tax in October. We would hold off upgrading Japanese stocks for the time being. At the global sector level, we pared back our defensive tilt earlier this year, after having turned more cautious last summer. We recommend that investors overweight energy and industrials. We are also warming up to financials and materials. The former will benefit from a steepening in yield curves later this year as well as from faster credit growth. The latter will gain from a more robust Chinese economy. We would maintain a neutral allocation to health care, info tech, and communication services. Real estate and utilities will both suffer once bond yields start moving higher. Classically defensive sectors such as consumer staples will also underperform.  Global Bond Yields Likely To Rise Global bond yields are likely to rise over the next 12-to-18 months as growth surprises on the upside. Yields will continue rising into the first half of 2021 as inflation accelerates. Unlike in past risk-off episodes, Treasurys will not provide much of a safe haven in the lead up to the next recession. As noted above, one of the reasons that bond yields are so low today is because the term premium is very depressed. The cumulative effect of Fed bond purchases has probably depressed the term premium, but the bigger impact has stemmed from the fact that investors see Treasurys as an insurance policy against various macro risks. Investors are accustomed to thinking that when an economy slides into recession, equity prices will fall, the housing market will deteriorate, wage gains will recede, job prospects will worsen, but at least the value of their bond portfolio will go up! The problem with this reasoning is that it is only valid when the Fed is hiking rates in response to stronger growth. If the Fed is hiking rates because inflation is getting out of hand, Treasury yields could end up rising while stocks are falling. This was actually the norm between the late-1960s and early-2000s (Chart 25). Chart 25Treasury Yields Could Rise While Stocks Fall If Treasurys lose their safe-haven status, the term premium will move higher. A vicious circle could develop where rising bond yields weaken the stock market, causing investors to flood out of both stocks and bonds and into cash, leading to even higher bond yields and lower equity prices. Investors should maintain a modest short duration stance towards Treasurys over the next 12 months, and then move to maximum underweight duration in mid-2020 as inflation starts to break out. Going long duration will only make sense once the Fed has raised interest rates into restrictive territory and the economy slides into recession. That is not likely to occur until the second half of 2021. Regionally, we favor European, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and especially Japanese government bonds over the next 12 months relative to U.S. Treasurys. The U.S. economy is at the greatest risk of overheating. In currency-hedged terms, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is among the lowest in the world (Table 1). Japanese 10-year bonds, for example, offer 2.72% in currency-hedged terms, while German bunds command 2.94%. Table 1Bond Markets Across The Developed World   The U.S. Dollar: Heading Towards A Soft Patch Gauging the outlook for the U.S. dollar is a bit tricky. Even though the Fed will only be raising rates gradually over the next 12 months, it will still hike more than what is discounted by markets. With most other central banks still sitting on the sidelines, short-term rate differentials are likely to move in favor of the greenback. That said, aside from Japan, stronger global growth will likely prompt investors to price in a few more rate hikes in other developed economies in 2020 and beyond. Consequently, long-term yield differentials may not widen by as much as short-term differentials. Perhaps more importantly, the U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 26). This countercyclicality stems from the fact that the U.S. economy is more geared towards services than manufacturing compared with the rest of the world (Chart 27). As such, when global growth accelerates, capital tends to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, translating into more demand for foreign currency and less demand for dollars. Chart 26The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 27The U.S. Is A Low-Beta Play On Global Growth If global growth picks up in the back half of this year, the dollar will likely peak in the second quarter and weaken over the remainder of 2019 and into 2020. The dollar’s trajectory may thus follow a similar course to the one in 2017, a year in which the Fed raised rates four times, but the broad trade-weighted dollar nevertheless managed to weaken by 7%. Chart 28The Yen Is A Risk-Off Currency As was the case in 2017, the euro will probably gain ground later this year against the U.S. dollar as will most EM and commodity currencies. However, just as the Japanese yen failed to participate in the rally that most currencies experienced against the dollar in 2017, it will struggle to gain much traction against the greenback. The yen is a “risk-off” currency and thus tends to fall whenever global risk assets rally (Chart 28). In addition, the yen will suffer if global bond yields move up relative to JGB yields later this year, as will likely be the case if the BoJ is forced to prolong its yield curve control regime in the face of tighter fiscal policy. We would go long EUR/JPY on any break below 123. After First Weakening, The Dollar Will Rally Again Late Next Year As the U.S. economy encounters ever more supply-side constraints in 2020, growth will slow and inflation will accelerate. The Fed will respond by hiking rates more quickly than inflation is rising. The resulting increase in real interest rates will put upward pressure on the dollar. In this stagflationary environment, equities will tumble and credit spreads will widen. Tighter U.S. financial conditions will reverberate around the world, causing global growth to decelerate even more than it would have otherwise. This will further turbocharge the dollar. The greenback will only peak once the Fed starts cutting rates in late-2021. Commodities: Getting More Bullish A weaker dollar later this year, along with stronger global growth led by a resurgent China, will be bullish for commodities. BCA’s commodity strategists recommend going long copper at current prices. They are also maintaining their bullish bias towards oil. They expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl in 2020. Higher U.S. shale output will be offset by delays in building out deepwater export facilities, which will keep supply fairly tight. In past reports, we discussed the merits of buying gold as an inflation hedge. However, we held back from doing so because of our bullish dollar view. Now that we see the dollar peaking over the next few months, we would be buyers of gold on any break below $1275/ounce.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Gretzky’s Doctrine,” dated March 1, 2019. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Low Odds Of An FCI Doom Loop,” dated January 4, 2019. 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights For the Eurostoxx50 to outperform the S&P500, the big euro area banks have to outperform the big U.S. tech stocks. Tactically overweight Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 as well as other pro-cyclical positions such as overweight EM versus DM… …but prepare to take profits in the summer months. In the medium term, the euro area versus U.S. long-bond yield spread has plenty of scope to compress from its current -180 bps… …and EUR/USD has the scope to head higher. Feature Without a shadow of a doubt, the chart that causes the greatest stir among our clients is the Chart of the Week. It shows that one of the biggest investment decisions, the choice between the euro area and U.S. equity markets, reduces to the choice between the three large euro area banks – Santander, BNP Paribas, and ING – and the three U.S. tech behemoths – Apple, Microsoft, and Google.  Chart of the WeekEurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 Is Just 3 Banks Vs. 3 Tech Stocks! Clients are simultaneously amazed and unsettled by this manifestation of the Pareto Principle, which states that the vast majority of an effect is explained by a tiny minority of causes. Financials feature large in the Eurostoxx50 while tech giants dominate the S&P500. But the amazing thing is that almost all of the relative performance can be explained by just three stocks in each market. The vast majority of an effect is explained by a tiny minority of causes.  The chart creates a cognitive dissonance. What about the things that are supposed to matter for stock market selection: relative economic growth, profits growth, margins, valuations and geopolitics? The answer is that all of these are interesting areas of study, but they are mere details in the big picture. For the Eurostoxx50 to outperform the S&P500, the big euro area banks have to outperform the big U.S. tech stocks (Chart I-2). Period.  Chart 2For The Eurostoxx50 To Outperform The S&P500, Euro Area Banks Have To Outperform U.S. Tech Our view is that in the immediate future this is certainly possible, but that over the long haul it will prove to be a very tall order. When The Mean Is Meaningless The structural performances of vastly different equity sectors can diverge for a very long time. How long? Japanese banks have underperformed U.S. tech for thirty years and counting! In this situation, mean-reversion and ‘standard deviations’ from the mean become meaningless concepts (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Japanese Banks Have Underperformed U.S. Tech For Thirty Years And Counting! The statistical concept of a standard deviation is only meaningful if the underlying data is stationary, which is to say mean-reverting. If it isn’t, then it is impossible to say that a sector price or valuation is stretched either versus another sector, or versus its own history.  One problem is that sector performances and valuations undergo phase-shifts when they enter a different economic climate. The structural outlook for bank profits experiences a phase-shift when a debt super-cycle ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a debt super-cycle with the valuation during a debt super-cycle is as meaningless as comparing your height as an adult to your height when you were a child! Sector performances and valuations undergo phase-shifts when they enter a different economic climate. To which, a frequent riposte is: within the same sector, euro area companies appear cheaper than their counterparts elsewhere in the world. But again, this apparent value is deceptive because it is simply an adjustment for the so-called ‘currency translation effect’ and the anticipated long-term moves in exchange rates. If investors anticipate the euro ultimately to strengthen – because they see that it is trading well below purchasing power parity – then a multinational company listed on a euro area bourse will suffer a future headwind to its mixed-currency denominated profits when they are translated back to a stronger euro. To discount this anticipated headwind, the euro area multinational must trade cheaper compared with a peer in, say, the U.S. But the cheapness is a false impression. Pulling together these complexities of sector effects, phase-shifts in sector valuations and currency effects, making the big call between Europe and America on the basis of performance or valuation mean-reversion is dangerous. Instead, we come back to the basic question: should you tilt towards euro area financials or towards U.S. tech? Own Banks For The Short Term Only Japanese financial sector profits peaked in 1990 and stand at less than half that level today. Euro area financial sector profits peaked in 2007, and are tracking the Japanese experience with a 17-year lag. If euro area financial profits continue to follow in Japan’s footsteps, expect no sustained growth through the next 17 years (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Euro Area Financial Profits Are Following Japanese Footsteps In a post credit boom era, banks lose the lifeblood of their business: credit creation. This loss becomes a multi-decade headwind to financial sector profit growth and share price performance. Bank profits are dependent on two other drivers. One is operational leverage – the amount of equity held against the balance sheet. More stringent European regulation is making this a headwind too. Banks have to hold more equity capital against assets, diluting their profitability. The other driver is the net interest margin – the difference between rates received on loans and rates paid on deposits. In this regard, both fintech and the blockchain are likely to create a further headwind to bank profitability. Japan’s experience suggests that euro area financials will struggle to outperform structurally. Admittedly, U.S. tech may also face its own headwinds or phase-shift, most obviously antitrust lawsuits to counter its near-monopoly status. But even allowing for this, Japan’s experience suggests that euro area financials will struggle to outperform structurally. Rather, financials is a sector to play for outperformance phases lasting no more than a few quarters. Last autumn, we noted that short-term credit impulses in the major economies were flipping from a sharp down-oscillation into an up-oscillation phase (Chart I-5). On that basis, we recommended a tactical overweight to Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 as well as other pro-cyclical positions such as overweight EM versus DM. Those pro-cyclical sector positions have broadly succeeded, but they are still appropriate given that up-oscillation phases very reliably last around nine months. Chart I-5Short-Term Credit Impulses Have Flipped To Up-Oscillations The caveat is: prepare to take profits in the summer months. The Fed Is Now At ‘Neutral’, But Where Is The ECB? Last week, the Federal Reserve confirmed that “the Federal funds rate (at 2.5 percent) is now in the broad range of estimates of neutral – the rate that tends neither to stimulate nor to restrain the economy.”  