Monetary

Highlights Since 2008, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent before needing to take a breather… and then reverse course. The current vulnerability to further tightening emanates from stock markets and risk spreads. Through the next couple of years U.S. long bonds will strongly outperform German bunds… …and USD/EUR will trend lower. Since October 2017, no stock market rally or sell-off has lasted more than three months. Overweight equities tactically, but don’t get too comfortable. The broad stock market will remain trendless, but offer excellent tactical opportunities in both directions. Feature More than a decade has passed since the Global Financial Crisis. Yet through the past ten years, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent before needing to take a breather… and then swiftly reverse course. 2019 is a pivotal year for monetary policy because it will answer a fundamental question: will the 2 percent limit for monetary tightening that has held since 2008 continue to hold, or finally break? (Chart of the Week). The answer will have a huge bearing on European investment strategy for equities, bonds and currencies. Chart of the WeekSince 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent... So Far A History Of Policy Reversals Swedish interest rates peaked near 5 percent in 2008 before collapsing to the zero bound in the financial crisis. But when the Riksbank started its so-called ‘policy normalisation’ in 2010, the interest rate could only reach 2 percent before the central bank had to backtrack; Norway could manage just 1 percent of tightening before its volte-face. Admittedly, Sweden and Norway were caught in the maelstrom of the euro debt crisis in 2011-12. But on the other side of the world and relatively immune to the crisis in Europe, New Zealand could achieve a tightening of only 1 percent; Korea could manage just 1.25 percent (Chart I-2); the Reserve Bank of Australia marched interest rates up by 1.75 percent before taking a breather… and then marched them down again.   Chart I-2Since 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent The Federal Reserve has sequentially raised interest rates by 2 percent, and guess what? It has just decided to take a breather! Last week, Chairman Jay Powell was asked the question as plainly as possible: is the next move in interest rates as likely to be up as down? And his answer: “we don’t have a strong prior… we will patiently wait and let the data clarify.”1 There is no requirement at BCA for strategists to agree. In fact, the opposite is true in that we encourage independent thinking and diverse ways of looking at the world. BCA’s house view is that the Fed will resume its sequential hiking later in the year. But I believe this takes a too rosy view on the global financial system’s capacity to tolerate further tightening. The Vulnerability Is In Stock Markets And Risk Spreads   Monetary policy operates on an economy by adjusting its financial conditions: its bond yields, credit availability, currency, stock market, and risk spreads. And the neutral monetary policy stance – the so-called ‘neutral real interest rate’ – is the policy stance consistent with the economy growing at trend. In the past, a simple rule of thumb was that real rates, over time, should approximate to the real growth in the economy. But some studies argue that the neutral real rate may now be close to zero. All the Fed has done is bring the real interest rate out of negative territory to barely above zero. Yet its recent hikes have been blamed for extreme volatility in stock markets and risk spreads. Last week, Powell acknowledged that if there is a sustained change in financial conditions through any one or more of its components then “that has to play into our thinking.” Furthermore, “the policy stance is now in the range of the Committee’s estimates of neutral… and when you get to that (neutral) range we have to put aside our own priors and let the data speak to us.” All of which raises a salutary observation from my colleague Martin Barnes, BCA Chief Economist: if a real interest rate that is barely above zero is enough to trigger extreme market volatility and threaten the economic expansion, then the system is much more vulnerable than generally assumed.2  Martin has hit the nail on the head. At the current level of tightening, the system is much more vulnerable than generally assumed. But the vulnerable components of financial conditions are not bond yields, credit availability, or currency; the vulnerability emanates from stock markets and risk spreads, and specifically their potential for extreme volatility. Previous reports have focused on the source of this vulnerability. To recap, at low yields, bond prices develop the same unattractive negative asymmetry as equities. Therefore, an extended period of ultra-low interest rates removes the need for an equity risk premium, and justifies sharply higher valuations for equities and other risk-assets. But when the 10-year global bond yield rises back to around 2 percent, the process viciously reverses: bond prices lose their negative asymmetry, re-requiring an equity risk premium and sharply lower valuations for risk-assets.3 Put simply, when interest rates rise from low levels they undermine the support for elevated risk-asset valuations in a viciously non-linear way. The consequent plunge in risk-asset prices aggressively tightens financial conditions and thereby sets an unusually low ceiling for nominal interest rates and bond yields. This dynamic proved to be the major feature of the financial market landscape in 2018 and will loom large in 2019 too. It also solves the riddle as to why the neutral real rate may now be close to zero. An unusually low ceiling for the nominal interest rate combined with inflation hovering around 2 percent, translates into a neutral real interest rate that is not much higher than zero. The Investment Implications When the Riksbank paused after its near 2 percent of hiking, it proved to be a good structural entry point for Swedish long bonds, and a good structural exit point for the Swedish krona (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Likewise, when the Reserve Bank of Australia paused after its near 2 percent of hiking, it was an excellent moment to buy Australian long bonds and to sell the Australian dollar (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-3When The Riksbank Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Swedish Bonds... Chart I-4...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Swedish Krona Chart I-5When The RBA Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Australian Bonds... Chart I-6...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Australian Dollar Will the the 2 percent limit for monetary tightening that has held since 2008 continue to hold? If, as we expect, the answer is yes the implication is that through the next couple of years U.S. long bonds will strongly outperform German bunds. Over the same time frame, USD/EUR will trend lower (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8).  Chart I-7A Good Structural Entry Point In To Long T-Bonds/Short Bunds Chart I-8A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of USD/EUR Finally, as regards the broad stock market, a quick glance at the MSCI all country world index shows a striking feature. Since October 2017, no rally or sell-off has lasted more than three months (Chart I-9). Given the current highly non-linear relationship between equities and bond yields, this pattern is set to continue. Chart I-9Since October 2017, No Rally Or Sell-Off Has Lasted More Than Three Months In essence, the broad stock market will remain trendless, but offer excellent tactical opportunities in both directions. The current stance is tactically long, but don’t get too comfortable! Fractal Trading System* The sharp recent rally in government bonds has hit a point where tight liquidity conditions could trigger a temporary reversal. Accordingly, the 65-day trade is to go short 30-year T-bonds, setting a profit target at 3 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. All of the five other open positions are in healthy profit. 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-10 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.   Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com  * 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 The Federal Reserve has raised the federal funds rate by a total of 2.25 percent comprising an isolated 0.25 percent hike at the end of 2015 and a sequential 2 percent hike from December 2016 through December 2018. 2 Please see the BCA Special Report “A Grumpy View Of The Outlook” January 28, 2019 available at www.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance”, October 25, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com  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 So What? The late-cycle rally faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? The rally is based on a too-sanguine view of the Fed, China, and the trade war. Other issues – like Brexit and the U.S. border showdown – are also problematic. Venezuela still has the potential to push oil prices sharply upwards. Feature All is well. Global equities are on the path of recovery, as should be the case at the end of an economic cycle. The U.S. S&P 500 has gained 16% since the bottom on December 24, with healthy technicals suggesting a breakout is ahead (Chart 1). The S&P 500 may be entering one of its typical late-cycle rallies, which tend to be the second best-performing decile of a bull market (Chart 2).1 Meanwhile, emerging market equities and currencies are outperforming developed market peers (Chart 3), a reversal from 2018 Chart 1Late Cycle Rally Ahead?   Chart 3...As Does Current Global Outperformance Typically, global risk assets outperform American risk assets at the end of an economic cycle. While institutional investors can use these rallies to lighten the load ahead of a recession, most investors cannot afford to miss such a rally. As such, BCA (and others) are calling for investors to play what is expected to be a yearlong rally in global risk assets and the S&P 500. Our view at BCA Geopolitical Strategy is more cautious, perhaps because it is informed by a methodological bias rooted in geopolitics. We believe that the reversal in U.S. outperformance relative to global risk assets rests on three pillars: The Federal Reserve remains dovish throughout 2019; China begins a major reflationary effort;  The U.S.