This begs the question: where is the ECB policy rate (now at 0 percent) relative to its neutral? Our very high conviction view is that the ECB policy rate is well below neutral. Financials is a sector to play for outperformance phases lasting no more than a few quarters. The twenty year life of the euro captures multiple manias and crises, some centred in Europe, some in the U.S. Through these twenty years, the euro area versus U.S. long bond yield spread has averaged -50 bps1 (Chart I-6). Over this same period, the euro area versus U.S. annual inflation differential has also averaged -50 bps (Chart I-7). Ergo, the real interest rate differential has averaged zero. Meaning, the ex-post neutral real interest rates in the euro area and the U.S. have been exactly the same. Chart I-6The Euro Area Vs. U.S. Yield Spread Has Averaged -50 Bps... Chart I-7...The Euro Area Vs. U.S. Inflation Spread Has Also Averaged -50 Bps With little difference in the neutral real rates over the past two decades, is there a valid reason to expect a difference in the future? An obvious response is the fragility of the euro area’s banking system will require the ECB to persist with its zero interest rate policy for years. In Germany and France, bank lending is healthy, and could easily weather modestly tighter monetary policy. In fact, the evidence suggests that this fear is exaggerated. In Germany and France, bank lending is healthy, and could easily weather modestly tighter monetary policy (Chart I-8). The problem has been localised in Italy, where bank lending relapsed once again in 2018. Chart I-8Bank Lending Is Healthy In Germany And France However, on closer examination this was a direct result of political tensions. Recently, Italian bank lending has been a very tight (inverse) function of the Italian bond yield. The BTP yield spiked last year when Rome escalated its budget spat with Brussels, and bank lending took a hard hit. But now that the Italian bond yield has retraced, lending should recover (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Italian Bank Lending Should Recover Now That The Bond Yield Has Come Down The central issue is can the U.S. policy rate – which is at neutral – and the ECB policy – which is below neutral – diverge much from here? Our high conviction answer is no. Therefore, in the medium term, the euro area versus U.S. long-bond yield spread has plenty of scope to compress from its current -180 bps, one way or the other (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Can Interest Rate Expectations Diverge Much From Here? It also implies that after remaining range-bound in the immediate future, EUR/USD has the scope to head higher. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System This week’s recommended trade is to go long SEK/NOK, as it is close to the limit of tight liquidity that has signaled many previous technical reversals in this currency cross. Set a profit target of 1.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, the on-going rally in government bonds caused the short position in 30-year T-bonds to hit its stop-loss. This leaves us with five open positions. Long SEK/NOK. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Calculated from the over 10-year government bond yield: euro area average, weighted by sovereign issue size, less U.S. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades 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 Driven by its fear that deflation is a more intractable danger than inflation, the Federal Reserve has enshrined its pause for the remainder of 2019 in order to lift inflation expectations. Since the U.S. business cycle expansion is not over, the Federal Reserve’s plan to put policy on hold this year raises the odds that the economy will overheat. Global growth is set to bottom during the second quarter in response to easier financial conditions. Accommodative policy, rebounding global economic activity and a softening dollar will boost risk asset prices during the remainder of the year. Safe-haven bonds, including Treasurys, will underperform cash over the coming 12 to 18 months. The rally in risk assets will ultimately prove the last hurrah as the Fed will resume tightening later this year or in 2020, and a bear market lies down the road. Only investors with tactical investment horizons should aggressively play this rally. Those with longer investment horizons should use this rally to lighten up their exposure to risk. Feature Introduction Following the introduction of the word “patience” into the Federal Reserve’s lexicon, a move lower in the so-called Fed dots was to be anticipated. The FOMC now expects no rate increases in 2019 and only one hike in 2020. The interest rate market remains skeptical that the Fed will be able to deliver on its forecast. For now, the OIS curve is pricing in a 75% probability of a cut this year, and rates at 1.9% by the end of 2020. With the 10-year/3-month yield curve inverting last week and the U.S. Leading Economic Indicator still decelerating, it is no wonder that investors are betting on the Fed becoming ever more dovish (Chart I-1). BCA is inclined to take the Fed at its word – the next move will be a hike, not a cut. This call rests on our view of the business cycle: The fed funds rate is still somewhat below neutral, U.S. economic activity can expand further, and global growth is likely to trough soon. The current dovish inclination of global central banks will only nurture the cycle a little bit longer. Consequently, we continue to recommend a positive stance on stocks for the coming quarters, while keeping in mind that the cycle is long in the tooth, and that beyond this last climb lies a significant bear market. The U.S. Business Cycle Has Further To Run… The Fed remains data dependent, but this now means that depressed inflation expectations in the private sector need to be vanquished before the hiking can resume (Chart I-2). With the view that low realized inflation has curtailed expectations now common across major central banks, this implies that a temporary overshoot in actual core PCE will be tolerated in order to lift expectations. Chart I-1Worrisome Signs For Growth Chart I-2The Fed Wants To Lift Inflation Expectations   Since consumer prices are a lagging variable, lifting both realized and anticipated inflation will only be possible if we move ever further along the business cycle, further pressuring the economy. Our base case remains that the risk of a recession is low in 2019, and is even receding in 2020. First, U.S. credit-dependent cyclical spending currently constitutes only 25.3% of potential GDP. As Chart I-3 illustrates, this is in line with its historical average, and well below the levels recorded near the end of previous business cycles. This suggests that the amount of vulnerability caused by misallocated capital is not yet in line with previous cycles. It also indicates that the share of output generated by the sectors most sensitive to higher rates is also low. Chart I-3U.S. Cyclical Spending: Limited Signs Of Vulnerability Second, the consumer remains in good shape. Households have deleveraged, and debt-service payments relative to disposable income are still near multi-generational lows (Chart I-4). Moreover, thanks to a saving rate of 7.6%, consumer spending is likely to move in line or even outperform income growth. On this front, the outlook is also good. As Chart I-5 demonstrates, the link between wages and salaries relative to the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers – a measure of labor utilization unaffected by the demographic changes that have muddied the interpretation of the unemployment rate – is still as tight as it was 20 years ago. Thus, as long as the labor market does not suddenly collapse, wage growth will continue to accelerate, supporting household income and consumption.   Chart I-4Household Balance Sheets Are Solid Third, at 0.4% of GDP, the fiscal thrust remains positive. In other words, fiscal policy will still add to GDP in 2019. Fourth, we do not see the traditional symptoms associated with a fed funds rate above neutral. After dipping sharply in the second half of 2018, mortgage for purchase applications are back near their cycle highs (Chart I-6). Moreover, the performance of homebuilders’ equities relative to the broad market has begun to rebound, which is inconsistent with a fed funds rate above neutral. Chart I-6Mortgage Applications Do Not Suggest Policy Is Tight Fifth, there is scope for the contribution from housing sector activity to morph from a negative to a positive. A fed funds rate below neutral historically is correlated with an improving housing market. Rising mortgage rates from 3.8% to 4.6% depressed home sales and construction output, and the fall in mortgage rates over the past x month 4.3% should stimulate housing activity (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Residential Activity Will Rebound This Year Bottom Line: U.S. first-quarter GDP growth will be dismal, but one quarter does not make a trend. The low degree of economic vulnerability in the U.S., and the likelihood that the fed funds rate will stay below neutral for a while suggest that growth should rebound to the 2-2.5% range and should remain above-trend for the remainder of 2019. … And Global Growth Will Soon Trough As the cliché goes, it is darkest before the dawn. This is a fitting description of the world economy outside the U.S. right now. Global trade is depressed, global PMIs are moribund and nothing feels good. But it is exactly when nothing is going well that one needs to wonder what may cause the outlook to turn for the better. Thankfully, green shoots are emerging. To begin with, central banks around the world have taken a more dovish slant. This dovish forward guidance is nurturing global activity via a significant easing in global financial conditions, which is undoing the severe brake-pumping imposed on global growth in the fourth quarter of 2018 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Global Financial Conditions Are Easing This more dovish forward guidance has helped our Financial Liquidity Index, which sharply deteriorated through 2009, rebound. Historically, this presages an improvement in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (Chart I-9). Improving liquidity conditions have already been reflected in lower real rates around the globe, creating a reflationary impulse. EM financial conditions are responding positively, pointing to an upcoming pick-up in industrial activity, as measured by our Global Nowcast (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Improving Global Liquidity Backdrop Chart I-10A Tailwind From EM? Our Global LEI diffusion Index has begun to reflect some of these developments. After forming a trough in 2018, more than 50% of the countries in our Global LEI are currently experiencing a sequential improvement in their LEIs. We are now entering the normal lag after which a broadening growth impulse converts into aggregate activity moving higher (Chart I-11). Most interestingly, investors do not seem to be anticipating such a rebound. There is therefore room for growth surprises around the world. Chart I-11Scope For Growth Surprises