-China tariff truce results in a trade deal. In addition, a consensus is emerging that a “no deal” Brexit will not occur, that U.S. polarization cannot get worse, and that President Trump eschews foreign interventionism. While we hold a nuanced view on each of these assertions, the mix is far less bullish than investors may think. We see a witches’ brew of factors that is murky at best and bearish at worst. The Three Pillars Of The Bullish View Before we turn to geopolitics, let us examine the three pillars underpinning the bullish view. Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, remains bullish on the U.S. economy and expects the Fed to resume hiking rates by mid-year.2 The Conference Board’s Leading Credit Index remains in expansionary territory (Chart 4). While business capex intention surveys have come off their highs, they still point to robust spending plans over the next few quarters (Chart 5). Chart 4Little Sign Of A Looming Credit Crunch Chart 5Capex Plans Still Solid It is no surprise that the BCA Fed Monitor continues to suggest that “tighter monetary policy is required” (Chart 6). This is a far cry from 2016, when our indicator was in deeply “tightening” territory and the Fed paused for 12 months. If we compare 2019 to 2016, it is difficult to see how the market expectation of 4.72 bps of rate cuts will occur over the next 12 months (Chart 7). Of the three components that make up the BCA Fed Monitor, only the financial conditions have fallen into “easing required” territory (Chart 8), and they are already shifting back to “tightening required” territory with the stock market rally underway (Chart 9). Chart 6A Hawkish Fed Is Needed Chart 8BCA Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Policy Chart 9Financial Conditions Starting To Ease In addition, in 2016 the Fed was not contracting its balance sheet. Today it is doing so, although the pace has moderated. As such, the Fed’s rate hike pause is occurring amidst an ongoing effort to normalize monetary policy and to transfer rate risks back to the private sector. By chance, this is also occurring at a time when the Treasury Department must issue more debt to cover a larger deficit, a process that could significantly pull U.S. rates higher and, by extension, yields on assets further down the risk curve. This would be a particular problem for global risk assets given the exposure of several EM economies to dollar-denominated debt.  The bottom line for investors is that a rate hike pause is not a pause in the overall hawkish policy of the U.S. Fed, which acts as a global central bank. The fall in the amount of dollars available for the international financial system acts as a brake on growth. Over the past 10 years, each time money supply growth fell below the loan uptake of the U.S. corporate sector, BCA’s Global Industrial Activity Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, Korean exports, and global export prices all deteriorated considerably (Chart 10). Chart 10Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth Our muted view on Chinese reflation is unnecessary to repeat here. There is no doubt that Chinese policymakers are stimulating the economy, but the question is whether they are willing to pull the credit lever as aggressively as they have done in the past (Chart 11).So far, all of the evidence we have reviewed point to a cautious effort to stabilize growth, not reflate the entire planetary economy as Beijing did in 2016. If our BCA House View on the Fed is correct, a tepid Chinese effort to stimulate the domestic economy will fall short of lighting the flame of a global risk rally in 2019. Chart 11Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts The BCA China Play Index, which in the past has tracked EM vs. DM equity outperformance, is sending mixed signals today (Chart 12). Enthusiasm for global risk assets has not been confirmed by the most China-sensitive plays. Chart 12Mixed Signals From China-Sensitive Plays Finally, there is the trade truce that should produce a trade deal. The logic is clear: President Trump sets aside the political constraints working against a deal and focuses on ensuring that he wins 2020 by avoiding a recession. The near bear market in the S&P 500 was a game changer that focused the White House on averting any further downside to markets and the economy from the trade war. But if the current rally proves that the selloff in December was a temporary pullback, the White House may be emboldened to play hard-to-get with China. After all, the electorate is generally supportive of getting tough on China (Chart 13) and there is no demand from either Trump voters or Democrats for a quick deal. The Fed pause and lower oil prices also give Trump some space to push negotiations a bit harder. Already there are leaks from the negotiations that the U.S. is asking for a lot from China, which could prolong the talks. This includes genuine structural changes to the economic relationship that would address long-standing U.S. concerns of forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and foreign investor access to the Chinese domestic market. It also includes U.S. demands that these changes be verifiable and enforceable. China is likely to balk at some of the U.S. demands, particularly if the U.S. is indeed pushing for regular reviews of China’s progress, a condition that implicitly creates a hierarchy between the two economies and would thus represent a loss of face for Beijing.3 Table 1 presents our latest expectations of where the U.S. and China will be on March 1. We assign only 10% each to “black and white” outcomes, a “Grand Compromise” and “No deal, with major escalation.” The remaining 80% is divided between “mushy” outcomes, including a 25% probability that negotiations simply continue. Table 1Updated U.S.-China Trade War Probabilities How would the market react to such uncertain outcomes? We think that almost anything other than a “Grand Compromise” would be greeted with limited relief, if not outright market correction. A vaguely positive meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi, and a memorandum of understanding, would not remove long-term risks in the relationship, especially if the parallel “tech war” is not resolved. On top of the ongoing U.S.-China negotiations, there is one remaining trade issue that investors should keep in mind: auto tariffs. The Section 232 investigation into whether auto imports are a national security threat is ongoing and U.S. authorities are expected to present their conclusions on February 17. We fear that the Trump administration could still stage a surprise and impose tariffs on auto imports. This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production within the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. An extended truce with China could provide the opportunity. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but the timing of this decision could upset the market’s perception of Trump’s commitment to free trade once again. Bottom Line: The conventional narrative is that global markets are experiencing a late-cycle rally, one that is worth playing given its usual duration and amplitude. This view rests on three pillars: that the Fed has backed off from tightening, that China is stimulating in earnest, and that the trade deal will produce a definitive outcome. We fear that all three pillars are shaky. First, the Fed is not easing. Its balance sheet contraction process, which is ongoing, is a form of tightening. And the U.S. economy remains healthy. As such, the expectation of a 12-month Fed pause is overly optimistic. Second, China is stimulating, but only tepidly. Third, “black and white,” definitive outcomes are unlikely in the U.S.-China negotiations. In fact, more protectionism could be around the corner if U.S.-China tech issues continue to flare or if the U.S. announces the conclusion of its investigation into auto imports. Geopolitical Factors To Monitor Aside from shaky pillars, markets will also have to contend with several uncertain geopolitical processes this year. While we are not necessarily bearish on each one, we are concerned that the collective investment community is overly bullish. Take Brexit. We agree with the conventional view that the chances of a no-deal Brexit outcome are below 10%. Political betting markets have only priced in an actual exit on March 29, which is in ink in British legislation, at just above 30% (Chart 14). Chart 14Online Betters Expect A Brexit Delay The problem is not with the conventional view but with its timing. While Prime Minister Theresa May will ultimately be forced to extend the Article 50 deadline, it may take a lot of brinkmanship and eleventh hour negotiations to do so. Getting from here – collective bullishness – to there – an actual extension of Article 50 – may require a downturn in GBP/USD or other U.K. assets. Furthermore, several scenarios could produce a downturn in GBP/USD (Diagram 1). For example, the Labour Party remains neck-and-neck with the Tories in the polls, despite being led by the most left-leaning leader since the 1970s. Although a new election that produces a Labour government would likely reduce the odds of Brexit eventually occurring, it would raise the odds of Corbyn pursuing unorthodox economic policy while also trying to negotiate his own version of Brexit with the EU. Diagram 1Brexit: The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers The point is that it is tough to recommend that investors close their eyes and buy GBP/USD, no matter how cheap the currency may look, unless one has a very long time horizon and a high threshold for pain. The second issue where we take a more nuanced position is the ongoing U.S. executive-legislative standoff over the border. The government shutdown is only on pause until February 15. The House Democrats are demanding that a solution be found by Friday, February 8 if it is to be voted on in time. Meanwhile President Trump’s popularity is in the doldrums (Chart 15). His supporters note that President Reagan was even less popular at this point in his term, but that is because unemployment hit 10.4% in January 1983 (Chart 16). The grave risk for President Trump is that he is as unpopular as Reagan, even though unemployment is at 4% and the U.S. economy is on fire. Chart 15President Trump Is Unpopular... Chart 16...And It Can't Be Blamed On Unemployment As such, the real risk is not another shutdown, but rather political dysfunction in Congress that imperils the legislative process. The current two-year budget deal, which raised spending levels in January 2018, is set to expire when the FY2019 ends. Democrats and Trump have to come to an agreement to avert the “stimulus cliff” expected in 2020 (Chart 17). If they cannot conclude the border issue and the FY2019 appropriations, then Trump may declare a national emergency (or act unilaterally in other ways) and spark a new conflict with the courts. He could also threaten not to raise the debt ceiling in spring or summer. This is not an atmosphere in which a FY2020 deal looks very easy. Chart 17Stimulus Cliff Ahead Ultimately, we expect Democrats to succumb to the pressure from their voters for more spending. But a total failure to cooperate is a risk. Furthermore, the greatest political risk in the U.S. is that the 2020 election will not be contested on the same issues as in 2016: trade and immigration. Instead, income inequality is rearing its head, as Democratic candidates jostle for attention and as they test various messages on focus groups. If income inequality catches fire as the issue of 2020, we will know it soon. And it may begin to impact the markets as Democrats begin to campaign on, for instance, reversing President Trump’s income tax cuts. While the market may ignore headline election risks for some time, we do not think that non-financial corporates can do the same. Any hint that President Trump’s pro-business policies will be reversed could send shivers down the spines of CEOs and negatively impact capex intentions, hurting the real economy well before the next election. Finally, there is the issue of foreign policy. President Trump has abandoned his maximum pressure tactic on Iran and has begun withdrawing the remaining troops in the Middle East. These trends are likely to continue in 2019 as President Trump focuses on China and lesser issues like Venezuela. There is one important area of alignment between him and the defense and intelligence community, notwithstanding recent scuffles: less focus on the Middle East means more focus on Asia and specifically China. However, President Trump is facing a dilemma. Despite an extraordinary economic performance, his popularity remains in the doldrums. When faced with similar situations in the past, presidents far more orthodox than Trump have sought relevance abroad, by means of military interventions. A convenient opportunity has presented itself in Venezuela, where a revolution against Chavismo could give the U.S. an opening to intervene. On paper, we see how such a scenario could look appealing for a quick, and relatively painless, intervention. The problem is that it could also get messy and, in the analysis of BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy, raise oil prices to nearly $100 per barrel by mid-year if a total loss of Venezuelan production ensues (Chart 18). This is a non-negligible risk. Chart 18A Venezuela Collapse Could Send Brent Crude Prices Toward $100/Bbl Bottom Line: Geopolitical risks still abound. We are not alarmist. However, there is little reason to believe that Brexit, U.S. polarization, U.S.-China tensions, or a potential U.S. intervention in Venezuela will end painlessly for the market. An unpopular U.S. president is seeking to remain relevant and a global populist wave is continuing to create unorthodox and anti-establishment policy prescriptions. Given that the current rally is supported by three shaky pillars, any one of these geopolitical risks could catalyze a relapse, the history of late-cycle rallies be damned.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Late-Cycle Blues,” dated October 29, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Patient Jay,” dated January 18, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see Reuters, “Exclusive: U.S. demands regular review of China trade reform,” dated January 18, 2019, available at reuters.com.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Fed Policy: The Fed’s move to a more dovish posture is positive for global risk assets in the near-term. This is setting up for a revival of volatility later in 2019, however, with U.S. growth unlikely to slow enough to justify a continuation of the Fed’s dovish stance. With the market now discounting no change in Fed policy rates over the next year, the risks for U.S. Treasury yields are now tilted to the upside. ECB Policy: Growth has slowed in Europe, but the ECB is limited in its ability to ease policy further given tight labor markets and rising wage growth. Policy rates will stay on hold over at least the next year. U.S. & European Duration: Keep global duration exposure below benchmark, with a more defensive stance on U.S. Treasuries over German Bunds given that the Treasury-Bund spread has overshot to the downside. Feature “In fact, our policy works through changing financial conditions, so it’s sort of the essence of what we do” – Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell Have central bankers now turned TOO dovish? That is a question that will be answered in the coming weeks and months after the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) signaled a more cautious outlook on growth and inflation. Both central banks cited common causes for the increased caution, such as financial market instability related to geopolitical uncertainty (U.S.-China trade tensions, Brexit, the U.S. government shutdown). Importantly, neither the Fed nor ECB expressed conviction that monetary policy settings were now too restrictive. The sharp selloff in global stock and credit markets at the end of 2018 did tighten financial conditions which, in and of itself, should result in slower growth on either side of the Atlantic in the first half of 2019 (Chart of the Week). Yet we do not expect a move to a below-trend pace of growth that would trigger rising unemployment and weaker inflation pressures. Chart of the WeekFed Too Dovish, ECB Not Dovish Enough The shift to a more dovish posture by the Fed and ECB has already induced some easing of financial conditions to help support growth in the U.S. and Europe until the uncertainties over geopolitics and the Chinese economy are resolved. This appears to be providing more stimulus to economies that may not necessarily need it. That is a risk that policymakers have decided to take to protect against the downside tail risks to economic growth and confidence from global uncertainty. In terms of fixed income markets, more dovish policymakers have created a pro-risk backdrop that will support the outperformance of corporate bonds versus government debt over the next 3-6 months. Without a deeper slowdown of global growth beyond what is currently expected, however, this will only be a temporary respite as central banks revert back to fighting inflation pressures instead of calming financial markets. The result will be a return to monetary tightening and higher bond yields, although that is a far more likely scenario in the U.S. than in Europe over the next 6-12 months given the relative signals from our Central Bank Monitors (bottom panel). Fed Outlook – A Temporary Dovish Turn, Nothing More The quote at the beginning of this report was taken from Fed Chair Powell’s press conference after last week’s FOMC meeting, in response to a question on how the Fed thinks about financial conditions. We can think of no cleaner way to explain the Fed’s understanding of how its monetary policy actions get transmitted to the real economy. By inducing changes in financial asset values (equity prices, corporate bond yields, the value of the U.S. dollar) through adjustments in the fed funds rate – and perceptions about its forward path – the Fed is able to impact the cost of financing across much of the U.S. economy. The goal is either to slow or stimulate growth, as needed, to allow the Fed to reach its dual mandate of maximizing employment while keeping inflation stable. Viewed from this perspective, the Fed’s “dovish” turn last week was a necessary step to not only stabilize financial markets, but to induce a pro-growth rally in risk assets that had sold off too aggressively. On that front, the Fed can say “Mission Accomplished”. Year-to-date, the S&P 500 is up 8% while U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate bond spreads have fallen by 26bps and 110bps, respectively. The U.S. dollar is also down 1.6% since the start of the year, providing further stimulus to the U.S. economy. U.S. Treasury yields, which had fallen thanks to lower real and inflation components, have also helped ease financial conditions. Real yields have declined as the market has moved to price out all Fed rate hikes for 2019 in response to some signs of cooling U.S. growth (i.e. housing) and the big fall in asset prices. At the same time, inflation expectations have drifted lower as markets now expect the plunge in oil prices seen in 2018 to filter though more broadly into lower realized inflation (Chart 2). Chart 2Too Much Pessimism In UST Yields The ability for yields to decline further is now limited, however, with U.S. economic growth likely to continue at an above-trend pace in the next few quarters, based on the readings from reliable indicators. The ISM Manufacturing index rebounded to 56.6 in January, still well above the 50 level indicating an expanding U.S. economy, even after the decline that began last September. Within the sub-components of the index, the New Orders series also rose last month by 6.9 points, suggesting that the bounce in the overall ISM series could persist. The 10yr UST yield broadly tracks the ISM Manufacturing index (Chart 3), with the post-crisis relationship indicating that the bond yield will have difficulty falling below 2.5% if the ISM remains above 55. Chart 3U.S. Treasuries Vulnerable To Better U.S. Data U.S. economic data continues to broadly meet expectations, and the momentum in U.S. Treasury yields has overshot to the downside versus data surprises (bottom panel). Admittedly, there have been far fewer data releases of late because of the U.S. government shutdown last month. Yet even if the bulk of the unreleased data was weak, Treasury yields at current levels already seem to be discounting very soft growth. Forward-looking indicators of growth - the Conference Board leading economic indicator and BCA’s U.S. employment and capital spending models – are all pointing to the U.S. economy continuing to expand at a solid, above-trend pace in the coming months (Chart 4). Chart 4No Signs Pointing To Slower U.S. Growth The U.S. labor market remains tight, as evidenced by continued low unemployment and solid growth in wage measures like Average Hourly Earnings and the Wages and Salaries component of the Employment Cost Index (Chart 5). At the same time, readings from leading inflation indicators like the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge remain elevated (bottom panel). The combined message is that U.S. core inflation rates will remain surprisingly sticky in the coming months, even given the lagged impact of last year’s drop in oil prices. Chart 5Persistent U.S. Inflation Pressures Many have made the case that the current cycle looks a lot like the Fed’s 2016 pause on policy tightening, which ended up lasting one full year after the December 2015 initial post-QE rate hike. Back then, the Fed’s more dovish posture helped generate easier financial conditions through a weaker U.S. dollar, tighter