China has a role to play in this story, will likely morph from a headwind to global growth to a positive. Positive may be a strong word, but at the very least, we expect China to stop detracting from global growth. Premier Li-Keqiang recently put the accent on stability and preserving employment, suggesting Chinese policymakers are likely to de-emphasize deleveraging over the coming 12-18 months. For Chinese growth to improve, deleveraging does not even have to stop. As both theory and history have shown, a slower pace of deleveraging means that the credit impulse moves back into positive territory and growth re-accelerates, even if only temporarily (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Growth Can Improve Even If Deleveraging Continues As a thought experiment, if Chinese leverage were to stabilize this year and nominal growth were to hit 8% – the lower bound of the real GDP target of 6-6.5% and inflation of 2% – the Chinese credit impulse would surge to more than 10% of GDP (Chart I-13)! We are not forecasting such a large rebound in the impulse, but this exercise clearly shows that if the Chinese authorities – who are cutting taxes and trying to ease credit conditions for small- and medium-sized enterprises – want to favor stability and employment for just one year, the impact on growth will be non-negligible, even if deleveraging continues. Since domestic demand responds to the credit impulse, and imports sport an elevated beta to domestic demand, Chinese imports are likely to soon morph from a negative to something more neutral – maybe even a small positive for the rest of the world. Chart I-13A Thought Experiment Finally, as weak as Europe is right now, it will likely be an important source of positive surprises in the second half of the year. To begin with, Europe is much more sensitive to EM growth conditions than the U.S. (Chart I-14). In the same way as Europe felt the full force of the deceleration in global trade last year, it will benefit from any improvement in trade this year. A myriad of idiosyncratic shocks rammed through the euro area last year, worsening an already difficult situation. The new WLTP emission standards caused German auto production to collapse by nearly 20%. Nonetheless, as contracting domestic manufacturing orders and a large inventory pullback in the final quarter of last year suggest, the inventory overhang has been worked off (Chart I-15, top panel). Chart I-15Passing European Idiosyncratic Shocks Just as critically, Italy’s technical recession should end soon. The country’s economic malaise reflected the tightening in financial conditions that followed the violent battle between Rome and Brussels early last year. Ultimately, Rome folded: The budget deficit is 2.3% of GDP, not above 6%, and threats of leaving the union have been abandoned. Consequently, financial conditions are easing. Italian bond auctions are massively oversubscribed this year, and rising bond prices are supporting the solvency of the Italian banking system. The last hurdle affecting Europe was the fact that funding stress in the Italian and Spanish banking systems have been directly addressed by the TLTRO-III announced three weeks ago by the European Central Bank. Spanish and Italian banks have to refinance EUR 425 billion of TLTRO-II this June, in a year where a sizeable amounts of European bank bonds also needs to be refinanced. This is simply too much. With the ECB again bankrolling Italian and Spanish financial institutions, funding stress in the periphery can decline. Consequently, the European credit impulse, which had formed a valley in 2018 Q1, can continue its ascent (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Investors expect little from the global economy outside the U.S., yet easing liquidity and financial conditions, a temporary shift in Chinese policy preferences and passing idiosyncratic shocks in Europe all point to improvement in global economic activity. U.S. Inflation Expectations Will Allow The Fed To Resume Rate Hikes Above-potential growth in the U.S. and rebounding economic activity in the rest of the world are consistent with higher – not lower – U.S. inflation. First, rebounding global growth is normally associated with a weakening dollar (Chart I-16). This time will not be different, especially as U.S. equity valuations relative to global stocks suggest that investors are particularly pessimistic on non-U.S. growth. A weaker dollar will lift import prices, commodity prices, and goods prices, helping inflation move higher. Chart I-16The USD Is Counter-Cyclical Second, the change in the velocity of the money of zero maturity in the U.S. is consistent with a further strengthening in core inflation (Chart I-17). Chart I-17The Fisher Equations Points To Gently Rising Inflation Third, above-trend U.S. growth in the context of elevated capacity utilization is also consistent with rising inflation (Chart I-18). Chart I-18Elevated U.S. Capacity Utilization If these three forces can cause core PCE inflation to move slightly above 2% in the second half of 2019, this will likely result in inflation expectations firming. Moreover, the combination of positive growth surprises around the world and easy monetary and liquidity conditions will prove supportive of asset prices globally, implying further easing in global and U.S. financial conditions. This set of circumstances will allow the Fed to shift its tone toward the end of 2019, in order to crystalize additional hikes in 2020. Additionally, we estimate the U.S. terminal policy rate to be around 3.25%. In fact, a longer-than-originally-anticipated Fed pause reinforces confidence in this assessment, even if it means that it will take longer to reach the terminal level than we previously thought. Bottom Line: Our growth outlook is consistent with robust inflation and improving inflation expectations. This means we disagree with interest rate markets and anticipate the Fed will resume its hiking campaign instead of cutting rates next year. Moreover, easier-for-longer policy also strengthens our view that the fed funds rate can end this cycle near 3.25%. Stay Positive On Risk Assets For Now… Most bear markets are linked to recessions. It follows that if the U.S. business cycle can be extended and the Fed remains on the easy side of neutral for longer, then the S&P 500 has more upside (Chart I-19). So do global equities. Chart I-19Low Bear-Market Risk This view is reinforced by the fact that buy-side analysts and investors alike have aggressively curtailed their expectations for EPS growth this year, to 3.9% for the U.S. and 4.9% outside the U.S. Yet, our profit model suggests that U.S. EPS growth is likely to come in at around 8.1% this year. Earnings revisions are pro-cyclical. Hence, our expectation that the BCA global Leading Economic Indicator meaningfully revives in the second half of 2019 points toward analysts having ample room to revise global earnings higher in the second half of the year (Chart I-20). Chart I-20Global Profit Margins Will Improve If Growth Rebounds Moreover, global valuations experienced a reset last year. Despite a rebound, the forward P/E ratio for the MSCI All-Country World Index remains in line with 2014 levels, 12.5% lower than at their apex last year. When looking at the U.S., our composite valuation index has also improved meaningfully (Chart I-21). This improvement in valuations increases the probability that a bottom in global growth will lift stock prices. Chart I-21Large Improvement In The Equity / Risk Reward Ratio Our Monetary Indicator further reinforces this message. After being a headwind for stocks over the past eight quarters, now that the Fed has paused and is essentially guaranteeing low real rates for an extended period, this gauge is growing more supportive of further equity price gains (Chart I-22). Chart I-22Stock-Friendly Monetary Backdrop A below-benchmark duration exposure for fixed-income portfolio still makes sense, even if the Fed has prolonged its pause. As per our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s “Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing,” if the Fed increases rates more than the market has priced in 12 months prior, Treasurys underperform cash (Chart I-23). Even if the Fed does nothing this year, it will still be more than the OIS curve is currently pricing in. Moreover, the dollar is likely to soften and the Fed is increasingly taking the risk of falling behind the realized inflation curve. This should create upside not only for inflation breakevens but also for term premia, which are depressed everywhere across the G-10. The yield curve should modestly steepen in this environment. It may take a bit more time than we originally expected, but safe-haven bond yields are trending higher, not lower. Chart I-23The Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing Spread products are also likely to continue to do well. Easy monetary policy, a soft U.S. dollar, an ongoing U.S. business expansion, an upcoming rebound in global growth and rising asset values all point toward a delay of the inevitable wave of defaults. Corporate bonds may offer poor value and credit quality has deteriorated, but an end to the business cycle and a tighter Fed will be key to catalyzing these poor fundamentals. We are not there yet. The Brexit saga continues to have the potential to unsettle markets. Nonetheless, we would fade any broad market sell-off linked to poor British headlines. As Marko Papic writes in this month's Special Report, despite continued political uncertainty in Westminster this year, the risk of a no-deal Brexit is dwindling by the minute, and political logic suggests that there is a high probability that the U.K. will ultimately remain in the EU in two to three years. Bottom Line: After the reset in valuations and earning expectations last year, markets should continue their ascent. The Fed has showed that its “put” is alive and well. This will both favor risk-taking and extend the duration of the business cycle. If global growth can rebound in the second quarter, it will create fertile ground for strong asset prices over the bulk of 2019. Treasury yields will also exhibit upside, even if achieving these higher rates will take more time now. … But Beware What Lurks Below The benign outlook for this year masks that the rally in risk assets is living on borrowed time. A Fed willingly falling behind the curve may fan speculative flames this year, but it doesn’t mean that policy will stay easy forever. On the contrary, the inevitable rise in inflation will push rates higher down the road and the unavoidable recession will ultimately materialize, most likely somewhere around 2021. Since asset valuations will only grow more inflated between now and then, a bigger fall will ultimately ensue. Our Composite Valuation Indicator may currently be flashing a positive signal, but dynamics within its components already point to brewing trouble down the road (Chart I-24). First, the balance sheet group of indicators has showed no improvement. In other words, without last year’s rebound in profitability, stocks would not be as attractively valued as the overall indicator suggests. Chart I-24Disconcerting Internal Dynamics Second, the interest rate group is currently flattering aggregate valuations. To remain supportive of higher returns ahead, this group depends on interest rates staying constrained. Here, the Fed will play a particularly perverse role. Its willingness to tolerate inflationary pressures right now means lower rates today at the price of a higher cost of capital tomorrow. Once it becomes obvious that the Fed is falling behind the curve – something more likely to happen once inflation expectations normalize – safe-haven yields will rise sharply. The interest rate group will suddenly look a lot less supportive than it does today. Third, the profit components of our valuation indicator may look healthy today, but this will not remain the case. At 31.7%, EBITD margins are currently extraordinary elevated. In fact, if the profit margins were to normalize to their historical average, the Shiller P/E would skyrocket to 40.3 from 29.9 today, implying the stock market may be just as expensive as it was at the start of 2000. For margins to remain wide, wages will have to stay depressed relative to selling prices (Chart I-25). However, the combination of an economy at full employment and the Fed goosing economic growth points to rising wages. Since the pass-through from wages to prices is below 100%, unless productivity rises more than labor costs, profitability will suffer and P/E ratios will start sending the same message as the price-to-sales ratio, a multiple that currently stands near record highs. Chart I-25Rising Wages Will Ultimately Hurt Profits Valuations are not the only danger lurking for stocks: Spread products will morph from a tailwind to a headwind for equities. Whether or not it steepens a bit this year, the yield curve’s previous big flattening already points toward rising financial market volatility (Chart I-26). The Fed’s recent dovish tilt can keep the VIX and the MOVE compressed for a while longer. However, since inflation expectations will ultimately move higher, likely within a year or so, the Fed will once again tilt to the hawkish side, and volatility will follow its path of least resistance higher. Carry trades of all kinds will suffer, and spreads will widen. The deteriorating credit quality this cycle, with BBB and lower-rated issues constituting 60.1% of the corporate universe, could make this widening more violent than normal. This phenomenon will hurt stocks. Chart I-26Volatility Is A Coiled Spring Finally, the improvement in global growth this year is likely to prove temporary. China may want to slow the pace of deleveraging this year, but pushing debt loads lower and reforming the economy remains Beijing’s number one priority on a multi-year horizon. China has created USD 26 trillion worth of yuan since 2008, making the Chinese money supply larger than the euro area’s and the U.S.’s together. As a result, China’s incremental output-to-capital ratio continues to trend lower, implying large misallocation of capital (Chart I-27). State-owned enterprises, the recipients of much of the credit created over the past 10 years, now generate lower RoAs than their cost of borrowing, an unmistakable sign of poorly allocated funds. Chart I-27The Biggest Threat To China's Long-Term Prosperity Correcting this structural impediment will require the Chinese credit impulse to once again move back into negative territory. This means that unless Chinese policymakers abandon their efforts to prise the country off easy credit, Chinese growth will morph back into a headwind for the world somewhere in 2020, i.e. not so late as to encourage excesses, but not so early as to sharply slow the economy ahead of the Communist Party’s one-hundredth birthday in July 2021. In 2018, the global economy nearly ground to a halt after China had shifted from stimulus to policy tightening. The next time around, we doubt that a global recession will be avoided. The second half of 2020 may set up to be one tumultuous period. Bottom Line: In all likelihood, global risk assets should perform well this year, but we are living on borrowed time. In the background, equity valuations are deteriorating meaningfully, a phenomenon that will worsen once the Fed’s desired outcome comes to fruition: higher inflation. Wage pressures and higher interest rates will reveal how fully rotten stock valuations genuinely are. Compounding this effect, higher volatility and a resumption of China’s deleveraging efforts will likely achieve the coup de grace for stocks in the second half of 2020. Conclusion The FOMC wants to lift inflation expectations in order to defuse any lingering deflationary risk. Consequently, the Fed’s pause will last longer than we originally anticipated, but terminal rates are likely to climb higher than would have otherwise been the case. Before last week’s Fed meeting, the U.S. was already set to grow above trend. Now, the Fed will only extend the business cycle further, fanning greater inflationary pressures in the process. This potentially misguided reflationary impulse, which is echoed around the world, will contribute to a rebound in global growth that will become fully evident by the summer. Consequently, we expect risk assets to climb to new highs over the coming 12 months. Treasurys will likely underperform cash over that timeframe, as interest rate markets are currently too sanguine. Investors are facing a real dilemma. On one hand, the potential for elevated stock market returns is high over the coming 12 months. On the other, poor valuations will only grow more onerous, and the Fed will ultimately have to tighten policy even more following the on-hold period. Moreover, Chinese policymakers are unlikely to ignore the pressing danger created by misallocating capital for an extended period of time. Consequently, the outlook for long-term returns is deteriorating. As a result, we recommend more tactically minded investors to stay long stocks, with a growing preference for international equities that are both cheaper and more exposed to global growth than U.S. ones. However, longer-term asset allocators should use this period of strength to progressively move out of stocks and into safer alternatives. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 28, 2019 Next Report: April 25, 2019   II. The State Of Brexit So What? It makes sense for long-term investors to buy the GBP. However, short-term investors should instead buy the 2-year call while selling 3-month ones. Why? The U.K. electorate is not staunchly Euroskeptic. In fact, Bregret has already set in. Volatility is the only sure bet over the tactical and strategic time horizons. The most likely scenario is that Theresa May either resigns and is replaced by a soft-Brexit Tory, or that she agrees to a long-term extension to give the U.K. time to call a new election. Brexit is unsustainable over the secular time horizon. Our low-conviction view is that in the long term, the U.K. will remain inside the European Union. The hour is late in the ongoing Brexit saga. The original deadline, once spoken of with religious reverence, will be tossed aside for one, potentially two, extensions. In this analysis, we attempt to consider the state of Brexit from multiple time horizons. First, we offer our tactical view, what will happen in the next several weeks and months. Second, we offer our strategic view, surveying the Brexit process to the end of the year. Third, we consider the secular view and attempt to answer the question of whether the U.K. will ever fully exit the EU. We then assign investment recommendations across the three time horizons. How Did We Get Here? In March 2016, three months ahead of the fateful June referendum, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy published a joint report on the topic that drew three conclusions: The probability of Brexit was understated by the market. “According to our modeling results, roughly 64% of Tory undecided voters would have to swing to the “Stay” camp in order to ensure that the vote crosses the 50% threshold in favour of continued EU membership … Conventional wisdom suggests that the probability of Brexit is around 30%, anchoring to the 1975 referendum results. Our own analysis of current polling data suggests that it is much closer to 50%, as in too close to call.” The biggest loser of Brexit, domestically, would be the Conservative Party. “The risk is that the British populace realizes that leaving the EU was a sub-optimal result and that little sovereignty was recovered. As such, there could be a backlash against the Tories in the next general election. In this scenario, the winner would not necessarily be UKIP, but rather the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party – as close to the Michael Foot-led opposition in the early 1980s as any Labour Leadership.” The EU would survive, intact, with no further “exits.” “European integration is therefore a gambit for relevance by Europe’s declining powers. Brexit will not create centrifugal forces that tear the EU apart, and could in fact enhance the sinews that bind EU member states in a bid for 21st century geopolitical relevance.” Thus far, all three predictions have proven prescient. Not only was the probability of Brexit understated, but the electorate actually voted to exit the EU.1 The Conservative Party has wrapped itself into an intellectual pretzel trying to deliver on a referendum that the pro-Brexit Tories – a minority in the party – promised would not mean losing access to the Common Market. And the EU has not only seen no other “exits,” but has held firm and united in the negotiations with the U.K. while witnessing an increase in the support for its troubled currency union, both in the Euro Area in aggregate as well as in crisis-ridden Italy (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Euro Area Stands Unified The net assessment we conducted in 2016 correctly gauged what the Brexit referendum was about and what it was not about. Our view was that behind the angst lay factors too general to be laid at the feet of European integration. Decades of supply-side reforms combined with competition from emerging economies led to a sharp rise in U.K. income inequality (Chart II-2), the erosion of its manufacturing economy (Chart II-3), and the ballooning of the country’s financial sector (Chart II-4). As a result, the U.K.’s income inequality and social mobility were, in 2016 as today, much closer to those of its Anglo-Saxon peer America than to those of its continental European neighbors (Chart II-5). Chart II-2Brits Saw Inequality Surge Chart II-3Manufacturing Jobs Collapsed Chart II-4The Financial Bubble Burst The underlying economic angst has continued to influence British politics since Brexit. Campaigning on an anti-austerity platform in the summer of 2017, the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn nearly won the general election, only underperforming the Conservative vote by 2% (Chart II-6). The election was supposed to politically recapitalize Theresa May and allow her to lead the U.K. out of the EU. But the failure to secure a single-party majority created the political math in the House of Commons that is today preventing the prime minister from executing on Brexit. There are simply not enough committed Brexiters in Westminster to deliver on the relatively hard Brexit – no access to the EU Common Market or customs union – that Prime Minister May has put on offer (Chart II-7). The decision not to pursue a customs union arrangement with the EU is particularly disastrous. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi – Chief Strategist of BCA’s European Investment Strategy – has pointed out, remaining in the customs union would have protected the cross-border supply chains that are vital to many U.K. businesses and would have avoided a hard customs border on the island of Ireland.2 However, the slim margin of the Tory victory in 2017 has boosted the influence of the 20-to-40 hard-Brexiters in the party. They pushed Theresa May to the extreme, where a customs union arrangement – let alone access to the Common Market – became politically unpalatable. Had the British electorate genuinely wanted “Brexit über alles,” or the relatively hard Brexit on offer today, the margin of victory for Leave would have been greater. Furthermore, the electorate would not have come so close to giving the far-left Corbyn – who nonetheless supports the softest-of-soft Brexits – a majority in mid-2017. The slim margin of victory effectively tied May’s hands in her subsequent negotiations with both the EU and her own party. But there was more to the 2016 referendum than just general malaise centered on the economy and inequality. There were idiosyncratic events that provided tailwinds for the Leave campaign. Or, as we put it in 2016: Certainly, a number of ills have befallen the continent in quick succession: the euro area sovereign debt crisis, Russian military intervention in Ukraine, rampant migrant inflows from Africa and the Middle East, and terrorist attacks in France. It is no surprise that the U.K. populace wants to think twice about tying itself even more closely to a Europe apparently on the run from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The two issues we would particularly focus on were the migrant crisis and terrorist attacks in Europe. Data ahead of the referendum clearly gave credence to the view that the influx of migrants was raising “concerns about immigration and race.” This angst was primarily focused on EU migrants who came to the U.K. legally (Chart II-8), but the influx of millions of migrants into the EU in 2015 – peaking at 172,000 in the month of October – certainly bolstered the anxiety in the U.K. (Chart II-9).3 Chart II-8EU Migrants A Source Of Anxiety In 2016 Chart II-9The Refugee Crisis Boosted Brexit Vote Terrorism was another concern. In the 18 months preceding the referendum, continental Europe experienced 13 deadly terror attacks. Two were particularly egregious: the November 2015 Paris terror attack that led to 130 deaths, and the March 2016 Brussels terror attack that led to 32 deaths. Both the migration and terror crises, however, were temporary and caused by idiosyncratic variables with short half-lives. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy argued that both would eventually abate. The migration crisis would subside due to firming European attitudes towards asylum seekers and the exhaustion of the supply of migrants as the Syrian Civil War drew to its tragic close. The extremist Islamic terror attacks would dwindle due to the decrease in the marginal utility of terror that has been observed in previous waves of terrorism (Chart II-10). Neither forecast was popular with our client base, but both have been spot on. Chart II-10Fewer Attacks Due To Declining Marginal Utility Of Terror The point is that the British electorate was never as Euroskeptic as the Euroskeptics cheering on Brexit thought. Support for EU integration has waxed and waned for decades (Chart II-11). Instead, a combination of macro-malaise caused by the general plight of the middle class – the same factors that have given tailwinds to populist policymakers across developed markets – and idiosyncratic crises in the middle of this decade created the context in which the public voted to leave the EU. Whatever the vote was for, we can say with a high degree of certainty that it was not in favor of the current deal on offer, a relatively hard Brexit. After all, the pro-Leave Tories almost universally campaigned in favor of remaining in the Common Market post-Brexit.4 Chart II-11Data Does Not Support Euroskeptic U.K. Today, Bregret has clearly set in. Not only on the specific issue of whether the U.K. should leave the EU – where the gap between Bremorseful voters and committed Brexiters is now 8% (Chart II-12), a 12% swing since just after the referendum – but also on the more existential question of whether U.K. citizens feel European (Chart II-13). Chart II-12Bregret Has Set In... Chart II-13...And Brits Feeling More European The political reality of Bregret is the most important variable in predicting Brexit. Not only is it difficult for Prime Minister May to deliver her relatively hard Brexit in Westminster due to the mid-2017 electoral math, but it is especially the case when the electorate does not want it. Yes, the mid-2016 referendum is an expression of a democratic will that must be respected. But no policymaker wants to respect the referendum at the cost of disrespecting the current disposition of the median voter, which is revealed through polls. Doing so will cost them in the next election. Reviewing “how we got here” is essential in forecasting the tactical, strategic, and secular time horizons in the ongoing Brexit imbroglio. To this task we now turn. Bottom Line: The U.K. electorate is not staunchly Euroskeptic: data clearly support this fact. The Brexit referendum simply came at the right time for the Leave vote, as the secular forces of middle-class discontent combined with idiosyncratic crises of migration and terror. Three years following the referendum, the discontent remains unaddressed by British policymakers while the idiosyncratic crises have abated. As such, Bregret has set in, creating a new reality that U.K. policymakers must respond to if they want to retain political capital. Where Are We Going? The Tactical And Strategic Time Horizons The EU has offered a two-step delay to the Article 50 deadline of March 29. The first option is a delay until May 22, but only if Theresa May successfully passes her Brexit plan through Westminster. The second option is a delay until April 12. This would come in effect if the House of Commons rejects the deal on offer. The short time frame is supposed to pressure London to come up with the next steps, which the EU has inferred would either be to get out of the bloc without a deal or to plan for a long-term extension. Although there are no official conditions to awarding a long-term extension, it is clear that the EU only envisages three options: Renegotiate the terms of Brexit, to include either a customs union or full Common Market membership (a softer Brexit); Hold a general election to break the impasse; Hold another referendum. The EU is suggesting that it could deny the U.K. an extension if London does not come back with a plan. There are two reasons why we would call the EU’s bluff. First, it is likely an attempt to help May get the deal through the House of Commons by creating a sense of urgency. Second, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in December 2018 that the U.K. could “revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing.”5 The only requirement is that the notification be sent to Brussels prior to March 29 (or, in the case of a mutually agreed upon extension, prior to April 12). It is increasingly likely that, after the deal on offer fails, Theresa May will have to go “hat-in-hand” to the EU to ask for a much longer extension. She will have until April 12 to ask for that extension, but it would require participation in the European Parliamentary (EP) elections on May 23. Prime Minister May has said that the U.K. will not hold those elections. We beg to differ. Not holding the election would allow the EU to end the U.K.’s membership in the bloc, which would by default mean contravening the Parliament’s will to reject a no-deal Brexit (which it did in a rebuke to the government in March). As such, the U.K. will absolutely hold an EP election in May. Yes, it will be a huge embarrassment to the Conservative government. And we would venture that the election would turn out a huge pro-EU majority from the U.K., given that it is the Europhile side of the aisle that is now excited and activated, further embarrassing the ruling government. The most likely scenario, therefore, is that Theresa May either resigns and is replaced by a soft-Brexit Tory, or that she agrees to a long-term extension to give the U.K. time to call a new election. As we have been arguing throughout the year, the only way to break the impasse without calling a referendum – is to call a new election. A new election would be contested almost exclusively on the issue of Brexit – unlike the 2017 election, which Jeremy Corbyn managed to be almost exclusively contested on the issue of austerity. As such, the winner would have a clear political mandate to pursue the Brexit of their choice. If it is Jeremy Corbyn, this would mean a second referendum, given his recent conversion to supporting one. If Theresa May remains prime minister, it would be her relatively hard Brexit option; if another Tory replaces her, it would potentially be a softer Brexit. Intriguingly, Theresa May is coming up to the average “expiry date” of a “takeover” prime minister, which is 3.3 years (Chart II-14). Why do we think that Theresa May would be replaced with a soft Brexit Tory? Because there are simply not enough members of parliament in the Conservative Party caucus to elect a hard Brexiteer. Furthermore, the current deal on offer, which is a form of hard Brexit, clearly has no chance of passing in the House of Commons. Theresa May herself did not support the Leave campaign, but she converted into a hard Brexiteer due to the pressures in the Conservative Party caucus. If, on the other hand, we are wrong and the Conservative Party elects a hard Brexit Tory as leader, the odds of losing the election to the Labour Party would increase. Furthermore, the impasse in the House of Commons would not be resolved as Theresa May would be replaced by a prime minister with essentially the same approach to Brexit. Confused? You are not alone. Diagram II-1 illustrates the complexity of the tactical (0-3 months) and strategic (3-12 months) time horizons. There are so many options over the next six months alone that we ran out of space in our diagram to consider the consequences of the general election. Needless to say, an election would induce volatility in the market as it would put Jeremy Corbyn close to the premiership. While he has now promised a second referendum, his government would also implement policies that could, especially in the short term, agitate the markets. Our forecasts of the currency moves alone suggest that volatility is the only sure bet over tactical and strategic time horizons. We do not have a high-conviction view on a directional call on the pound or U.K. equities. However, global growth concerns, combined with political uncertainty, should create a bond-bullish environment. Bottom Line: Over the course of the year, political uncertainty will remain high in the United Kingdom. A general election is the clearest path to breaking the current deadlock. However, it is not guaranteed, as Labour’s recent decline in the polls appears to be reversing since Jeremy Corbyn finally succumbed to the demands that he support a new referendum (Chart II-15). Chart II-15Labour Party Revives On Referendum Support The Secular Horizon BCA Geopolitical Strategy believes that the median voter is the price maker in the political market place. Politicians are merely price takers. This is why Theresa May’s notion that the sanctity of the 2016 referendum cannot be abrogated is doubly false. First, she cannot truly claim from the slim 52%-48% result that U.K. voters want her form of Brexit. The referendum therefore may be a sacred expression of the democratic will, but her “no customs union” Brexit option is not holy water: It is an educated guess at best, pandering to hard Brexit Tories (a minority of the electorate) at worst. Given that 48% of the electorate wanted to remain in the EU and that a large portion of Brexit voters wanted a Common Market membership as part of Brexit, it is mathematically obvious that the softest of soft Brexit options was the desire of the median voter in June 2016. Furthermore, polling data (presented in Chart II-12 and Chart II-13 on page 28) now clearly show that the median voter is migrating away from even the softest of soft Brexit options to the “Stay” camp. Bregret has set in and a strong plurality of voters no longer supports Brexit. The question behind Chart II-12 is unambiguous. It clearly asks, “In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?” What does all of this infer for the long term, or secular, horizon? First, an election this year could usher in a Labour government that delivers a new referendum. At this time, given the polling data and the geopolitical context, sans terror and migration crises, we would expect such a referendum to lead to a win for the Stay camp. Second, an election that produces a soft Brexit prime minister or negotiated outcome would allow the U.K. to leave the EU in an orderly fashion. A new Tory prime minister, pursuing a soft Brexit outcome, could even entice some Labour MPs to cross the aisle and support such an exit from the bloc. However, over a secular time horizon of the next two-to-three years, we doubt that a soft Brexit outcome would be viable. Investors have to realize that the vote on leaving the EU does not conclude the U.K. long-term deal with the bloc. That negotiating phase will last during the transition phase, over the next two-to-three years, and would conclude in yet another Westminster vote – and likely crisis – at the end of the period. If this deal entails membership in the Common Market, our low- conviction view over the long term is that it will ultimately fail. Take the financial community’s preferred soft Brexit option, the so-called super soft “Norway Plus” option. A Norway Plus option would entail the highest loss of sovereignty imaginable, given that the U.K. would essentially pay full EU membership fees with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. There is also a debate as to whether London would be able to constrict immigration from the EU under that option over the long term, a key demand of Brexiters.6 As such, the only viable option would be to switch to a customs union relationship. However, we fear that even this option may no longer be available to U.K. policymakers. Conservative Party leaders have wasted too much time and lost too much of the public’s good will. With only 40% of the electorate now considering Brexit the correct decision, it is possible that even a customs union arrangement will be unacceptable by the end of the transition period. Aside from the electorate’s growing Bregret, there is also the economic logic – or lack thereof – behind a customs union. A customs union would ensure the unfettered transit of goods between the U.K. and the continent, but not of services. This arrangement greatly favors the EU, not the U.K., as the latter has a wide (and growing) deficit in goods and an expanding surplus in services with the bloc (Chart II-16). Chart II-16Services Are Key For The U.K. The only logic behind selecting a customs union over the Common Market is that a customs union would allow the U.K. to conclude separate trade deals with the rest of the world. While that may be a fantasy of the few remaining laissez-faire free traders in the