U.S. corporate credit spreads and higher U.S. equity values. U.S. Treasury yields fell sharply as the market aggressively covered a large bearish tilt towards U.S. interest rates while removing all rate hikes that were discounted for 2016 (Chart 6). There is one major difference between then and now, however – the U.S. economy is growing at a much faster pace, with far less spare capacity (bottom panel). Chart 6This Is NOT A Repeat Of 2016 When looking at all the U.S. data objectively, we conclude that the Fed’s latest dovish turn will not last anywhere near as long as the 2016 episode. The current easing of U.S. (and global) financial conditions alongside still-solid U.S. growth will eventually set up a return to the Fed rate hiking cycle, at a time when no interest rate increases are discounted in U.S. money markets. This supports our current recommendation to be tactically overweight U.S. corporate debt versus U.S. Treasuries on a 3-6 month horizon, during this window when the Fed is deliberately easing financial conditions by being overly dovish. On a more medium term 6-12 month horizon, however, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on U.S. duration exposure. The only way Treasury yields can move lower from here is if a Fed rate cutting cycle starts to be discounted – a highly unlikely scenario given the signals from leading growth and inflation indicators. Bottom Line: The Fed’s move to a more dovish posture is positive for global risk assets in the near-term. This is setting up for a revival of volatility later in 2019, however, with U.S. growth unlikely to slow enough to prevent inflation pressures from surfacing. With the market now discounting a stand-pat Fed over the next year, with minimal expected inflation, the risks for U.S. Treasury yields are now tilted to the upside. ECB Outlook – Firmly Neutral The euro area is currently facing a fairly significant growth slowdown. The manufacturing PMI has fallen for 13 consecutive months and now sits just above the 50 line indicating expanding growth. The OECD’s leading economic indicator (LEI) has also declined over that same period. Both indicators are now back to levels last seen prior to the 2009 and 2012 recessions (Chart 7). Chart 7Euro Area LEI and PMI Overstating The Downturn? Yet at the same time, surveys of business and consumer confidence from the European Commission suggest that the current downturn is nothing like those previous slumps. Even the Commission’s indicator of exporter order books (bottom panel) suggests that things do not appear as bad as indicated by the PMI and LEI. So where does the truth lie about the euro area economy? When looking at the hard data on exports (using the IMF’s Direction of Trade statistical database that includes both goods and services), it is obvious that there was a sharp slowing of euro area exports last year (Chart 8). Slumping Chinese demand was a major reason for that slowdown, but exports to the rest of the world also took a major hit. For the more export-intensive economies of Europe, last year’s global growth deceleration was a major punch to the gut. Chart 8European Export Shock Should Bottom Out Later In 2019 Looking ahead, there is still likely to be some pain coming from weaker export demand in the first half of 2019. The Chinese credit impulse (measured as a 12-month change in Total Social Financing as a % of GDP) is still negative, while our global LEI measure continues to drift lower. However, there are some tentative signs that things may be stabilizing. The shorter 6-month China credit impulse has hooked up (the “x’ in the top panel of Chart 8). Our diffusion index of countries within our global LEI – itself a leading indicator of the global LEI – has also begun to move higher, meaning there are fewer countries within the euro area with falling LEIs. While it is still too early to draw firm conclusions, there is a chance that euro area export growth will bottom out by mid-year. This is especially true if a U.S.-China trade detente is soon reached and Chinese policymakers deliver some additional growth stimulus measures, which is BCA’s base case scenario. ECB President Mario Draghi noted last week that a stabilization of global trade tensions would reduce much of the perceived uncertainty within the euro area economy. The U.S.-China trade spat has not been the only thing weighing on euro area growth, though. In our framework for analyzing the ECB’s policy decisions, we look at how broad-based are the trends in growth and inflation within the euro area to determine the next likely move on monetary policy. The way we do that is by looking at diffusion indices of economic data, constructed using figures from as many euro area countries as possible, given data availability. We show those diffusion indices for real GDP growth, manufacturing PMIs, headline inflation and core inflation in the euro area in Chart 9. Chart 9No Pressure On The ECB To Adjust Interest Rates The diffusion indices show that the vast majority of euro area countries are now suffering slowing real GDP growth and falling PMIs, with levels seen during recessions. Yet the actual pullbacks in real GDP growth and the PMIs have been shallower than those past episodes. It is as if today, all countries are suffering a slump, but no deep downturn. This is consistent with the ECB’s belief that Europe has suffered a bunch of one-off triggers for slowing growth – cutbacks in German auto production related to new emission standards, large-scale French street protests, the Italian fiscal policy debate with the EU, slowing exports from global trade tensions – but no broad-based decline that can be attributed to, or solved by, monetary policy. This is especially true with the diffusion index for core euro area inflation which now rising, suggesting that core inflation could remain surprisingly sticky in the coming months. The diffusion indices for euro area labor markets provide additional information as to why the ECB has not shifted to an even more dovish stance, despite the signs of weaker growth. Not only is the overall euro area unemployment rate now below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU, the vast majority of countries within the euro area are at full employment (Chart 10). That diffusion index correlates strongly with a traditional Taylor Rule estimate of the equilibrium ECB policy rate, and suggests that the ECB should be raising rates right now. That can also be seen in the diffusion index for wage growth (bottom panel), which shows that the majority of euro area countries are seeing higher wage inflation. Chart 10Tightening Labor Markets In Europe Given the readings on the core inflation and labor market related diffusion indices, the current backdrop is not one where the ECB should be shifting to a more dovish posture. Yet when looking at market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swaps, investors clearly do not believe that the ECB’s optimistic inflation forecasts will be achieved over the next two years – typically a sign of policy settings that appear too tight (Chart 11). Chart 11Bund Yields Will Stay Subdued Without More Euro Area Inflation It will require some signs of euro area growth reacceleration, and maybe some upside surprises on core inflation and wage growth, before inflation expectations (and Bund yields) begin rising again. Those are unlikely to become visible until at least the latter half of 2019, and the ECB is likely to keep policy rates unchanged over the balance of the year. Given our relative views on the Fed and ECB, we see the scope for the yield spread between the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund to widen from current levels. That spread is wide on a long-term basis because of the relative policy stance of the two central banks, with the current 255bps gap roughly equal to the gap between the fed funds rate and ECB refi rate. Yet the momentum of that spread is closely correlated to the difference in the data surprise indices for the U.S. and euro area, and a divergence has opened up between those two measures on the back of better U.S. growth (Chart 12). Chart 12UST-Bund Spread Has Overshot To Downside With the forward curves currently pricing in some additional tightening of the Treasury-Bund spread, betting on some renewed spread widening is a positive carry trade that also makes sense on a fundamental basis. Bottom Line: Growth has slowed in Europe, but the ECB is limited in its ability to ease policy further given tight labor markets and rising wage growth. Policy rates will stay on hold over at least the next year.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@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 Our non-consensus inflation and Fed views just got even more non-consensus: Media and sell-side commentators were quick to speculate about an end to the tightening cycle following Wednesday’s FOMC meeting, but we don’t see any basis for changing our stance. December and January have been a wild couple of months, … : It’s not unusual for a swing in one direction to be following by a swing in the other, but the S&P 500 went from the 2nd percentile in December to the 96th percentile in January. … and we’re turning to our equity checklist to regain our bearings: Checklists help us maintain a healthy distance from day-to-day swings and focus on the key swing factors. For now, we don’t think anything much has changed, but the scope for a repricing of the entire Treasury curve has gotten bigger: The wider the disparity between our terminal fed funds rate expectation and the market’s, the greater the potential for yields to readjust. We continue to believe markets are being complacent about inflation pressures; their presence will force the Fed off the sidelines and ultimately spell the end of the expansion. Feature Brutal arctic cold swept the Midwest and the Northeast Corridor last week as the polar vortex clamped down on Canada and the upper U.S. The weather didn’t do anything to cool investors’ revived ardor for stocks, however. After finally taking a break from its nearly uninterrupted four-week sprint from 2,350 to 2,670 (that’s nearly 14% in just 17 sessions), the S&P 500 hung around the 2,640 level that supported it repeatedly during its October, November and early December travails (Chart 1). Then came Wednesday’s FOMC statement and press conference, and the S&P even poked its head above the 2,700 level that would seem to present a fairly stiff challenge (Chart 2). Chart 12,640 Lent Support Once Again …   Chart 2... Will The Next Round Number Offer A Little Resistance? What Goes On One minute born, one minute doomed/ One minute up, and one minute down/ What goes on in your mind?/ I think that I am falling down If the conditions were polar out of doors, they were bipolar on traders’ screens. As much as the clients we spoke with in January were initially skeptical about our inflation view (it’s not dead) and our corresponding Fed call (at least three or four more hikes in response to budding price pressures), several of them seemed to come around before the meeting was over. They had a lot harder time with the two-part investment conclusion that risk assets would rally while the Fed was on hold, and the economy and corporate profits were able to gain a footing, before rolling over once the data become strong enough to bring the Fed back off the sidelines. Why would investors buy into the temporary part one? We offered the view that the selloff had gone too far, and seemed to have been founded upon a premise that the Fed had either already tightened into a recession, or had gotten uncomfortably close to doing so. We expect that a Fed pause will reveal that the market’s neutral-rate estimate had been way too low. Once the economy shows signs of life, and consensus earnings estimates stop declining and begin to rise again, stocks will rise, spreads will compress, and investors will get back to chasing performance. The renewed fundamental vigor could even allow the Fed to hike rates another couple of times without inspiring a new bout of market indigestion. After this week, we are the ones scratching our heads. The committee’s post-meeting statement did change more than it has since the gradual, 25-bps-per-quarter pace of hikes took hold at the end of 2016, but early January’s procession of Fed speakers who repeated “patience” like a mantra already telegraphed an extended pause. We did not read all that much into the substitution of “will be patient as it determines … [appropriate] adjustments” for “some further gradual increases,” even if the media and the markets did. We will have more to say about the Fed’s balance sheet in subsequent research, but suffice it to say for now that we do not think it will be terribly impactful. Bottom Line: While we were surprised by the intensity of the reaction to last week’s FOMC meeting, it remains our view that the pause in the Fed’s monetary tightening campaign will give equities and corporate bonds an opportunity to rally near their late September levels. Checking And Re-Checking Our Views Among our favorite trading-desk maxims is the advice to plan your trade, and trade your plan. Checklists help us plan and help establish a repeatable process. Having a process to fall back on when rapid-fire decisions have to be made allows an investor to react to conditions as they arise without suffering from analysis paralysis, just like a seasoned trader. Checklists aren’t magic, but they can help an investor keep his/her bearings in the midst of market tides that seem to sweep all before them. Confronting the combination of December’s despondency and January’s euphoria, we return to the equity downgrade checklist we rolled out in mid-October, and last formally reviewed in mid-November. The checklist attempts to look out for threats on four fronts: a looming recession, which would bring the curtain down on the bull market; earnings pressure independent of a full-fledged recession; inflation pressures that could compel the Fed to tighten policy with a renewed sense of urgency; and unsustainably positive sentiment, which could set equities up for a fall. At the moment, only the recession category could arguably be said to be flashing yellow. Recession Watch All three factors in our simple recession indicator are moving in the wrong direction, but the yield curve is the only one at a potentially problematic level (Chart 3, top panel). It would not be a disaster for equities or the economy if the curve inverted – it is habitually early, inverting a year before a recession, on average, and six months before the S&P 500 peaks – but we don’t think it will until markets begin pricing in new rate hikes. Assuming the three-month rate won’t move until they do, the curve could only invert if the 10-year Treasury yield were to fall into the 2.40s (Chart 3, bottom panel), which would be incompatible with our constructive economic view. By the time the Fed resumes hiking, the curve should have gained some breathing room, as an economy strong enough to require further tightening merits a 10-year Treasury yield at or above 3%. Chart 3The Curve Isn’t Ready To Invert Just Yet Year-over-year growth in the leading economic indicator decelerated sharply over the last three months of 2018 (Chart 4). It is a ways away from contracting, however, and only a series of hefty month-over-month drops could make it do so this quarter. Our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate remains 50 bps above the 2.5% target rate and our model projects that equilibrium will rise throughout the rest of the year. If its 3.25-3.5% year-end estimate is on the money, the Fed would have to hike three or four more times by year end to provide the restrictive backdrop required for a recession. Chart 4Decelerating, But Not Contracting Checking the final item in the recession section of the checklist, a 33-basis-point rise in the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate, would require a sharp hiring slowdown and/or a significant pickup in labor force participation. The January employment report makes a drop-off in hiring appear improbable, and we are skeptical that the participation rate can keep rising in spite of the drag from retiring baby boomers. If the unemployment rate were to rise because of a rising part rate, however, it might well be more likely to extend the expansion than end it. Bottom Line: The elements of our recession indicator are deteriorating, albeit slowly. A recession may not be more than a year away, but we can’t see it occurring until the Fed turns more hawkish. Earnings Pressure We have repeatedly offered our view that the labor market is as tight as a drum in print, calls and meetings. That is good for the economy because it increases households’ ability to consume, but it will eventually squeeze profit margins and induce the Fed to remove monetary accommodation. Compensation costs shouldn’t hurt margins if they grow at or below the sum of the rate of price-level and productivity gains. If inflation grows at the Fed’s 2% target, and productivity maintains its rough 1.25% growth pace, compensation growth of 3.25% shouldn’t pose a problem, but gains exceeding 3.5% might become problematic. The total compensation series of the employment cost index ticked up to 2.9% in the fourth quarter, but an assault on 3.25-3.5% does not appear to be at hand (Chart 5). Chart 5Wages Aren’t Pressuring Margins Yet Dollar strength is a margin headwind for any company competing with multinationals, at home or abroad. After peaking in mid-November and mid-December, the DXY index has rolled over and is back to its early October level (Chart 6). The fourth-quarter blowout in spreads had us poised to check the “rising corporate yields” box, but there’s no need following last month’s reversal (Chart 7). The savings rate has recovered enough to support spending, and there’s currently no sign that consumers are about to pull back (Chart 8). We are monitoring conditions in emerging markets for spillover into the U.S., but the dollar’s decline and the broad recovery in risk assets worldwide have taken pressure off of EM corporate and sovereign borrowers. Chart 6The Dollar's Backed Off …   Chart 7... And Bond Yields Have, Too   Chart 8Ready, Willing And Able Bottom Line: None of our proxy indicators suggests that corporate earnings face meaningful near-term pressure, either from tighter margins or lower revenues. Inflation Pressures Inflation poses a threat to equities if it makes the Fed uncomfortable enough to pull the plug on the expansion to keep the economy from overheating, or if it makes investors uncomfortable enough to apply a significant haircut to earnings multiples. Given the Fed’s “symmetric” target, we don’t think it will get anxious about core PCE inflation unless it threatens to exceed 2.5% (Chart 9). The 10-year and 5-year-on-5-year TIPS inflation breakevens have slid in lockstep with oil prices, and are nowhere near the 2.3-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s 2% core PCE target (Chart 10); they offer no hint that longer-run inflation expectations might become unanchored. CPI is the go-to inflation series for investors and the media, and with both headline and core hanging around 2%, it is well short of levels that would promote anxiety among the public (Chart 11). Chart 9Realized Inflation Remains Contained …   Chart 10... And Expectations Have Only Fallen   Chart 11Nothing To See Here Bottom Line: We expect that unnecessary fiscal stimulus and an extremely tight labor market will eventually produce inflation, but they’re not testing investors’ complacency yet. Overexuberance Runaway sentiment could spark a nasty correction if it sets the bar for expectations so high that stocks inevitably disappoint. BCA’s composite sentiment indicator, which aggregates the results from surveys of individual investors, professional investors and advisors, is at the lower end of its range, though not yet at levels that have often marked equity bottoms (Chart 12, bottom panel). Before falling with the S&P 500 last January, the share of consumers expecting stock prices to rise over the next twelve months had reached a level consistent with past peaks (Chart 13, bottom panel). It has since fallen to the lower end of its range, and would seem to suggest that investors had nearly given up on stocks when the January survey was taken. Chart 12Investor Sentiment Is Muted …   Chart 13... And So Is The General Public’s Bottom Line: The fourth-quarter decline pushed investor sentiment from around the higher reaches of its historical range to a position well below the mean. From a contrarian perspective, washed-out sentiment could help extend the rally. Investment Implications Our equity downgrade checklist gives U.S. equities a clean bill of health. Although potential gains are lower now with the S&P 500 trading above 2,700 than they were when it was trading below 2,500 at the beginning of the year, we do not see a fundamental reason to downgrade equities from overweight. The multiple expansion required to produce a new closing high might be a stretch, but we believe the S&P 500 can advance well into the 2,800s. We upgraded corporate credit last week, and expect that spreads will narrow as the Fed stays on the sidelines. One should not expect new tights in spreads, but there is potential for investors to augment their coupon spreads with some modest capital appreciation. We dislike Treasuries, especially at longer maturities, even more than we did before last week’s bull flattening of the yield curve. With rate hikes fully priced out, the only way the 10-year Treasury yield could fall even further would be if the Fed cut rates, and that scenario is flatly incompatible with our assessment of the economy’s strength.   Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights The CAD and AUD have tactical upside; however, this may well prove to be the last hurrah before some serious declines play out. This time domestic – not global – factors will drive the CAD and AUD lower. Canada and Australia are hitting the end game for their respective debt supercycles as rising U.S. rates will lift the global cost of capital. Canadian and Australian house prices and debt loads are too elevated; a reversal of these excesses is likely to push these two countries toward liquidity traps. These liquidity traps will cause the R-star in Canada and Australia to fall, lagging well behind the U.S. Canada and Australia are uncompetitive, suggesting external demand will not come to their respective rescue, at least not until after the CAD and AUD have fallen significantly. The CAD may fall first, but the AUD has more downside ultimately; not only is Australia even less competitive than Canada, but the Aussie is also more expensive than the Loonie. Feature The Canadian and Australian dollars are in the process of rebounding. This is not surprising. By the end of 2018, both these currencies were deeply oversold, and the recent easing in global financial conditions, helped by the Federal Reserve’s pause, is fueling their rebound (Chart 1). Moreover, pessimism toward China has hit an extreme, yet Sino-U.S. trade relations seem on the cusp of improving and Chinese policymakers are increasingly trying to manage the downside in the Chinese economy. This setup is normally supportive for the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 2). Chart 1Financial Conditions Point To A Tactical Rebound In The AUD And The CAD...   Chart 2...So Does Chinese Reflation While we have been recommending that our more tactically minded clients play this rally,1  the longer-term outlook for the CAD and AUD remains poor. These countries are getting closer to the end of their respective debt supercycles. Consequently, the CAD and AUD need to trade at much larger discounts to fair value in order to be attractive. Way Too Much Debt Canada and Australia have become victims of their own success. Canada and Australia have seen real estate prices rise for more than two decades. At first, rising prices reflected solid valuations, growing populations and rising prosperity. However, things changed around the Great Financial Crisis. During this traumatic event, the Bank of Canada and the Reserve Bank of Australia both dropped interest rates by 4.25%. Since both countries’ banking sectors escaped the crisis unscathed, and households did not experience similar losses of wealth as those in the U.S., Ireland or Spain, credit growth remained strong. A real estate bubble became the natural consequence of this easy monetary policy. Banks pushed credit to households, and households – impressed by the solid performance of real estate prices, attracted by low interest rates, and enamored with the dream of easy riches – willingly took on mortgages and piled into the property market. A feedback loop ensued, whereby rising collateral values made credit even easier to access, fomenting further house price gains and even-easier credit conditions. Today, we stand at the end of this process. Vancouver and Toronto in Canada, and Sydney and Melbourne in Australia are some of the most expensive real estate markets in world in terms of price-to-income ratios, when one controls for population density (Chart 3). This has created major systemic risks for both countries. Few would care about the systemic risk created by elevated house prices if debt loads were small. However, in both countries, household indebtedness makes Americans circa 2007 look like a frugal bunch. In Canada, household debt has now reached 176% of disposable income, or 100% of GDP, while in Australia, the same ratios are 189% and 121%, respectively. This is well above the levels that prevailed in the U.S. in 2007 (Chart 4). Mortgage debt alone represents 108% and 140% of disposable income in Canada and Australia, respectively. Moreover, Canadian and Australian households also spend 14.5% and 15.6% of their incomes servicing debt, which also compares unfavorably with the U.S. in 2007. Chart 4ACanadians And Australians Make Americans Look Frugal Chart 4BCanadians And Australians Make Americans Look Frugal Canadian and Australian households thus seem close to having reached their maximum debt loads. Moreover, measures taken in Canada and Australia to limit foreign money inflows and constrain bank lending are beginning to bite. In both countries, real estate transactions are slowing, with property sales declining by 20% and 8% in Canada and Australia, respectively. House prices too are being hit. House prices in Vancouver and Toronto peaked by 2018, and in Sydney and Melbourne in 2017. Residential construction is likely to be the first victim. Real estate inventories in both these countries have been rising, courtesy of the frenetic pace of housing starts going on for decades. Today, residential investment represents 7% of GDP in Canada and 5% of GDP in Australia (Chart 5). Thus, slowing real estate activity could curtail Canadian and Australian GDP by 2% if we move back to the real estate environment that prevailed in the mid-1990s. This would also imply large hits to employment as construction, real estate and finance have created 336-thousand and 250-thousand jobs in Canada and Australia since 2009, respectively. Chart 5AA Decline In Construction Activity Would Be A Vicious Hit To Canada And Australia (1) Chart 5BA Decline In Construction Activity Would Be A Vicious Hit To Canada And Australia (2) Consumption too is likely to suffer. Without a growing wealth effect and with declining equity in their houses, Canadian and Australian households are likely to curtail consumption – consumption that has contributed 60% and 30% of Canada’s and Australia’s cumulative GDP growth since 2009. Already, we are seeing slowing Canadian and Australian retail sales – right behind drops in housing activity. The biggest and most dangerous risk is that Canada and Australia teeter on the verge of falling into a liquidity trap, like the U.S. after 2007. As Chart 6 illustrates, propelled by households binging on cheap money in the form of mortgages, Canadian and Australian banks have managed to maintain higher levels of return on equity after the financial crisis. This robust profitability will decline if non-performing loans, which so far remain low, grow in response to weakening house prices and fragile household financial health (Chart 7). Chart 6Canadian And Australian Banks Remain Profitable... Chart 7...As Long As NPLs Do Not Rise Rising NPLs and declining RoEs tend to limit the willingness of banks to lend. Just as crucially, the poor health of households and falling real estate prices is likely to also limit demand for credit. This combination was behind the sharp decline in the U.S. money multiplier in 2008. No matter how much reserves the Federal Reserve would inject in commercial banks via QE programs, broader money would not respond. A similar fate is likely to ensue in Canada and Australia (Chart 8). The velocity of money is also likely to fall if households are not willing to take on debt anymore and instead focus on rebuilding their financial buffers. Chart 8Canada And Australia Have Avoided A Liquidity Trap... So Far The consequence of this monetary constipation will be much lower interest rates. When an economy enters a liquidity trap, as was the case in the U.S. after 2007, in Japan since the 1990s, or in Europe after 2010, the neutral real rate of interest, the so-called R-star, falls to zero or even lower. Essentially, no matter how low interest rates fall, they cannot equilibrate the demand and supply for savings. Everyone wants to save, no one wants to borrow, and banks are unwilling to lend. This fate looks increasingly likely for both Canada and Australia over the coming two years. Bottom Line: The Canadian and Australian real estate markets have enjoyed incredible runs for more than two decades. Now, not only are real estate prices in these two nations very expensive, households have been left with prodigious debt loads. As real estate activity slows, residential construction will suffer, but most importantly, these two countries are likely to teeter toward becoming liquidity traps as banks curtail lending and households curtail borrowing. This will result in structurally lagging interest rates. Why Now? Betting on the end of the Canadian and Australian housing bubbles has so far been mugs games. Why is the situation different now? Because the U.S. economy is stronger. Until now, very low global interest rates have kept the Canadian and Australian housing bubbles afloat, but rising U.S. interest rates are now putting upward pressure on mortgage rates in both Canada and Australia (Chart 9). This simply reflects the fact that U.S. rates represent the ultimate opportunity cost of investing outside the international reserve currency, the U.S. dollar. After years of household deleveraging, the U.S. seems to be able to handle higher rates. However, because Canadian and Australian balance sheets are much weaker, their tolerance for higher rates is substantially lower. Chart 9Higher U.S. Rates Threaten Canadian And Australian Households BCA sees further upside for U.S. rates and thus for the global cost of capital. In other words, we do not anticipate the Fed’s pause to last beyond June. The following reasons underpin this view: The U.S. labor market is increasingly inflationary. The employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers continues to rise, which historically has boosted labor costs (Chart 10). The New York City Fed Underlying Inflation Gauge points toward higher core inflation (Chart 11). Moreover, Ryan Swift argues in BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy that an unfavorable base effect will dissipate after February, further reinforcing the upside risk to inflation.2  Being the only component of our Fed Monitor moving toward “easy money required” territory, the tightening in U.S. financial conditions last year was the lynchpin behind the Fed’s pause. The other components of the Fed Monitor have not deteriorated significantly, and they still argue in favor of further rate hikes (Chart 12). Thus, if the recent easing in financial conditions can persist, the Fed will hike again this year.   Chart 11Budding U.S. Inflationary Pressures   Chart 12The Fed Is Pausing Because Of Tightening Financial Conditions, Not The Economy Finally, U.S. productivity is set to pick up over the coming two years. Since a rising capital stock boosts productivity, the recent strength in capex augurs well (Chart 13). Moreover, the demand deficit created by the deleveraging of U.S. households has weighed on productivity. As U.S. credit growth picks up, so will productivity. This is important as rising productivity lifts the neutral rate, and thus creates more room for the Fed to lift interest rates. Chart 13Upside For U.S. Productivity Equals Upside For U.S. Rates Ultimately, all these factors point to higher U.S. rates. As such, it suggests that Canadian mortgage rates, and to a lesser extent Australian ones as well, will experience upward pressure – exactly at the time when households in these two countries are most vulnerable to higher rates. Bottom Line: Higher U.S. rates are the main reason why we expect the Canadian and Australian housing markets and economies to buckle now, finally heeding the call of doomsayers. Higher U.S. rates lift the global cost of capital. While U.S. households are in robust shape and therefore better able to handle higher rates, the same cannot be said about Canadian and Australian households. Can the External Sector Come To The Rescue? This is unlikely. After years of commodity booms and strong domestic demand supported by rising household wealth, the Canadian and Australian manufacturing sectors have been greatly diminished. Much capacity has vanished, and it will be difficult to replace the lost output from falling domestic demand by exports of manufactured goods. The Australian and especially the Canadian corporate sectors are also already heavily indebted, and thus, it could take quite some time before capacity is expanded. Complicating the situation, Canada and Australia are not competitive exporters anymore. As the top panel of Chart 14 shows, since 1980, U.S. unit labor costs have risen by 156%, but they have risen by 183% in Canada and by a stunning 282% in Australia. Productivity trends paint a similar, albeit less dramatic picture. Since 1980, U.S. labor productivity has risen 22% versus its trading partners; in Canada it has declined by 20%, and in Australia, by 5%. Consequently, both Canadian and Australia labor will have to cheapen. Historically, the mechanism through which labor costs decline is higher unemployment, which forces a painful adjustment in wages. These adjustments are likely to force both interest rates and currencies lower. Chart 14Canada And Australia Are Uncompetitive Could China come to the rescue? Via higher commodity prices, both Canada and Australia have been major beneficiaries of the Chinese economic boom. However, while China today is trying to contain its economic deceleration, Chinese policymakers remain fixated on controlling credit growth. This means that China is unlikely to go on another debt binge similar to what transpired in 2009 or in 2015-‘16. As a result, the recent uptick in commodity prices is unlikely to last long. More fundamentally, China is not only trying to move away from its debt-led growth model: It is also trying to move away from its investment-led growth model. This means that the commodity intensiveness of the Chinese economy is likely to decline. China’s emphasis on controlling air pollution will strengthen this trend. As Chart 15 illustrates, when the share of Capex as a percentage of Chinese GDP declines, so does the labor participation rate of Canada and Australia relative to the U.S. This decline in relative participation rates is associated with falling CAD and AUD values versus the U.S. dollar, a consequence of falling growth potential and interest rates. Chart 15AChanging Chinese Growth Model Points To Falling Canadian And Australian Participation Rates (1) Chart 15BChanging Chinese Growth Model Points To Falling Canadian And Australian Participation Rates (2) Bottom Line: Canada’s and Australia’s lack of manufacturing capacity, poor competitiveness, and China moving away from its investment-led growth model suggest that a deflationary environment will ultimately develop in these two nations, at least relative to the U.S. Moreover, the structurally negative outlook on consumption, debt growth and employment suggests that Canadian and Australian neutral rates are likely to fall relative to the U.S. These economic forces point to deeper lows this cycle in the CAD and AUD against the USD. Investment Implications Based on this economic backdrop, both the Canadian and Australian dollar could suffer significant downside in the coming years as their fair value is likely to fall, dragged by interest rates that will lag those in the U.S. However, if an asset is cheap enough, it may nonetheless be an attractive buy. The CAD and AUD do not fall into that camp. Today, the CAD trades in line with our long-term fair-value model, implying that if its fair value falls, the CAD provides zero insulation and will therefore also have to decline. The AUD is in an even worst spot as it currently trades above its fair value (Chart 16). Additionally, the Australian current account deficit is larger than Canada’s. Chart 16The CAD And AUD Are Not Cheap Enough To Compensate For Secular Risks In terms of timing, the Loonie could start weakening before the Aussie. The Canadian housing bubble is likely to collapse first as Canadian mortgage rates are more tightly linked to U.S. ones than Australian rates are. Moreover, the Canadian economy seems even more levered to rising real estate prices than that of Australia. However, a collapse in Vancouver and Toronto housing prices will promptly catalyze similar weaknesses in Sydney and Melbourne. Thus, while the CAD may be the first to take the great plunge, the AUD will not be far behind. Ultimately, the AUD will suffer the greatest decline. Obviously, the more onerous pricing of the AUD contributes to this assessment, but so does the greater lack of competitiveness in Australia than in Canada. Australia is likely to endure deeper deflationary pressures as its labor costs need greater adjustments. Furthermore, Australia already suffers from a larger degree of underutilized labor than Canada. Since the currency – not wages – is likely to withstand the bulk of the competiveness adjustment, this implies that the AUD has more work to do than the CAD. The more expensive valuations of Australian assets also handicap the Aussie versus the Loonie. Australian real estate is pricier than Canadian property, and Australian stocks are more expensive (Chart 17). This means that Australians could end up with deeper holes in their balance sheets than Canadians, and that Australia has scope to witness greater outflows of capital than Canada. Chart 17Canadian Financial Assets Are Cheaper Than Australian Ones... Where Australia shines relative to Canada is in terms of the ability of fiscal authorities to respond to an economic slowdown. Canadian public debt stands at 90% of GDP versus 41% of GDP in Australia. Canada’s cyclically-adjusted primary deficit is already deteriorating, while Australia’s is improving (Chart 18). This means that the Australian governments have deeper pockets and a greater capacity to support domestic demand than Canada’s. This could cushion the deflationary impact in Australia relative to Canada. That being said, the Japanese, Spanish or U.S. experiences argue that once a real estate bubble bursts, fiscal spending can cushion some of the pain, but it cannot eradicate the problem – at least not until banks are recapitalized and the private sector is once again ready to borrow, something that takes years of balance-sheet rebuilding. Chart 18...But Australia Has More Fiscal Space Bottom Line: Both the CAD and AUD are likely to experience substantial downside over the coming years. The CAD and AUD are not cheap enough to compensate for a BoC and RBA that will greatly lag the Fed. While the CAD may weaken first, the AUD will suffer more long-term downside. The Aussie is more expensive, Australia is less competitive than Canada, and it could suffer greater outflows of capital. Continue to underweight Australian and Canadian assets in global portfolios as the AUD and CAD will drag their performance down. Remain short AUD/CAD on a structural basis.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Global Liquidity Trends Support The Dollar, But…”, dated January 25, 2019, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit”, dated January 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

The hiatus in the Fed’s rates-normalization policy in 1H19 in the wake of its capitulation to financial markets, supports our bullish view on gold prices, as it raises the risk of an inflation overshoot later this year. Per the Fed’s dual mandate, inflation and employment gauges are signaling the need for tighter policy, according to BCA’s proprietary Fed Monitor. The pause in hiking fed funds raises the likelihood the Fed will find itself behind the inflation curve, as the economy enters a late-cycle phase. Gold will outperform other commodities and equities in this phase. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Highlights Energy: The U.S. imposed sanctions on state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), including a ban on the company’s Houston-based Citgo remitting earnings back to the parent company.  This raises the likelihood production and exports will fall sharply as we expect.  Separately, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the country will reduce output below its recently agreed 10.3mm b/d cap in 1H19, in line with our own balances expectation.1 Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral.  Iron ore prices likely will continue to move higher, following the collapse of a wet-processing dam at Vale’s Córrego do Feijão mine.  The company suffered a similar breach at its Samarco mine in March 2016, which still has not re-opened. Output will fall, if it follows through with additional dam closures. Precious Metals: Neutral.  Gold prices will continue to move higher, as the Fed’s near-term capitulation on its rates-normalization policy raises the odds the U.S. central bank will find itself behind the inflation curve.  (See below.) Ags/Softs: Underweight.  USDA reported soybeans inspected for export to China during the week ended January 24 accounted for close to 37% of the total beans inspected.  This made China the No. 1 importer of American soybeans again. Feature In February 2018, we wrote that “price risk in gold will remain skewed to the upside this year, even as our base case scenario calls for limited gains from here.” In line with this expectation, we suggested remaining long gold as a portfolio diversifier and hedge against mounting equity risks. This turned out to be an accurate call. Despite losing 8.4% between January and September 2018 because of an aggressive Fed, gold rose by 7.6% in 4Q18 amid the rising equity volatility and ended the year down a minor -1.5% compared to -6.2%, -11.2% and -7.1% for the S&P 500, global equities and the CRB commodity index. This reflects the convexity in gold returns and is the reason we favored gold in 2018. Gold returns are not simply a function of the U.S. dollar and real interest rates. As highlighted in our 2019 Key Views report last December, in mature economic cycles, gold’s ability to hedge against equity and inflation risks dominate its price formation, while its correlation with the U.S. Treasury yields diminishes (Chart of the Week).2 Chart of the WeekGold's Correlation With U.S. Rates Declines As The Cycle Matures As the current cycle extends to 2019, the skewness in gold return will prove profitable. The Fed’s retreat on its quarterly rate-hike cycle only adds to our positive view, as it increases the probability the U.S. central bank falls behind the curve. Stay long gold as a portfolio hedge. Fed’s Short-Term Capitulation Strengthens Our View The recent downward revision in the Fed’s rate-hike path reinforces our positive stance on gold prices, as risks of an overshoot in inflation rises. The dichotomy in U.S. vs. rest of the world growth puts the Fed in a difficult position. The current capitulation was mainly driven by tightening financial conditions – chiefly, the rising U.S. dollar, declining stock prices, and widening credit spreads. However, under the Fed’s dual mandate, inflation and employment still are signaling “tightening-required” per BCA Research’s Fed Monitor, a model maintained by our U.S. Bond strategists (Chart 2). Since economic growth cannot remain above-trend indefinitely, short-term productive capacity constraints (i.e. capital and labor factors of production) are already binding and will force the Fed to raise rates later this year as inflation creeps up. Chart 2Growth And Inflation Signal Tighter Money Is Required As it reaffirms its data dependence, the Fed is opening the door to falling behind the inflation curve, given inflation is a lagging indicator of the price pressures that are building up in the economy (Chart 3). As a result, we expect gold’s ability to hedge against inflation will support its price in 2H19. Chart 3Inflationary Pressure Will Rise In 2019 Short-term, a Fed pause also supports gold by readjusting investors’ expectations regarding the U.S. dollar and real interest rates lower. Our bond strategists identified two previous periods where similar conditions led to a false start in the Fed hiking cycle, 1997 and 2015. In both cases, the Fed’s capitulation led to a reversal in gold’s downward price trajectory, as the market perceived the central bank was keeping its short-term policy rate at a level that was inconsistent with the so-called R-star rate or natural rate of interest – i.e., “the real interest rate expected to prevail when the economy is at full strength” (Chart 4).3 Chart 4AGold Price's Trajectory Reversed In 1997... Chart 4B Using a conceptual four-quadrant framework developed by our colleagues at The Bank Credit Analyst to describe the Fed’s behavior, we currently believe the outcome with the highest probability of being realized by the Fed’s capitulation is Policy Mistake 2 (Table 1, lower right quadrant). If we’re right, this raises the odds of an inflation overshoot above the Fed’s 2% target later this year.4 Table 1Four Fed Policy Scenarios This is not a foregone conclusion. However, generally speaking, the higher the inflation uncertainty and the higher the perception the Fed will fall behind the curve, the higher gold is bid up. Recent price action seems to corroborate this. Chart 5 shows that the recent downward revision in the median long-term fed funds rate projection coincides with a rise in gold prices. At present, gold investors are signaling that the fed funds rate is below the neutral rate consistent with R-star. Chart 5Gold Markets Signal Monetary Policy Is Accommodative Gold And The U.S. Economic Cycle Gold prices are difficult to model and predict, given the collection of time-varying, often conflicting, components determining their evolution. Its core determinants change as we move through the economic cycle. In their current late-cycle environment, inflation and equity risks – i.e., fears of a sharp correction – usually gain in importance. In this report, we characterize the market’s late-cycle phase using two metrics: (1) the fed funds rate relative to R-star, (2) the phase of the yield curve cycle.5 We have already discussed (1) in our outlook and found that when the fed funds rate is rising yet still below the estimate of R-star, gold returns are highly skewed to the upside (Chart 6).6 For (2), we compared the yellow metal’s return to other assets returns in different phases of the U.S. Treasury yield curve’s evolution. We define these yield-curve phases as follow: Phase 1: Normal (i.e., positively sloped: 10-year rates are greater than 3-month rates). The 3-month/10-year treasury slope is above 75 bps. Phase 2: On its way to flattening and returning to normal. The 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is between 0 bps and 75 bps. We divide this in two sub-phases: (a) steepening, and (b) flattening. Phase 3: Inverted (i.e., negatively sloped). The 3-month/10-year Treasury slopes is below 0 bps (Chart 7).7 Chart 7Phases Of The Yield Curve Cycle We found that: first, DM and EM equities are the best performers in the group we looked at during Phase 1, when the slope of the yield curve is steep (above 75 bps). Second, there is wide difference between the steepening and flattening sections of Phase 2. EM equities and copper experience the largest rebound once the slope’s curve steepens from below zero. Lastly, gold performs best in the flattening section of Phase 2 and, critically, it outperforms oil, copper, broad commodity indices and equities (Table 2). Table 2Gold Returns Are Positive When The Yield Curve’s Slope Flattens Our U.S. Investment and Bond Strategists believe the Fed’s policy rate will remain in the below-r-star-and-rising range, and in Phase 2 of the yield curve cycle for most of 2019. We agree, and believe our analysis indicates gold prices will increase this year on the back of these factors. Recession Fear And Equity Risks Will Drive Gold For most of 2018, investor sentiment and positioning were primarily determined by the U.S. dollar and real rates. As these variables rose last year, investors’ sentiment and positioning turned overly bearish; this pushed our Gold Composite Indicator in the oversold territory (Chart 8).8 In our view, the other (important) drivers of gold prices were ignored during that period. The end-of-year equity selloff led to a reshuffle of the core determinants of the yellow metal’s price, pushing the equity risk factor higher on the list of variables explaining its price. Chart 8Sentiment Collapsed In 1H18 Chart 9 shows gold and the U.S. equity risk premium disconnected in 2018, until the October equity selloff. In general, these variables are positively linked. When risk aversion is elevated, investors demand higher compensations for holding risky assets, and increase their demand for safe-haven assets. This pushes up both the equity risk premium and gold prices. Chart 9Gold And Equity Risk Premium Correlation Picked Up Gold’s performance in 4Q18 supports our recommendation for holding it as a portfolio diversifier in 2018, and why we continue to do so this year (Chart 10). Separately, our U.S. dollar and rates-only model moved up recently, easing the downward pressure on gold (Chart 11). While we believe these two variables’ marginal impact diminished since 4Q18, they are included in our gold “fair-value” model, which currently indicates it is fairly valued and that its support remains intact. Chart 11Upside Pressures Are Building Bottom Line: The Fed’s near-term capitulation raises the odds the U.S. economy will experience an inflation overshoot. Our fair-value model also is supportive of gold prices. We remain long as a diversification and portfolio hedge. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see “Saudis Pledge Deeper Oil Cuts in February Under OPEC+ Deal,” published by bloomberg.com January 29, 2019.  See also “OPEC Starts Cutting Oil Output; Demand Fears Are Overdone” published January 24, 2019, for our latest supply-demand balances and price forecasts.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” published December 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see John C. Williams’s remarks delivered to the Economic Club of Minnesota May 15, 2018, entitled “The Future Fortunes of R-Star: Are They Really Rising?”  Williams was president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time, and now has the same role at the NY Fed..  We explore this further below.  See also BCA Research’s U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled “An Oasis Of Prosperity,” published August 21, 2018. It is available at usb.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA Research’s The Bank Credit Analyst January 2019 Monthly Report published December 21, 2018. It is available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5      The San Francisco Fed defines R-star as the inflation-adjusted “natural” rate of interest consistent with a fully employed economy, with inflation close to the Fed’s target. R-star is used to guide interest-rate policy consistent with long-term macro goals set by the Fed. Please see “R-star, Uncertainty, and Monetary Policy,” by Kevin J. Lansing, published in the FRBSF Economic Letter May 30, 2017. 6      We presented this analysis in BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” published December 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7      For a similar analysis applied to different asset classes, please see BCA Research’s U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled “2019 Key Views: Implication For U.S. Fixed Income,” published December 11, 2018, and The Bank Credit Analyst January 2019 Monthly Report published December 21, 2018. These reports are available at usb.bcaresearch.com and bca.bcaresearch.com. Our approach is slightly different from our colleagues’ methodology. We used a threshold of 75 bps instead of 50 bps in order to increase the sample size of the Phase 2, flattening section. This improves the accuracy of using the average as our main descriptive statistic. Note that the yield curve can remain inverted for some time before a recession occurs, this explains why equity returns are positive in Phase 3 (curve inversion). 8      Our Gold Composite Indicator has three components: (1) Sentiment, (2) Speculative positioning and (3) Technical. It is meant to assess if there is any mismatch between our fundamental analysis and investors’ sentiment and expectations. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary Of Trades Closed In 2018