U.K. Conservative Party, the view hardly represents the desire of the median voter. Other than a potential trade deal with the U.S., it is practically inconceivable to expect the U.K. electorate to support a free trade agreement with China or India, both of which would likely entail an even greater loss of blue-collar jobs. Even a trade deal with the U.S. would likely face political opposition, given that the U.K. is highly unlikely to be given preferential treatment by an economy seven times its size.7 The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party has wasted its window of opportunity to push a hard, or moderately hard (customs union), Brexit through Parliament. Bregret has set in, as the doyens of Brexit increasingly pursued an unpopular strategy. On the other hand, a Brexit that retains the U.K. membership in the Common Market has never had much logic to begin with. Where does this leave the U.K. in the long term? Given the time horizon and the uncertainty on multiple fronts, our low-conviction view is that it leaves the U.K. inside the European Union. Bottom Line: The combination of increasing Bregret, lack of economic logic behind a customs union membership alone, and the lack of a political logic behind a Common Market membership, suggests that Brexit is unsustainable over the secular time horizon. This imperils the ultimate deal between the U.K. and the EU, which we think will not be able to pass the House of Commons in two-to-three years when it comes up for approval. This is a low-conviction view, however, as political realities can change. Support for Brexit could turn due to exogenous factors, such as a global recession that renews the Euro Area economic imbroglio or a major geopolitical crisis. Both are quite likely over the secular time horizon. Investment Implications Today, cable is cheap, trading at an 18% discount to its long-term fair value as implied by purchasing-power parity models (Chart II-17). The growing probability that the U.K. may, down the road, remain in the European Union means that, at current levels the pound is indeed attractive, especially against the U.S. dollar. Chart II-17Cable Attractive On Higher Odds Of Bremain However, when it comes to short-term dynamics, the picture is much murkier. The low probability of a no-deal Brexit implies limited downside. However, the path to get the U.K. to abandon the current relatively hard Brexit is also one that involves a new election. This implies that before a resolution is reached, multiple scenarios are possible, including one where Corbyn becomes the next prime minister. Jeremy Corbyn could be the most left-of center leader of any G-10 nation since Francois Mitterrand in France in the early 1980s. Mitterrand’s audacious nationalization and left-leaning policies were met with a collapse in the French franc (Chart II-18). Chart II-18A Left-Wing Leader Bodes Ill For The Currency Global growth also has an impact on cable. Despite all the noise around Brexit, the reality remains that exports constitute 30% of U.K. GDP, a larger contribution to output than in the euro area. This means that if global growth deteriorates, GBP/USD will face another headwind. If, however, global growth improves, then cable would face a new tailwind. Since BCA is of the view that global growth will likely trough by the summer, we are inclined to be positive on the pound. Netting out all those factors, it makes sense for long-term investors to buy the GBP, using the dips along the way to build a larger position in this currency. Even on a six-to-twelve-month basis, the path of least resistance for cable is likely upward. The problem is that risk-adjusted returns are likely to be poor as volatility will remain very elevated. We therefore recommend that short-term investors instead buy the 2-year call while selling 3-month ones (Chart II-19). Chart II-19Volatility Will Be A Challenge For Short Term Investors Marko Papic Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equities have had a volatile month of March, something that was bound to happen after the violent rally witnessed from the end of December to the end of February. When a rally is being tested, it always make sense to review our indicators to gauge whether or not a trend change is in the offing. Generally, our indicators remain broadly positive. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S. and the euro area continue to improve. Meanwhile, it has begun to hook back up in Japan. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The current readings in major advanced economies thus suggest that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) has however once again deteriorated, suggesting that the period of churn in global equities prices could last a bit longer. This indicator is essentially saying that in order to resume their ascent, stocks need a bit more time to digest their previous surge. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. According to BCA’s Composite Valuation Indicator, an amalgamation of 11 measures, the U.S. stock market remains slightly overvalued from a long-term perspective. Nonetheless, despite this year’s rally, the S&P 500 offers a much more attractive risk/reward profile than it did in the fall. Moreover, our Monetary Indicator has shifted out of negative territory for stocks, and is now decisively in stimulative territory. The Fed’s dovish forward guidance last week only reinforces the message from this indicator. Our Composite Technical Indicator for stocks had broken down in December, but it is finally flashing a buy signal. This further confirms that the current period of churn is most likely to ultimately make way for a continued rally in the S&P 500. The 10-year Treasury yield remains within its neutral range according to our valuation model. Moreover, our technical indicator flags a similar picture. This means that without signs of improvements in global growth, price action alone will not be enough to lift bond yields higher. That being said, since BCA expects that over the next 24 months, the Fed will lift rates more than the OIS curve anticipates, and since the term premium is incredibly low, once green shoots for global growth become evident, bonds could suffer a violent selloff. The U.S. dollar is still very expensive on a PPP basis. Our Composite Technical Indicator is not as overbought as it once was, but it is far from having reached oversold levels either. This combination suggests that the greenback could experience further downside this year. However, for this downside to materialize, global growth will first have to stabilize. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       At the time of publication of our March report, we still had a low-conviction view that the vote would swing towards Stay at the last moment. 2       Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Important Message From The Currency Markets,” dated March 14, 2019, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3       Trying to play up the threat of unchecked migration, the U.K. Independence Party ran a famous campaign poster showing hundreds of refugees on a road under the title of “Breaking Point – The EU has failed us all.” Despite the fact that the U.K. accepted only around 10,000 Syrian refugees since the 2015 crisis. Germany has accepted over 700,000 while Canada – which is located across the Atlantic Ocean on a different continent – accepted over 40,000. Even the impoverished Serbia has accepted more Syrian refugees than the U.K. 4       One of the most prominent Leave supporters, Boris Johnson, famously quipped after the referendum result that “There will continue to be free trade and access to the single market.” 5       Please see The European Court of Justice, “Judgement Of The Court,” In Case C-621/18, dated December 10, 2018, available at curia.europa.eu. 6       Proponents of the Norway Plus option point out that Article 112(1) of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement allows for restriction of movement of people within the area. However, these restrictions are intended to be used in times of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties.” It certainly appears to be an option for London to restrict EU migration, but it is not clear whether Europe would agree for this to be a permanent solution. Liechtenstein has been using Article 112 to impose quantitative limitations on immigration for decades, but that is because its tiny geographical area is recognized as a “specific situation” that justifies such restrictions. 7       President Donald Trump may want to give the U.K. preferential trade terms on the basis of the filial Anglo-Saxon relationship alone, but it is highly unlikely that the increasingly protectionist Congress would do the same. There is also no guarantee that President Trump will be around to bring such trade negotiations across the finish line. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Duration: None of the economic indicators that have reliably signaled peak interest rates in prior cycles are sending a signal at the moment. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that further Fed rate hikes are likely at some point before the end of the cycle. With the Fed now projecting an essentially flat path for interest rates, the next surprise from the Federal Reserve will probably be a hawkish one. Fed: The Fed is currently waging a war on two fronts. It wants to keep interest rates low enough to send inflation expectations higher, back to levels consistent with its 2% target. But it also wants to avoid excessively easy financial conditions that could threaten the sustainability of the economic recovery. We expect that easier financial conditions will cause the Fed to shift back toward a tightening bias near the end of this year. Yield Curve: Inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is cause for concern, if it persists. But we expect it to reverse in the coming months as global growth recovers and the Fed remains accommodative. Eventually, after financial conditions have eased sufficiently, the Fed’s next move will be a hawkish surprise. Investors can profit from this move by entering positive carry yield curve trades: short the 5-year or 7-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell. Feature The Last Dovish Surprise Or The Beginning Of The End? Treasury yields moved sharply lower following last week’s Fed meeting, as FOMC participants made larger-than-anticipated downward revisions to their interest rate projections. As of last December, 11 out of 17 Fed members expected to lift rates at least twice in 2019. Now, 11 out of 17 expect to keep rates flat (Chart 1). Chart 1Fed Sees No Hikes This Year Judging from the bond market’s reaction, the Fed clearly managed to deliver a dovish surprise at last week’s meeting. Now, the relevant question for investors becomes whether that dovish surprise can be repeated. With the Fed signaling an essentially flat path for interest rates, a dovish surprise from these levels would involve the suggestion of rate cuts. History tells us that rate cuts are only likely to occur if the economy is headed into recession, an event that still seems relatively far off. As such, we expect that the next surprise from the Fed will be a hawkish one, and that the next large move in Treasury yields will be higher. Our conviction that the economy is not yet close to recession comes from our analysis of economic markers that have reliably signaled peak interest rates in past cycles.1 For example, one such marker is when year-over-year nominal GDP growth falls below the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 2). At present, year-over-year nominal GDP growth is running at 5.3%. That growth rate is bound to slow during the next few quarters, but it would need to slow a lot before it falls below the current 10-year Treasury yield of 2.40%. Chart 2GDP Growth Suggests That Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast projects that real GDP growth will be 1.29% in the first quarter. Incorporating 2% inflation, that is roughly 3.3% in nominal terms. If Q1 turns out to be the trough in growth for the year, it suggests that interest rates still have considerable room to rise before the economic recovery ends. Second, we have observed that peak interest rates tend to coincide with material declines in the 12-month moving averages of single-family housing starts and new home sales. While the housing data weakened somewhat in 2018, the data have rebounded sharply since mortgage rates fell near the end of last year. Housing starts have already jumped back above their 12-month moving average, as has the weekly Mortgage Application Purchase index (Chart 3). Chart 3Housing & Employment Support Higher Rates Finally, we have noted that peak interest rates tend to coincide with an uptrend in initial jobless claims. Much like with housing, the initial claims data sent a warning near the end of last year. But that tentative increase in claims has already reversed course (Chart 3, bottom panel). None of those historically reliable indicators suggest that we have reached peak interest rates for the cycle.  We will continue to keep a close eye on nominal GDP growth, the housing data and initial jobless claims. But all in all, none of those historically reliable indicators suggest that we have reached peak interest rates for the cycle. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that further Fed rate hikes are likely at some point and that the next surprise from the Federal Reserve will probably be a hawkish one. Given this skewed risk/reward trade-off, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios on the view that the next large move in Treasury yields will be higher. The difficult part is timing when that move will occur. In the remainder of this report we provide some thoughts on how to think about that timing, and also some trade ideas that should be profitable in the meantime. The New Battleground: Inflation Expectations Vs. Financial Conditions Recent remarks from Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and other FOMC participants have made it clear that an important rationale for the Fed’s pause is a desire to re-anchor inflation expectations at a level closer to the Fed’s target. For example, here is Chairman Powell from last week’s press conference: So, if inflation expectations are below two percent, they’re always going to be pulling inflation down, and we’re going to be paddling upstream and trying to, you know, keep inflation at two percent … And here is what the Chairman said about inflation expectations in his recent congressional testimony: In our thinking, inflation expectations are now the most important driver of actual inflation. With that in mind, consider that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have been below “well anchored” levels for pretty much the entire post-crisis period, as have long-term inflation expectations from the University of Michigan Consumer survey (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Wants Higher Inflation Expectations The Fed has clearly made the re-anchoring of inflation expectations a priority, meaning that we should monitor TIPS breakeven inflation rates and survey measures of inflation expectations to assess when rate hikes might re-start. However, we don’t think that higher inflation expectations are absolutely necessary before the Fed resumes hiking. Consider what Fed officials were saying as recently as December: Governor Lael Brainard on December 7, 2018:2 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. Chairman Powell on June 20, 2018:3 Indeed, the fact that the two most recent U.S. recessions stemmed principally from financial imbalances, not high inflation, highlights the importance of closely monitoring financial conditions.   In other words, until recently the Fed seemed more concerned with financial conditions than with inflation expectations. What changed? Quite simply, financial markets sold off and financial conditions no longer appear excessively easy (Chart 5). Chart 5The Fed Doesn’t Want An Asset Bubble The Financial Conditions component of our Fed Monitor remains “easier” than its historical average, but shows that conditions have tightened significantly since last October (Chart 5, top panel). Junk spreads have widened since last October (Chart 5, panel 2), as has the excess corporate bond risk premium after accounting for expected default risk (Chart 5, panel 3). 4 The S&P 500’s 12-month forward Price/Earnings ratio is down to 16.5, from 17 last October and a 2018 peak of 18.8 (Chart 5, bottom panel). If financial markets rally during the next few months, then it is quite possible that financial conditions will once again force the Fed’s hand. In essence, financial asset valuations appear somewhat reasonable and are not an immediate cause for concern. This means that the Fed can turn its attention toward trying to drive inflation expectations higher. However, if financial markets rally during the next few months, then it is quite possible that financial conditions will once again force the Fed’s hand. The Outlook For Financial Conditions & Global Growth The Fed’s dovish policy shift should support a rally in risk assets in the coming months, though such a rally may also require evidence of improvement in global growth. Right now that evidence is scant. March Flash PMIs for the U.S. and Eurozone both fell last week, while Japan’s stayed flat below the 50 boom/bust line. This means that the Global Manufacturing PMI’s downtrend will almost certainly continue when the final March data are released next week (Chart 6). Chart 6Global Growth Is Weak ... However, while the coincident PMI data continue to soften, we have recently noticed some green shoots in leading global growth indicators (Chart 7). Chart 7... But Leading Indicators Are Improving First, our Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) Diffusion Index has moved above 50%, meaning that a majority of countries are seeing improvement in their LEIs for the first time since early 2018 (Chart 7, top panel). Second, our China Investment Strategy service’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite of six indicators of Chinese money and credit growth – has stabilized. While a 2016-style surge in credit growth is unlikely, even a stabilization in this leading indicator will help prop up global growth in 2019 (Chart 7, panel 2). We do not think that 3-month/10-year curve inversion will last very long.  Finally, the CRB Raw Industrials index has rebounded smartly during the past few weeks, and is now threatening to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart 7, bottom panel). Investment Implications The Fed is currently waging a war on two fronts. It wants to keep interest rates low enough to send inflation expectations higher, back to levels consistent with its 2% target. But it also wants to avoid excessively easy financial conditions that could threaten the sustainability of the economic recovery. Asset prices are not extended at the moment, so the Fed can maintain an accommodative policy focused on driving inflation expectations higher. However, at some point the combination of accommodative policy and improving global growth will cause the Fed’s attention to turn back toward financial conditions. That will put rate hikes back on the table and send Treasury yields higher. Timing when that shift will occur is difficult, which is why we recommend that investors enter positive carry yield curve trades to boost returns while we await a hawkish surprise from the Fed later this year (see next section). What The Yield Curve Is Telling Us The Fed’s dovish surprise sent Treasury yields lower last week and also led to significant changes in the shape of the yield curve. In particular, investors have focused on the fact that the 10-year yield is now below the 3-month T-bill rate. That focus is not surprising, given that curve inversion has been a reliable leading indicator of recession in past cycles. We use the 2-year/10-year and 3-year/10-year slopes in our research into the phases of the cycle (Chart 8), and while both of those slopes remain positive – consistent with a “Phase 2” environment – we will keep a close eye on the 3-month/10-year slope in the coming weeks.5 Historically, inversion of the different curve segments has occurred at around the same time. Chart 8Still In Phase 2 Given that the Fed has already signaled a much more dovish policy stance and that global growth is likely to improve later this year, we do not think that 3-month/10-year curve inversion will last very long. However, if we are wrong and the 2-year/10-year and 3-year/10-year slopes are eventually pulled down into negative territory, then we may have to re-visit some of our asset allocation positions. But for now, we find the 5-year and 7-year maturities to be the most interesting points on the yield curve (Chart 9). In fact, the 5-year and 7-year yields are so low that investors can earn more yield by entering duration-matched barbells consisting of the long and short ends of the curve. For example, the 5-year Treasury note offers a lower yield than a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Similarly, the 7-year note offers less yield than a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond (Chart 10). Chart 10Barbells Are Positive Carry Further, we have also observed that the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in 12-month rate hike expectations. Chart 11 shows that when our 12-month discounter rises, the yield curve tends to steepen out to the 7-year maturity, and flatten thereafter. This means that the 5-year and 7-year yields have the most upside when rate hikes are eventually priced back into the curve. Chart 11Yield Curve Correlations Taken together, positive carry in the barbells and the sensitivity of 5-year and 7-year yields to 12-month rate expectations mean that investors should enter short positions in the 5-year or 7-year notes today, offset by long positions in duration-matched barbells (eg. the 2/10 or 2/30). These trades will earn significant capital gains when the Fed ultimately delivers a hawkish surprise, sending the 5-year and 7-year yields higher, and will also earn positive carry in the meantime, while we wait for financial conditions to ease enough to shift the Fed’s reaction function. We have also observed that the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in 12-month rate hike expectations. These long barbell / short 5-year or 7-year bullet positions will only lose money if the market prices-in further rate cuts going forward. With the market already priced for 32 bps of cuts during the next 12 months, a further decline would be consistent with economic recession. This remains the least likely scenario. Bottom Line: Inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is cause for concern, if it persists. But we expect it to reverse in the coming months as global growth recovers and the Fed remains accommodative. Eventually, after financial conditions have eased sufficiently, the Fed’s next move will be a hawkish surprise. Investors can profit from this move by entering positive carry yield curve trades: short the 5-year or 7-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell.   Ryan Swift,  U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Running Room,” dated January 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20181207a.htm 3  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20180620a.htm 4 The Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (GZ) Excess Bond Premium is a measure of the excess spread available in a sample of nonfinancial corporate bonds, after removing a bottom-up estimate of expected default losses for each security. Default losses are estimated based on the Merton Default model, using each firm’s market value of equity and face value of debt. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/files/… 5 Our research into the different phases of the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve can be found in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income,” dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Dovish Central Banks: Central bankers have successfully talked down bond yields, in an effort to prevent an even deeper pullback in global growth. Government bonds now look overvalued relative to likely outcomes on growth and inflation over the next year. A moderate below-benchmark medium-term duration exposure is warranted on a risk/reward basis, as the next large yield move from current levels is more likely up than down. U.S. Treasuries: The Fed is now signaling no more rate hikes for the rest of 2019, but this newly dovish language merely brings their own interest rate forecasts closer to current market pricing. Lower bond yields and easier financial conditions will help underwrite a recovery in U.S. growth, just as a stabilization of the global economy is starting to materialize. The current downturn in Treasury yields, which is looking technically stretched, should soon begin to bottom out. Feature Another Panic Hits Global Bond Markets The message from central banks to the financial markets is now very loud and clear – global monetary policy is firmly on hold for at least the rest of 2019. Fears over slowing global growth, persistent geopolitical uncertainty and underwhelming inflation have put policymakers on a more cautious footing. The messaging from central banks has become highly synchronized, with even the same buzz words (“patience”, “uncertainty”, “data dependent”) being bandied about in speeches and policy statements. Bond yields have responded to the dovish forward guidance in recent weeks from the Fed, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and others. Our “Major Countries” measure of 10-year government bond yields in the largest developed economies has fallen to 1.3%, the lowest level since May 2017. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield now sits at 2.40%, below the fed funds rate and triggering investor angst over the traditionally negative economic message of an inverted yield curve. Global equity markets, however, seem less concerned. The MSCI World Equity Index is only 5% from the 2018 highs after rallying 16% so far from the late 2018 low. This gap between robust equity prices and depressed bond yields is unusual, but not unprecedented. Similar divergences have occurred as recently as 2016 and 2017 (Chart of the Week). During those episodes, central banks responded to uncertainty (the July 2016 Brexit vote followed by currency volatility in China) or sluggish inflation readings (the unexpected 2017 dip in U.S. core inflation) by shifting to an easier monetary stance. This was largely done through delayed interest rate hikes or more dovish forward guidance, with the result being lower bond yields, diminished market volatility and easier financial conditions. Better global growth and more stable inflation expectations soon followed. Chart of the WeekWill Bonds Lose This Battle Once Again? With tentative signs emerging that global growth momentum is bottoming out, the next major move in global bond yields is likely up. Those prior gaps between low bond yields and high stock prices were eventually resolved through higher yields – an outcome that we think will be repeated in the current episode. Already, bond markets have aggressively repriced expectations of future monetary policy with even some rate cuts now discounted in the U.S., Canada and Australia. With tentative signs emerging that global growth momentum will soon bottom out and recover in the latter half of 2019 (Chart 2), the next major move in global bond yields is likely up, not down. Chart 2Global Bond Yields Are Too Pessimistically Priced The decline in yields over the past few months has obviously challenged our recommended strategic below-benchmark global duration stance. The two primary factors that drive our medium-term duration calls on any country can be summed up by the following questions: Do we expect greater or fewer rate hikes than are discounted in money market curves? Do we expect bond yields to rise above or below the current pricing in forward yield curves? In aggregate, we do not expect the major central banks to deliver more monetary easing than is currently priced according to our 12-month discounters, although we think that is most likely in the U.S. where the market is pricing in -21bps of cuts over the next year. Also, the 12-month-ahead forwards for 10-year bond yields in the U.S. (2.51%), Canada (1.69%), Germany (0.13%), Japan (0.02%), U.K. (1.16%) and Australia (1.82%) are not particularly high. Although, once again, we have the greatest confidence that those yield levels will be surpassed in the U.S. The timetable to generate a positive payoff by positioning for higher yields has been stretched out by the renewed dovishness of central banks. By switching their focus from tight labor markets and accelerating wage growth to slowing economies and softening inflation expectations, policymakers are creating a backdrop of lower volatility and more market-friendly stock/bond correlations (Chart 3). Chart 3Stock/Bond Yield Correlation Negative Once Again The goal is to underwrite additional rallies in risk assets to ease financial conditions and stimulate economic activity. This will eventually sow the seeds for a return to a more hawkish bias, but the timing of that switch is uncertain and will most likely coincide with some evidence of faster Chinese economic growth and an end to the downturn in global trade activity – an outcome that is unlikely to occur until the latter half of 2019. Bottom Line: Central bankers have successfully talked down bond yields, in an effort to prevent an even deeper pullback in global growth. Government bonds now look overvalued relative to likely outcomes on growth and inflation over the next year. A moderate below-benchmark medium-term duration exposure is warranted on a risk/reward basis, as the next large yield move from current levels is more likely up than down. The Fed’s more dovish forward guidance only brought the Fed’s rate forecasts down closer to current market pricing. U.S. Treasury Yields Should Soon Bottom Out U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply lower following last week’s Fed meeting, as the FOMC delivered a dovish surprise with its new set of interest rate projections. As of last December, 11 out of 17 Fed members expected to lift rates at least twice in 2019. Now, 11 out of 17 expect to keep rates flat. This was enough to lower the median “dot” by 50bps for 2019, essentially forecasting an unchanged funds rate this year with only one hike expected in 2020. While these are significant dovish changes to the Fed’s forward guidance, it only brought the Fed’s forecasts down to current market pricing on interest rate expectations (Chart 4). Yet bond yields fell sharply in response, tipping the Treasury curve into inversion. The cautious language from Fed Chairman Powell in the post-meeting press conference, which included a reference to Japan-style deflation risks as a threat if the Fed ignored the message from below-target U.S. inflation expectations, likely helped fuel the bullishness of Treasury market participants. Chart 4Fed Is Just Catching Up To Market Pricing It seems clear that the arguments of the more dovish members of the FOMC (John Williams, Richard Clarida, James Bullard, Neil Kashkari) have won over the more pragmatic members of the committee, including Jay Powell. Yet our own Fed Monitor is still not suggesting that rate cuts are necessary (Chart 5), although the growth component of the Monitor is tracking the last downturn seen in 2014/15. More importantly, the inflation elements of the Monitor are not pointing to a need for easier policy, while financial conditions are still in the “tighter money required” zone. Chart 5Markets Pricing In Fed Easing That Is Not Required The Fed is likely to ignore the risks to financial stability stemming from the new dovish slant to its monetary policy, as financial conditions have not yet fully unwound the tightening seen in the risk asset selloff in late 2018. Does that mean that the Fed wants to see U.S. equities hit new highs and U.S. corporate credit spreads return to previous lows? If that means a deeper U.S. economic slowdown can be avoided, the answer is most likely “yes”. They can always return to targeting overvalued asset markets if and when the U.S. and global economy is on more stable footing. In terms of the U.S. economic outlook, we think the current concerns over the recession risks stemming from an inverted Treasury curve are overstated. In a Special Report we published last July, we looked at the relationship between monetary policy, yield curves and economic growth and came to the following conclusions:1 Curve inversion, on a sustained basis, occurs when the Fed lifts the real (inflation-adjusted) funds rate above the neutral rate of interest, “r-star” (Chart 6); Chart 6Too Soon For Sustained U.S. Treasury Curve Inversion Once the Treasury yield curve does invert on a sustained basis, a recession starts seventeen months later, on average; Curve inversion, on a sustained basis, occurs when the Fed lifts the real funds rate above the neutral rate of interest, “r-star” At the moment, the Fed has paused its rate hiking cycle with a real funds rate that is just shy of the Williams-Laubach estimate of r-star, which is 0.5%. Considering that the “Williams” in “Williams-Laubach” is the current president of the New York Fed and Number Two on the FOMC, we should not be surprised that the Fed chose to pause now! The more important point is that it seems too early to look for a classic late-cycle Treasury curve inversion with the Fed on hold – unless, of course, U.S. inflation falls and pushes the real fed funds rate above r-star. That would require a much sharper slowing of U.S. growth to a below-potential pace that is not indicated by current data. Reliable cyclical indicators like the ISM Manufacturing index have fallen from the heady 2018 peaks, but remain at levels consistent at least trend U.S. economic growth (Chart 7). Additionally, the Conference Board’s leading economic indicator, as well as our own models for U.S. employment and capital spending growth, are suggesting that only some cooling of U.S. growth should be expected in the next few quarters (Chart 8), but not to a below-potential pace (i.e. significantly less than 2%). Chart 7UST Yields Should Soon Stabilize Chart 8A Big U.S. Slowdown In 2019 Is Unlikely So how much lower can Treasury yields go in this current rally? Looking at the individual valuation components of yields, the answer is “not much”. The real component of Treasury yields has already fallen sharply since the 2018 peak, and is now approaching 2017 resistance levels. At the same time, 10-year inflation expectations are drifting higher and are now around 25bps below the highs seen in 2018 (Chart 9). At best, we can see real yields and inflation expectations fully offsetting each other and keeping yields unchanged. The more likely outcome, however, is that inflation expectations continue to move higher while real yields stabilize as the U.S. economy moves away from the Q1 growth slowdown, meaning that we are close to the floor in yields now. Chart 9Inflation Expectations Will Lead UST Yields Higher How much lower can Treasury yields go in this current rally? Looking at the individual valuation components of yields, the answer is “not much”. The current downturn in Treasury yields is already looking stretched from a technical perspective (Chart 10). The 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index is now approaching the highs seen during all previous Treasury rallies since the Fed ended its QE program in 2014. The same signal comes from the size of the deviation of the 10-year Treasury yield below its 200-day moving average. Duration positioning is quite long, as well, according to the J.P. Morgan client survey. Chart 10UST Rally Looking Stretched In The Near-Term Not all the technical indicators are as stretched, as the Market Vane Treasury sentiment survey remains depressed and net speculative positioning on 10-year Treasury futures is only neutral (after a very large short position was covered). On balance, however, the indicators suggest that the current Treasury rally is looking over-extended. One other factor to consider is global growth. Much of the current decline in Treasury yields is a result of the prolonged weakness in non-U.S. growth that has pulled down all global bond yields. Yet according to the latest readings from cyclical indicators like the ZEW survey, expectations of future economic growth are now bottoming out, even as current growth continues to slow (Chart 11). This bodes well for a potential bottoming of global growth momentum that could put a floor underneath bond yields. Chart 11Early Signs Of Growth Stabilization? One final note – any signs of stabilization of European growth could also help global bond yields find a floor. Not only are the ZEW surveys in Europe starting to bottom out, the widely-followed German IFO survey is also starting to show modest improvement. If these trends continue, that would help end the drag on global yields from weakening European growth which has pulled German Bunds back to the 0% level (Chart 12). Chart 12Bunds & JGBs Have Been A Drag On Global Yields Any signs of stabilization in European growth could also help global bond yields find a floor. Bottom Line: The Fed is now signaling no more rate hikes for the rest of 2019, but this newly dovish language merely brings their own interest rate forecasts closer to current market pricing. Lower bond yields and easier financial conditions will help underwrite a recovery in U.S. growth, just as a stabilization of the global economy is starting to materialize. The current downturn in Treasury yields, which is looking technically stretched, should soon begin to bottom out. Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Three Frequently Asked Questions About Global Yield Curves”, dated July 31st, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns