Money Trends / Liquidity

Special Report

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

Bank Credit Analyst

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: I have been eagerly looking forward to this meeting given my many concerns about the outlook. Our portfolio has done well in the past year thanks to the surge in bond prices and the outperformance of defensive equities. However, I am deeply troubled by the amount of monetary stimulus required to support risk assets, and by how expensive bonds and equities are. Moreover, the global economy remains engulfed in deflationary risks, and policymakers are running out of ammunition. As always, there is much to talk about. Ms. X: Let me add that I am also pleased to once again be here to discuss the major risks and opportunities in the global marketplace. A year ago, I held a more positive market view than my father. Directly after our meeting, the deep market correction gave me second thoughts, but ultimately, the rebound in stock prices vindicated my view. Clearly, your assertion that markets would be turbulent proved correct. Since I joined the family firm in early 2017, I have been pushing my father to keep a higher equity exposure than he was normally comfortable with. We agreed to still favor stocks last year, albeit, with a bias toward defensive sectors, and this strategy paid off. But after the past year’s powerful rally in both bonds and stocks, we are again left wondering how to position our portfolio. Ultimately, I do not believe a recession is imminent. Yes, stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. Since I expect economic growth to pick up, I am inclined to tilt the portfolio further into equities and move away from our preference for defensive sectors. As usual, I am very interested to hear your views. BCA: Our core theme for 2019 was that we would face classic late-cycle turbulence. Despite this volatility, a run-up in asset prices was likely. Soon after we met, the stock market plunged, hitting a low on December 26, 2018. We anticipated the Federal Reserve to be much more hawkish than what actually transpired. Wage growth and even core inflation have remained firm in the US, but the weakness in global inflation expectations drove central banks’ reaction functions more powerfully than we anticipated. Moreover, the rapid escalation of the Sino-US trade war added a layer of uncertainty that exacerbated the economic slowdown that had started in mid-2018, forcing global central banks to ease policy as an indemnity against recession. Looking ahead, central bankers are highly unlikely to tighten monetary policy as long as inflation expectations remain below their normal range consistent with a 2% inflation target. We agree that the odds of a US recession in the coming year are still low because financial conditions are set to remain accommodative, Chinese authorities are setting policy to shore up growth, and a trade truce is likely. Global economic activity will rebound in early 2020. Instead, the most probable timeframe for a broad based recession is late 2021/early 2022. As a result, we remain positive on risk assets, especially foreign stocks. We are also underweighting bonds as they offer extremely poor absolute and relative value. Mr. X: I can see we will have a lively discussion because I do not share your or my daughter’s optimism. My list of concerns is long, I hope we have time to get through them all. But first, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: This exercise is always interesting and often humbling, too. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: Tensions between policy and markets would be an ongoing theme in 2019. With the US unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it would take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. Ultimately, the Fed would deliver more hikes in 2019 than discounted in the markets. This would push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. The dollar would peak in mid-2019. China would also become more aggressive in stimulating its economy, which would boost global growth. However, until both of these things happened, emerging markets would remain under pressure. We favored developed market equities over their EM peers. We also preferred defensive equity sectors such as healthcare and consumer staples over cyclical sectors such as industrials and materials. Within the developed market universe, the US would outperform Europe and Japan over the next few quarters, especially in dollar terms. Stabilization in global growth would ignite a blow off rally in global equities. If the Fed was raising rates in response to falling unemployment, it would be unlikely to derail the stock market. However, once supply-side constraints began to bite fully in early 2020 and inflation began to rise well above the Fed’s target of 2%, stocks would begin to buckle. This would mean that a window would exist in 2019 for stocks to outperform bonds. We would maintain a benchmark allocation to stocks, but increase exposure if global bourses were to fall significantly from then (late 2018) current levels without a corresponding deterioration in the economic outlook. Corporate credit would underperform stocks as government bond yields rise. A major increase in credit spreads was unlikely as long as the economy remained in expansion mode, but spreads could still widen modestly. US shale companies had been the marginal producers in the global oil sector. With breakeven costs in shale close to $50/bbl, crude prices would be unlikely to rise much from current levels over the long term. However, we expected production cuts in Saudi Arabia would push prices up, with Brent crude averaging around $82/bbl in 2019. A balanced portfolio was likely to generate average returns of only 2.8% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.6% a year between 1982 and 2018. As already noted, our forecast for more Fed rate hikes was wrong. This meant that we were offside in our duration call. Ultimately, 10-year Treasuries have generated returns of 10.8% so far this year, and German bunds and Japanese government bonds returns of 5.8% and 1.0% in EUR and JPY terms, or 2.5% and 2.0% in USD terms, respectively (Table 1). Nonetheless, our expectation of a run-up in risk asset prices was spot on. Equities outperformed bonds, with global stocks climbing 22.2% in USD terms. We missed the initial outperformance of corporate bonds relative to Treasuries, as investment grade credit rose by 13.9%. However, our bond team took a more constructive stance on corporates as the year progressed. Table 1Market Performance Chart 12019 Was A Good Year For Stocks In terms of regional allocation recommendations, we were correct to overweight US equities which beat non-US stocks by 13.4%, partly thanks to the dollar’s appreciation. We were also right to underweight EM equities, with Asia and Latin America generating dollar returns of only 12.6% and 6.9%. Overall, it was a good year for financial markets (Chart 1). Our growth forecasts were mixed. We predicted global growth would slow in the first half of 2019 but improve thereafter. Instead, the slowdown extended and intensified into the second half of the year as the Sino-US trade war escalated more than expected, and Chinese policymakers were more reluctant to reflate than anticipated. The IMF also revised down its growth forecasts. In the October 2019 World Economic Outlook report, growth in advanced economies for the year was cut to 1.7% from 2.1% compared to 2018 forecasts, led by a downward revision to 1.5% from 2% in Europe (Table 2). They also pared down 2019 EM growth estimates to 3.9% from 4.7%. Consequently, inflation was softer than originally predicted. These trends in economic activity meant that our dollar call was partially right. The currency did not peak in the middle of the year as we foresaw, but has been flat since the spring and today trades where it was in April. Meanwhile, the weaker-than-expected growth put our oil call offside, with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, not $82/bbl. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts The Cycle’s End Game Mr. X: You mentioned that you remain positive on risk assets and stocks for 2020. You will not be surprised that I am extremely skeptical of this view. The Fed could only raise rates to 2.5% before all hell broke loose, and it has now cut them back to 1.75%. The European Central Bank has lowered its deposit rate to -0.5% and is resuming its asset purchase program, while the Bank of Japan is clearly out of ammunition. Yet global growth remains weak. Despite this lack of economic traction, US stocks are at a record high and are unequivocally expensive. This situation seems untenable. If global growth weakens further, there is little more policymakers can do. I think the risk of a recession is a lot more elevated than you believe, especially as we cannot count on a lasting trade détente. Meanwhile, the US presidential election makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot see how business leaders will want to deploy capital to expand capacity given the risk that the regulatory and tax environment could become hostile to the corporate sector. If I’m wrong about growth – and I hope I am – then inflationary pressures will build and central banks will have to tighten policy suddenly. As bond yields rise, stocks will be sold and yet bonds will not offer any protection since they yield so little. Also, I have not even talked about negative interest rates. $12.1 trillion of debt yields less than zero percent. This is obviously preventing creative destruction from purging the system of rot. It is also promoting capital misallocation and undue risk-taking by financial institutions who cannot meet fiduciary liabilities. Ms. X: Based on this tirade, you can easily imagine what life at the office has been like in recent months. I do share some of my father’s concerns. Negative rates cannot be a good thing, especially from a long-term perspective. If growth weakens further, I’m also concerned that central banks have few options left. However, I do not see these risks as imminent. There are nascent signs that the global economy will stabilize soon; both President Trump and President Xi have strong incentives to reach a trade truce; and central banks are nowhere near removing the proverbial punch bowl. While US stocks are expensive, other risk assets offer value if global growth rebounds. The wall of worry is high, but stocks can and will climb that wall. BCA: Your debate is similar to our own internal discussions. It is undeniable that the investing landscape looks shaky at the moment, especially with the S&P 500 currently trading at 18-times forward earnings. However, the situation you are describing is a direct consequence of one BCA’s long running macro themes: The end of the debt supercycle. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular. The private debt load in advanced economies has declined by 20% of GDP since 2009 (Chart 2A). Despite the burgeoning US federal government deficit, public debt accumulation has not been strong enough to cause total debt loads to increase. Instead, aggregate indebtedness has been stuck slightly above 260% of GDP for the past 10 years. Depressed, and in some cases, negative interest rates reflect weak demand for credit. Chart 2AThe Debt Supercycle Is Dead In DM... Chart 2B...But Not In EM   The end of the debt supercycle has both a negative and positive impact. Without increasing leverage, domestic demand cannot grow faster than trend GDP. Thus, it takes much more time for inflationary pressures to build. Concurrently, in the absence of inflationary pressure, more time passes before monetary policy reaches a restrictive level causing recession. The upshot is that the business cycle can last much longer. Moreover, a world less geared to credit accumulation reduces the fragility of the financial system, at the margin. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular (Chart 2B), where the demand for credit is still very sensitive to changes in monetary settings. EM countries are the major source of volatility in the global business cycle. Chinese policymakers’ management of the tradeoff between growth and leverage will determine whether the global economy can avoid deflation. If they decide to tackle debt excesses head on, EM credit growth will contract and EM final demand will suffer. In this scenario, negative rates will persist in low-growth advanced economies, and the Fed will be incapable of raising rates because global deflationary forces will be too strong. Chart 3The World Is In The Midst Of A Deflationary Episode The second half of 2018 and the whole of 2019 gave us a taste of these forces. When China tightened credit conditions, the EM economies slowed first. Trade and manufacturing hubs like Europe, Australia and Japan quickly followed. A deflationary wave spread around the world, as evidenced by a drop in global producer prices (Chart 3). The US is a comparatively closed economy, but it could not avoid this gravitational pull. The ISM manufacturing survey ultimately started to contract in August 2018, converging to weakness in the rest of the world. The trade war’s hit to business confidence added insult to the injury of an already weak economic environment. Looking ahead, our optimism reflects an expectation that Chinese policymakers will adopt a more pro-growth policy stance because they too are spooked by the downtrend in their economy. While the Politburo Standing Committee has not abandoned its structural reform agenda, it realizes that aggressive deleveraging is dangerous. The Chinese economy is growing at its weakest pace in nearly 30 years and deflation is once again taking hold. In response to date, policymakers have lowered China’s reserve requirement ratio by 400 basis points, cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP, increased the issuance of local government bonds to finance public infrastructure projects, and boosted capex at state-owned enterprises. EM economies will respond to these stimulative measures. The Chinese credit and fiscal impulse has stabilized (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the Fed has pushed the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Holston-Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral rate, and coordinated global policy easing points to a rebound in the global manufacturing sector (Chart 4, bottom panel). Moreover, the global inventory purge that magnified the industrial sector’s pain is getting exhausted and the auto sector is looking up. Finally, we agree with Ms. X that both President Trump and President Xi have their own incentives to deescalate trade policy uncertainty. We are entering the end game of this business cycle and bull market. Global borrowing rates will rise, but only to a limited extent. Rightly or wrongly, major central banks are terrified by the prospect of the Japanification of their economies. Practically speaking, this means that they want inflation expectations to move back up to normal levels (Chart 5). However, after undershooting their 2% targets for 11 years, achieving this objective will require central banks to let realized inflation overshoot these targets first. Thus, central banks are unlikely to tighten policy until late next year at the earliest, which will limit how far yields can climb in 2020. Chart 4…But Do Not Bet Against Reflation Chart 5Depressed Inflation Expectations   Equities and other risk assets should perform well if global growth re-accelerates but interest rates don’t rise much at first. Some benefit of this fertile backdrop is already priced in, but many pockets of value levered to stronger global growth still exist. We are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. While the general environment favors remaining invested in risk assets in 2020, this is likely the last window of opportunity to do so. Today’s accommodative monetary policy will revive inflationary pressures in 2021, and central banks will ultimately be forced to lift rates much more aggressively. China will continue to resist excessive leverage. Neither the business cycle nor the equity bull market will withstand these final assaults. Mr. X: Your benign outlook reminds me of when we met in December 2007. Do you remember? You told me that the housing slowdown and the credit market seizure were large risks, but central banks would put a floor under global growth. How did that turn out? I agree that in advanced economies, overall debt loads have been stable. But this belies major disparities. For example, US corporate debt has never represented a larger share of GDP than it does today. This must be a major vulnerability. While household balance sheets look healthy, I do not think consumption will save the day if companies are cutting capex and employment while they clean up their balance sheets. Countries like Canada and Australia are drowning in private sector debt. How can you ignore these vulnerabilities? BCA: A comparison with 2008 actually reveals why advanced economies, particularly the US, are not the powder keg that they once were. US corporate debt is elevated when compared to GDP, but profits also represent a much larger share of GDP than they did 10 or 20 years ago, and interest rates are close to historic lows. As a result, interest coverage ratios are still adequate (Chart 6). In 2007, household debt loads were large, but interest payments also accounted for 18.1% of disposable income, the highest proportion since 1972. Additionally, US firms’ debt-to-asset ratio is in line with the post-1970 average of 22.1%. Finally, US businesses have not used rising leverage to fund capital spending, as demonstrated by the elevated age of the capital stock. Thus, the US corporate sector continues to generate positive net savings. Ahead of recessions, US businesses typically generate negative net savings. The composition of the creditors is another important difference. In 2007, an extremely large share of the spurious borrowings resided on banks’ balance sheets. Moreover, the banking system was woefully undercapitalized with a leverage ratio of 17x. Weak banks had to absorb 2.2 trillion of losses after 2008. Consequently, the money creation mechanism broke down, and money multipliers collapsed (Chart 7). Today, US banks boast relatively stronger balance sheets, and they are still judicious about extending credit despite being less exposed to the corporate sector than they were to the mortgage market in 2008. Instead, most corporate debt is held by less levered entities such as ETFs, pension plans, and insurance companies. The leveraged losses that proved so debilitating in 2008 are less likely to be a source of systemic risk in this cycle. Chart 6US Businesses Can Still Service Their Debt Chart 72008 Heralded A Destruction Of Money   Countries like Australia and Canada have much more worrisome private sector debt dynamics, as their servicing costs are elevated (Chart 8). However, these economies are unlikely to collapse when global rates are low, as long as the global economy can avoid a recession, which would reduce export revenue in these trade-sensitive countries. You expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. The bottom line is that both the US corporate sector and at-risk countries like Canada should avoid a day of reckoning until interest rates rise meaningfully. As we have already mentioned, central banks are very clear that they will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening policy anew. We monitor US inflation breakeven rates to gauge the likely timing of that outcome. At 1.6%, they remain well below the 2.3% to 2.5% range, which is historically consistent with central banks durably achieving their inflation target (Chart 9). Until inflation expectations are re-anchored back up in that range, we will not worry about an imminent tightening in monetary conditions. Chart 8Canada And Australia Are Close To Their Debt Walls Chart 9The Fed Is In No Rush To Tighten   Chart 10Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator It is true that inflationary pressures are building in the US. Historical evidence points to a kink in the Phillips curve, the link between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Since the labor market is tight, we are already seeing average hourly earnings growth accelerate. Moreover, the output gap is mostly closed. However, keep in mind that inflation is also a lagging economic indicator (Chart 10). Consequently, the recent global economic slowdown is likely to keep US inflation at bay for most of 2020. The sharp fall in US capacity utilization along with the decline in imported goods and core producer price inflation corroborate this picture. Mr. X: So you believe that as long as rates stay low, the day of reckoning will be delayed. But ultimately, that it is unavoidable. BCA: Correct. No matter what, we are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. The current period of easy policy will allow cyclical spending to rise as a share of output, and debt to build up again over the coming 18 months. Because slack is clearly limited, this latest wave of policy easing will generate inflationary pressures. Ultimately, the Fed will be forced to play catch up and tighten more aggressively than expected in 2021. Paradoxically, the longer the onset of recession is delayed, the deeper it is likely to be… Mr. X: Because imbalances and vulnerabilities will only grow larger! BCA: Absolutely! Mr. X: That is something we can agree on. Ms. X: The way you complete one another’s sentences is a testament to how many years you have been talking to each other. For me, the most concerning issue is political risk. While I am more positive on the outlook for trade policy than my father, I do worry about the impact of US election risk on capital spending. Chart 11If The 2012 Election Is Any Guide, Trump Can Still Win A Second Term BCA: On the trade war, we would like to address your father’s concerns. All politicians, even unconventional ones like President Trump, seek re-election. Yet, President Trump’s overall approval rating is low (Chart 11). If the election were held today, his odds of winning would be minimal. However, US presidential elections do ultimately favor the incumbent. If the re-election of President Obama in 2012 is any guide, President Trump has enough time to boost his approval rating over the coming 12 months to secure a second term through the Electoral College. In order to achieve this outcome, he must reverse the large slowdown in wage growth currently plaguing the swing states he won by only a small margin in 2016 (Chart 12). Workers in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are suffering disproportionately from the uncertainty created by the trade tensions. President Trump will have to pause the tariffs – and even cut tariff rates – to support the economy and reassure voters. Chart 12Trump's Fear Is Coming True China is willing to accept a trade truce. The Chinese economy is weak and producer prices are once again deflating. President Xi doesn’t want to preside over another massive surge in leverage or a 1930’s Irving Fisher-style deflationary spiral. Reviving private sector investment sentiment via a reduction in trade policy uncertainty would help stabilize spending and avoid a disorderly economic slump. Moreover, President Xi may not trust the current White House, but the prospect of a Democratic administration that will be tough on both environmental standards and human rights would offer little solace. This brings us to the US election. The recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch positioning survey shows that the investment community shares your concerns. This risk is hard to quantify. The Democratic nomination is wide open. Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the opinion polls, and is a known quantity. Meanwhile, the rising progressive wing of the party, embodied in Senator Elizabeth Warren, is hostile to business and likely to cause concerns in boardrooms across the US, especially in the tech, energy, financial services and healthcare sectors. This could dampen animal spirits. Biden’s and Warren’s odds of beating President Trump are overstated by current polls, especially if the President softens his stance on trade to allow for a growth pick-up. Moreover, to be competitive nationally, Senator Warren will have to abandon some of her more progressive plans and pivot toward the center. The recent upbeat equity market performance of sectors like managed healthcare suggests that markets are discounting this shift. Thus, we doubt the election is currently really weighing on business intentions. The recent pick up in capital spending intentions in various Fed Manufacturing surveys fades this risk. Chart 13A Structural Tailwind Has Vanished What is clear though is that if the economy were to weaken further, Senator Warren’s chances would improve and CEOs would genuinely begin to worry about re-regulation, potentially unleashing a vicious cycle. Thus, the end game is an unstable equilibrium. On a structural basis, whether one looks at the rise of populism or the geopolitical rivalry between China and the US, trade tensions will remain a pesky feature of the global economy. In effect, the trade truce will not be a permanent deal. The global economy has therefore lost the tailwind of deepening global integration achieved through trade (Chart 13). This will limit global potential GDP growth. Ms. X: Thank you. I think the time is right to explore your economic outlook in more detail. The Economic Outlook Chart 14China: Modest Reflation Is Underway Mr. X: From your arguments, it seems that the outlook for China and Emerging Markets is critical, so let’s start there. My impression is that President Xi is not abandoning his structural reform agenda. Avoiding the middle-income trap will require decreasing China’s dependence on credit as a growth driver. Can economic activity really stabilize under those circumstances? BCA: You are correct: Senior Chinese administrators are reluctant to allow another major phase of debt accumulation to take hold. However, as we already highlighted, policymakers are taking steps to end the most severe economic slowdown since the first half of the 1990s. China is currently implementing a middling stimulus program. The positive impact of the lower bank reserve requirement ratio, the tax cuts and increased public infrastructure spending is being mitigated by strong regulatory constraints on the shadow banking system and small financial institutions, by efforts to limit real estate speculation, and by the cash crunch facing real estate developers. These crosscurrents make it unlikely that the credit impulse will rise as sharply as it did following the reflationary campaigns of 2009, 2012 or 2016. Nonetheless, the Chinese economy is indeed exhibiting some mildly positive signals. Our monetary indicator and state-owned enterprise capital spending point to a rebound in overall Chinese economic activity (Chart 14). Moreover, household spending is trying to bottom. If China stabilizes, then the EM slowdown will end soon. Without a deepening drag from the Chinese economy, EM countries should be able to take advantage of the easing in global financial and liquidity conditions. But the end of the Chinese drag on EM growth does not mean a massive tailwind will be forthcoming. Additionally, deflationary forces remain stronger in the emerging world than in the US. As a result, EM real rates will remain stubbornly above the level that real economic activity warrants, posing a headwind for capital and durable goods spending. Generally speaking, EM and China are moving from a headwind for the world to a mild tailwind. Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone. Ms. X: I’m somewhat more positive than you on global growth next year. The policy easing around the world looks very promising for economic activity. How do you factor the impact of improving global liquidity conditions into your outlook for 2020? BCA: It is undeniable that global liquidity conditions have eased massively. As we already highlighted, the majority of global central banks cutting rates is a very positive dynamic for global growth. Trends in measures of liquidity ratify this message. Foreign exchange reserves are again growing and our BCA US Financial Liquidity index has rallied sharply over the past 12 months. Historically, this indicator forecasts the trend in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator, commodity prices and EM export prices by 18 months (Chart 15). Moreover, money aggregates are growing faster than credit across the major advanced economies. Such developments typically foretell an acceleration in global economic activity (Chart 16). Chart 15Liquidity Dynamics: Fueling A Global Growth Recovery Chart 16Rising Money Supply Is A Good Thing   The duration of the current slowdown also warrants optimism. We have often highlighted that since the early 1990s, the global manufacturing sector evolves over 36-month symmetric cycles (Chart 17). The current soft patch has lasted more than 18 months. In the context of easing liquidity and depleted inventories, pent-up demand can easily translate into actual spending. The recent surge in the new orders-to-inventories ratio confirms that global manufacturing activity should soon pick up (Chart 18). The auto sector’s weakness, which was exacerbated by previous inventory buildups, changing emission standards, and rising borrowing costs, is also ebbing. Chart 17The Mid-Cycle Slowdown Is Long In The Tooth Chart 18The New Order-To-Inventory Ratio Points To A Global Rebound     Various growth indicators are sniffing out this positive inflection point. The recent trough in the global ZEW survey is revealing (Chart 19). It materialized quickly after Sino-US trade tensions began to ease. Enough positive global economic momentum exists such that a minor decline in policy uncertainty could unleash a large improvement in growth expectations. The rebound in Taiwanese equities and European luxury stocks confirms that the global economy should soon bottom. There are two things we cannot emphasis enough. First, this is the end game of the business cycle, after which a recession will ensue. Second, investors should not expect the kind of strong synchronized growth rebound witnessed in 2017. Without a Chinese and EM boom, a crucial source of demand will be wanting. Mr. X: What about US growth? The yield curve inverted this summer and deteriorating consumer and business confidence raised the specter of an imminent recession. Moreover, the fiscal stimulus that helped the economy in the first half of 2019 is now over. In fact, with a $1 trillion federal deficit despite an unemployment rate of only 3.6%, we have run out of fiscal room to support activity if and when a recession materializes. BCA: The recent yield curve inversion most likely overstated the risk of an economic contraction. First, in the mid-1990s, if the term premium had been as low as it is today, the curve would have also inverted without any recession materializing from 1995 to 2000. Second, this summer, the curve inverted up to the 5-year tenor and steepened for longer maturities. Prior to recessions, the curve inverts across all maturities. Recessions are not born out of thin air. They are caused by imbalances and tight monetary policy. The large debt buildup and other investment imbalances that have preceded prior US recessions are not yet apparent. Prior to the 1991, 2001 and 2008 recessions, the private sector debt load had increased by 20.6%, 14.6% and 25.6% of GDP in the previous five years, not the current 1.4% run rate. The Fed’s policy is now clearly accommodative. Not only is the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Fed’s favored estimate of the neutral rate of interest, but also real estate, the most interest-rate sensitive economic sector, is rebounding. In 2018, real estate activity collapsed in response to mortgage rates rising to 4.9%. Today, the NAHB Homebuilding index has retraced 79% of its losses; mortgage demand has improved; and housing starts and building permits have recovered (Chart 20). When policy is tight, real estate activity never recovers this quickly, even as yields fall. Chart 19Positive Signals For Global Growth Chart 20The Housing Market Signals That Policy Is Accommodative   Chart 21Robust Household Financial Health A counterargument is that real estate price appreciation is weak. However, tight monetary policy is not the cause. Two forces are dampening house prices. First, the Jobs and Tax Act of 2017 lowered allowable mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions. High-end properties in high-tax states such as California, New York and Massachusetts have suffered from this adjustment. Second, the US housing market has an overhang of large, pricey homes relative to strong demand for smaller, starter homes. Median home prices outpacing average ones show this divergence. We also to need to gauge if consumer spending is likely to follow the manufacturing sector lower. If it does, a recession will be unavoidable. On this front, we are hopeful because: The outlook for household income is positive. As you noted, the unemployment rate is still extraordinarily low, and more Americans will be working by the end of 2020 than today. Additionally, the rising employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers is tightly linked to stronger wages (Chart 21). Also, the recent pick up in productivity growth points to higher real wage growth. The household savings rate is elevated and has limited upside. Households already have a large cushion insulating them from unforeseen shocks. At 8.1% of disposable income, the savings rate is in the 65th percentile of its post-1980 distribution. It is especially lofty if we take into account robust American households’ net worth (Chart 21, bottom panel). Consumer credit demand is rising, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan officer survey. Since household liquid assets are quickly expanding and the household formation rate is robust, consumption of durable goods should pick up, especially in light of the large decrease in borrowing costs. This is particularly true since the household debt-to-assets ratio is at its lowest level since 1985 and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.7% of disposable income, the lowest share for nearly 40 years. The corporate sector outlook should brighten soon. The modest rise in productivity protects margins from higher wages, an effect that will linger given that capacity expansion is consistent with further productivity gains (Chart 22). Crucially, the combined fiscal and monetary easing in China should bolster capital-spending intentions around the world, including the US (Chart 23). Rising productivity will only consolidate these trends. Chart 22Capacity Growth Provides Some Support For Productivity Chart 23Chinese Reflation Will Revive US Capital Spending   The most positive development for the US corporate sector is our outlook for non-US growth. If the global manufacturing sector mends itself, so will the US. Ample liquidity is a positive for the world economy, as well as for US manufacturing conditions (Chart 24). On the fiscal front, we appreciate your worries, but they are not a story for 2020. The US fiscal thrust will not be as positive as it was in 2018 or 2019, but it is set to remain a small tailwind, not a drag. Furthermore, given that 2020 is an election year it is unlikely that politicians will tighten purse strings over the coming 12 months. Fiscal risks are undoubtedly greater in the long run. However, a sudden fiscal consolidation is a remote probability because fiscal austerity has gone out of style. Instead, the federal debt burden will be a major source of long-term inflation because there is no other easy way to address this gigantic pile of liabilities. The path of least resistance will be more spending and financial repression. In other words, real rates will stay too low and excess government spending will push prices higher, conveniently eroding the real value of that high federal debt burden. This was a big story in the 20th century and it will remain so in the 21st (Chart 25), especially since an aging population and the peak in globalization will weigh on global savings. Chart 24The US Manufacturing Slowdown Has Run Its Course Chart 25Inflation Is About Political Decisions   Ms. X: Your point about demographics makes me think of Europe and Japan. Brexit has not been resolved; populism remains a concern in Italy; and the European banking system is still fragile. Japan suffers from an even worse demographic profile and the recent VAT increase was ill-timed, economically. Given these headwinds, can these regions participate in the global recovery you foresee? BCA: The short answer is yes, albeit to varying degrees. The outlook for Europe is more promising than Japan. A No-Deal Brexit is now a very low probability event, even after next month’s UK election. The conservatives’ support for Prime Minister Johnson’s Brexit plan will ensure as much. A large source of uncertainty is being lifted, which will allow European businesses to resume investment planning. The situation in the European periphery is also improving. Non-performing loans in Spain and Italy are falling (Chart 26), which is allowing for a normalization of credit origination. The narrowing Italian and peripheral spreads to German bunds will be helped by easing financial conditions in the European economies that need it most. Higher Italian bond prices improve banks’ solvency and cut borrowing costs for the private sector. Finally, populism is alive and well in Europe, rejecting fiscal austerity, but not embracing euro-skepticism. More generous fiscal spending would be a positive for Europe. European liquidity conditions are also generous. Deposit growth has strengthened and financial conditions have benefited from lower German yields and a cheap euro, which trades 15% below fair-value estimates. Our model for European banks’ return on tangible equity is rising, which is a clear indication that easy financial and liquidity conditions should deliver stronger incremental economic activity (Chart 27). Chart 26Declining Non-Performing Loans Are A Positive For The European Periphery Chart 27European Banks' Return On Equity Will Improve In 2020   The fiscal outlook is murkier. European fiscal thrust was a positive 0.4% of GDP in 2019, but it will decline to 0.1% in 2020. However, fiscal policy affects economic activity with a lag. The impact of this year’s easing has yet to be fully felt. Since European rates are so low and the economy is not operating at full capacity, the fiscal multiplier is greater than one. Therefore, Europe can still reap a substantial fiscal dividend next year. Finally, Europe remains a very pro-cyclical economy. A large share of euro area GDP is connected to manufacturing and exports. As a result, Europe will be one of the prime beneficiaries of a pickup in global growth. Already, the sharp rebound in the German and euro area ZEW survey expectation components point to a brighter outlook for the region. Japan is also a very pro-cyclical economy, which will reap a dividend from a bottom in global manufacturing activity. However, the Land of the Rising Sun is still subject to idiosyncratic constraints. Japanese financial conditions have not improved as much as those in Europe. The yen has appreciated 2.6% in trade-weighted terms this year, while Japanese yields have not melted as much as European ones (because Italian and peripheral yields fell so much in 2019). Japan will also have to reckon with the impact of the October VAT increase. Ahead of the tax hike, retail sales spiked by 9.1% on a year-on-year basis, or 7.1% compared to the previous month, a script similar to 2014. 2015 was a payback year where consumption was depressed. This scenario will play out again, even if the Abe government has implemented some fiscal offsets. Ultimately, the Japanese economy will lag Europe’s in the first half of the year but should catch up in the second half. The impact of the tax hike will dissipate. Most importantly, rebounding global growth will hurt the yen, at least on a trade-weighted basis, providing a lift to export prospects and easing Japanese financial conditions relative to the rest of the world, which will produce a growth dividend later in 2020. Ms. X: To summarize, you expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. EM activity will also pick up but will not generate fireworks. The US will be okay but Europe will probably deliver the largest positive growth surprise as external and domestic conditions align positively. Japan will also stabilize on the back of stronger global growth, but domestic headwinds mean that a true reacceleration won’t happen until the latter part of the year. This recovery constitutes the business cycle’s end game as inflation will become a concern in 2021, forcing the Fed to tighten then. BCA: Yes, this is correct. Ms. X: Thank you! Bond Market Prospects Chart 28Global Bonds Are Extremely Overvalued Ms. X: I do not like US Treasuries at current yields. They do not protect me against an inflation surprise and will do nothing for me in an economic recovery. However, my bearishness is tempered by the large stock of bonds with negative yields in Europe and Japan. As long as this strange situation persists, I doubt US yields will experience much upside. US paper is too attractive to foreign asset managers right now. BCA: We share your view and are recommending an underweight to global government bonds. Global yields offer little value and are vulnerable to a rebound in economic activity or a trade détente. Our Global Bond Valuation index is flashing a clear sell signal (Chart 28). As yields rise, global yield curves are bound to steepen. We also agree that the upside for Treasury yields is limited, but we disagree with the limiting factor. Foreign investors are not the major buyers of Treasuries. Indeed, the data shows that European and Japanese investors have not been aggressive purchasers of US government securities. The US yield curve is flat and US short rates tower above European and Japanese ones, hedging currency exposure when buying Treasuries is expensive. In euro or yen terms, a hedged Treasury yields -67 basis points and -60 basis points, less than 10-year bunds or JGBs, respectively. Meanwhile, EM central banks are diversifying their FX reserves away from the US dollar into gold. Instead, our view is governed by the concept we dub the “Golden Rule of Treasury Investing.” According to this principle, the outperformance of Treasuries relative to cash is a direct function of the Fed’s ability to surprise the market. If the Fed cuts rates more than the OIS curve anticipated 12 months prior, Treasuries outperform. The opposite happens if the Fed delivers a hawkish surprise (Chart 29). Chart 29The Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone, because the OIS curve is now only pricing in 28 basis points of rate cuts over the next year. It is not just the US OIS curve that has priced out a large amount of rate cuts; this phenomenon has materialized around the world over the past five weeks. Chart 30The Term Premium Is Too Low Any upside risk to that 2.25% to 2.5% forecast for 2020 will come from the inflation expectations and term premium components of yields. Central banks, including the Fed, have telegraphed an intention to allow inflation expectations to rise, initially, in response to stronger global growth. Moreover, declining risk aversion should also allow the exceptionally depressed term premium to normalize (Chart 30). Only in late 2020 or early 2021 will Treasury yields durably move above this 2.25-2.5% zone. Punching above these levels will require core PCE inflation to have been above target long enough to re-anchor inflation expectations back up to their 2.3% to 2.5% target zone. Only then will the Fed give the all-clear signal to the bond market to lift yields higher. Mr. X: You still have not directly addressed the question of negative yields in Europe and Japan. This story will not end well. Do you worry about these bond markets over the next year? BCA: Our answer is an emphatic yes. But we assume you will not let us leave it at that. Mr. X: You know me too well. BCA: Over the course of the past 50 years, we have learned a thing or two about you. In all seriousness, let’s start with our simple but effective valuation ranking. It compares the current level of real yields for each country to their historical averages and standard deviations. You can see that the most unattractive bond markets right now are all in Europe (Chart 31). Chart 31European Bonds Are Too Dear Chart 32Swiss Bonds Are A Lose-Lose Proposition The lower bound of interest rates is another reason to avoid these markets. This floor seems to lie around -1% in nominal terms. Because of these constraints, in recent months, Swiss, Swedish, Dutch and German 10-year bonds have failed to rally as much as their higher-yielding US, Canadian or Australian counterparts when global yields are declining. However, they also underperform when yields are rising (Chart 32). They have become a lose-lose proposition. The only pockets of value left in DM bond markets are Greece, Portugal or Italy. Despite their apparent risks, we still like them. Support for the euro in Greece and Italy is 70% and 65%, respectively. Even populist governments in these nations are reluctant to attack euro membership anymore. Moreover, the ECB remains committed to the survival of the euro area in its current form. Christine Lagarde will not change that. For 2020 or 2021, the risk of euro breakup is practically zero. The same may not be true on a 5- to 10-year investment horizon, but for the coming year, these bonds offer an attractive risk-adjusted carry. Ms. X: Unsurprisingly, my father does not like corporate bonds because of highly levered corporate balance sheets. I think this is a long-term problem, but not a risk for 2020, so I’m looking to stay overweight spread product relative to Treasuries. Where do you stand on this market? BCA: On this issue, we sit somewhere between you both. Our Corporate Health Monitor continues to deteriorate (Chart 33). The high debt load of the US business sector coupled with the decline of the return on capital worries us. Furthermore, the covenant-lite trend in recent issuance suggests that corporate borrowers, not lenders, are getting the good deals. Essentially, too much cash is still chasing too little available yield pick-up. In this environment, capital is sure to be misallocated, and money ultimately lost. We find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. On a short-term basis, the spreads will not widen much. An easy Fed, recovering global growth, and the gigantic pile of negative-yielding bonds around the world will make sure of that. We advocate a neutral stance on investment grade corporates because IG bonds have high modified duration such that breakeven spread compensation versus Treasuries is near the bottom of its historical distribution across the IG credit spectrum (Chart 34). This means that credit will generate poor returns if government bond yields rise. Chart 33Dangerous Long-Term Picture For US Corporates Chart 34No Value Left In IG   Chart 35EMs Still Experiencing Deflation Thankfully, they are ways around this problem: emphasizing exposure to high-yield (HY) bonds and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) instead. HY breakeven spreads remain much more attractive than in the IG space, and option-adjusted spreads will benefit if our growth and inflation forecasts materialize. Investors reluctant to commit capital to these products should look into high quality agency MBS. After the recent wave of mortgage refinancing, these securities’ duration has collapsed to 3.0 compared to 7.9 for IG corporates. These securities therefore offer much better protection in a rising-yield environment. Ms. X: Before we move on to equities, where do you stand on EM bonds? BCA: We need to differentiate between EM local-currency bonds and EM USD-denominated bonds. We do like some EM local currency bonds. Inflation in EM countries is low and dropping. Money and credit growth is slowing, which implies that the disinflationary trend will remain in place through 2020 (Chart 35). Weaker nominal growth means that central banks in EM will continue to cut rates, providing a nice tailwind for local-currency bond prices. This comes with a caveat. Lower policy rates will boost bond prices but hurt EM currencies, especially because most EM currencies are not cheap and are already over-owned. Next year, it will be preferable to garner exposure to those countries interest rate moves via the swap market rather than the cash bond market. Chart 36The Mexican Peso Is Cheap There are some exceptions, like Mexico. The MXN is already very cheap because of fears surrounding the economic policies of President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador (AMLO) (Chart 36). However, we doubt he will turn out to be as dangerous as feared. Hence, MXN Mexican bonds are attractive to foreign investors in unhedged terms. We are currently avoiding EM USD-denominated debt, corporate and sovereign. Since emerging markets sport $5.1 trillion of dollar-denominated debt, falling EM exchange rates will increase the cost of servicing this debt, which makes it riskier. Mr. X: I think we will continue to underweight corporate and EM bonds in our fixed income portfolio. Spread levels still make no sense in terms of providing compensation for credit risk. I must admit that I find your recommendation to overweight MBS intriguing. We will need to ponder this idea further. Ms. X: And please wish me luck trying to convince my father to buy some high-yield bonds. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: US stocks are too expensive for my taste, with the S&P 500 trading at a forward P/E ratio of 18. I’m well aware of the argument that equities may be expensive but that they are actually cheap compared to bonds, which implies that I should favor stocks over bonds. However, you know that I emphasize capital preservation. With stocks this rich already, equities offer no margin of safety. If I own stocks, I am therefore exposed to any unexpected shocks. Because I do not share your optimism on the economy, I am more worried about downside risk. Moreover, even if the economy performs better than I fear, I suspect stocks will respond poorly to higher yields. Chart 37The S&P Is Very Expensive Ms. X: I agree with my father that stocks are expensive. Nonetheless, as Keynes famously quipped, “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” In today’s context, to me this means that stocks can ignore their overvaluation so long as liquidity is plentiful, rates are low, and a recession is avoided. BCA: On this question, we agree with Ms. X. We all agree that US equities are expensive. As you mentioned, their price-to-earnings ratio is 18. Only at the apex of the tech bubble and in early 2018 was the S&P 500 more expensive. Worryingly, the price-to-sales ratio is at 2.3, an even larger historical outlier than the P/E (Chart 37). Chart 38Low Yields And Plentiful Liquidity Are Still Fertile Ground For Stocks Ms. X is correct that we cannot look at stock valuations in isolation. Investing is about opportunity cost and the macroeconomic context. On this front, even US equities have their merit. Despite the S&P 500’s expensive multiples, our Composite Valuation Indicator is no more elevated than it was in 2013. Meanwhile, our Monetary Indicator has rarely been as supportive of stock prices as it is today, and our Speculation Indicator is in line with its January 2016 reading (Chart 38). Moreover, BCA’s Composite Sentiment indicator is still below its long-term historical average and margin debt has declined by $47.5 billion to the lowest share of US market capitalization since June 2005. These are hardly signs of irrational exuberance. Ultimately, bear markets and recessions travel together. A durable 20% drop in stock prices requires a significant and long-lasting decline in earnings. These developments happen during recessions (Chart 39). Our call is for a recession in the next 24 months or so. We must also remember that while equities perform poorly six months ahead of a recession, the end of a bull market, its last 12 to 18 months, tend to be very rewarding (Table 3). We are within this window. Chart 39Bear Markets And Recessions Travel Together Table 3The End Game Can Be Rewarding Based on our forecast for interest rates, we do not share the concerns that rising bond yields will topple stocks right away. Stock prices are an inverse function of risk-free rates, but a positive function of growth expectations. Higher yields will initially reflect stronger growth, not restrict it. But remember: the upside for yields is limited because central banks do not want to choke off the recovery. They will maintain accommodative policy. In other words, we expect real rates to lag behind growth expectations. Because long-term growth expectations, whether from sell-side analysts or extracted out of market prices using the Gordon Growth Model, are low, we are willing to make this bet (Chart 40). Equities will suffer if the global bond yield rises above 2.5%. This is more a story for 2021, and not our central scenario for 2020. It is nonetheless a reminder that we are entering the end game of the business cycle, so we are also entering the end-game of the bull market. Mr. X: I think you are playing with fire. Stocks are so expensive that if you are wrong on either the growth call or the yield call, they will suffer. I would rather miss the last melt-up in stocks than unnecessarily expose my portfolio to a meltdown. Additionally, you have not addressed the fact that S&P 500 margins have begun to soften but are still extremely elevated. Shouldn’t this dampen your optimism? BCA: Aggregate S&P 500 margins have some downside. Our Composite Margin Proxy, Operating Margins Diffusion index and Corporate Pricing Power indicator all remain weak (Chart 41). The deceleration in the crude PPI excluding food and energy and the past strength in the dollar confirm this insight, especially as the corporate wage bill climbs in a tight labor market. The biggest mitigating factor is that productivity is also on the mend, which curbs the negative impact of higher worker pay. Chart 40Growth Expectations Are Muted Chart 41US Margins Under Pressure   This danger must be put into perspective though. Margin expansion has been dominated by the tech sector (Chart 42). Excluding this industry, S&P 500 margins are roughly in line with their previous peak, and are not declining. The aggregate softness in margins is a reflection of the sharper decline in tech margins. Declining margins do not spell the imminent end of the bull market either. Table 4 shows that on average, the S&P 500 rises by 9.5% following the peak in margins. Equities can rise after margins crest because this is often an environment where wages are climbing, which boosts consumption. Consequently, top-line growth can accelerate and earnings can rise even if they represent a lower proportion of sales. This is the environment we foresee over 2020. Chart 42Tech Margins Have Likely Peaked Table 4Margin Peaks Do Not Spell S&P Doom   Chart 43Taiwanese Stocks Are Sniffing Out Better Global Growth Ms. X: You have talked about the tech sector being a drag on overall margins. How would you position a US stock portfolio? BCA: First, around the world, we prefer cyclical sectors to defensive ones. Cyclical stocks are depressed relative to defensive firms’ shares. Rebounding global growth and rising bond yields will favor cyclical sectors. Globally, the performance of cyclical equities relative to defensive ones correlates with Taiwanese equities, which are currently rallying smartly (Chart 43). This suggests that at the margin, the most cyclical asset markets are beginning to express optimism about global growth. Within the S&P 500, our favorite pair trade to express this bias is to overweight energy stocks at the expense of utilities. Utilities are bond proxies which will substantially underperform energy stocks when the rate of change of Treasury yields moves up (Chart 44). Moreover, based on our valuation indicators, energy stocks have never traded at such a deep discount to utilities, nor have they ever been as oversold. Chart 44Favor Energy Over Utilities Second, we are currently neutral on tech stocks but have put them on a downgrade alert. Tech equities are expensive, trading at a forward P/E ratio 21% above the other cyclicals. Moreover, since software spending has remained surprisingly resilient despite the global economic slowdown, it will likely lag investment in machinery and structures when industrial demand rebounds. Consequently, tech earnings will lag other traditional cyclical sectors. Tech multiples will also suffer when bond yields rise. As high-growth stocks, tech equities derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, tech multiples are highly sensitive to changes in the discount rate We implement this view by way of an underweight in tech and an overweight to industrials. Industrials have suffered disproportionately from the trade war. Any near term truce is unlikely to contain a grand bargain on intellectual property rights transfer that galvanizes tech exports, but it will remove some of the uncertainty weighing on industrials. Moreover, industrials are a much cheaper play on a global growth rebound. The global manufacturing slowdown has caused industrial equities to trade at their greatest discount to the tech sector since the financial crisis. Finally, the wage bill for the industrial sector is melting relative to tech, and our margin proxy is surging (Chart 45). This has created a very positive backdrop for this pair trade. We also like financials. They will be a key beneficiary of rising yields and a steepening yield curve. Additionally, household credit demand has picked up and overall credit growth should accelerate as central banks will maintain very accommodative monetary conditions. The yield impulse already points toward higher bank credit growth and companies are issuing an increasingly large stock of bonds (Chart 46). Chart 45Operating Metrics Will Boost Industrials Versus Tech Equities Chart 46Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Credit Creation   Ms. X: When combining valuation analysis with your fundamental sectoral slant, I am guessing that you must favor European, Japanese and EM stocks over the S&P 500? BCA: We do favor European and Japanese equities. Based on valuation alone, all the regions you mentioned offer higher expected long-term real rates of return than the US (Chart 47). Moreover, the dollar is expensive relative to advanced economies’ currencies. Hence, these markets are cheaper vehicles than the S&P 500 to bet on a global economic recovery. But valuation alone is not enough. US stocks are trading at unprecedented levels relative to global equities because of the FAANG craze (Chart 48). Looking at sector representation, our positive view on non-tech cyclicals also flatters exposure to Europe and Japan (Table 5). Chart 47Non US Equities Offer Better Value Chart 48FAANG-Driven US Outperformance   Table 5Equity Market Sector Composition Chart 49European Banks Are Cheap Europe is particularly attractive because of its large skew towards industrials and financials, which represent 32.3% of the market versus 22.3% in the US. Moreover, European financials are also a tantalizing bet because they trade at a 50% discount to US financials, according to their price-to-book ratio. Additionally, their return on tangible equity will benefit from higher German yields, easing financial conditions, declining non-performing loans in the periphery and rebounding global growth. Our RoE model for European banks already points to a resurgence in their stock prices (Chart 49). Of the major markets we track, Japan offers the highest prospective long-term real returns. Its strong cyclical slant and low share of tech stocks means it is another market investors should overweight to bet on a global recovery. The biggest problem for Japanese equities is the yen. When global yields climb higher, a weak JPY will clip some of the Nikkei’s gains for foreign investors. Finally, we are reluctant to overweight EM stocks just yet. In this space, median P/E ratios are much higher than on a market capitalization-weighted basis (Chart 50). State-owned companies explain this bifurcation, Chinese banks in particular. Since we expect Chinese banks to remain a conduit for policy, credit origination may flatter economic growth more than shareholders’ interests. Moreover, we have a negative outlook on EM currencies, and hedging this exposure is expensive. Finally, if China’s economic activity improves only modestly in 2020, the 2012 experience suggests that EM stocks can still underperform the global equity universe as global growth improves and yields rise (Chart 51). In other words, we find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. Chart 50EM Stocks Are No Bargain Yet Chart 51EM Stocks Can Underperform When Global Growth Improves     Mr. X: Thank you. I am still not sure what share of our portfolio will be dedicated to stocks. However, I think that whatever this proportion will be, buying global equities makes more sense than US ones. Your valuation argument alone is swaying me, considering my more conservative instincts. Ms. X: I’m glad we will not have to argue on this point, but I know we will nonetheless battle on the stock/bond/gold split. Should we move on to your currency and commodity forecasts? BCA: It would be our pleasure. Currencies And Commodities Mr. X: You have often argued that the dollar is a countercyclical currency. Based on our discussion so far, you must expect the dollar to decline until we get closer to the next recession. I am not fully convinced. Specifically, I remember that in the back half of 2016 global growth was rebounding, but the dollar soared. Therefore, the growth/dollar relationship can be more complex than you argue. Meanwhile, with negative interest rates in Europe, Japan and Switzerland, why would I even consider divesting out of my positive yielding dollar assets? Chart 52The Dollar Is A Counter Cyclical Currency BCA: You raise interesting questions, and you are correct that we expect the dollar to depreciate if our constructive view on global growth pans out for 2020. The inverse relationship between global industrial production (excluding the US) and the trade-weighted dollar is unambiguous (Chart 52). As you also mentioned, the reality is a little bit more nuanced. To understand why, it is important to remember how currencies function. We can think of an exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism that solves for the gap in growth between any two countries. This is at the root of the dollar’s counter-cyclicality. When global growth is picking up, returns tend to be higher in cyclical markets, which are highly concentrated outside of the US. Flows then gravitate from the US to other markets and the dollar declines. After a while, the dollar becomes cheap enough that these flows reverse. In the second half of 2016, three factors drove the dollar rebound. First, US manufacturing was improving at a faster pace than that of the rest of the world. Second, the Fed resumed its interest rate hikes, so interest rate differentials suddenly flattered the dollar anew. Finally, the election of President Trump, who campaigned on large scale fiscal stimulus, elicited memories of the Reagan dollar bull market of the first half of the 1980s. These factors eventually faded as global growth rebounded. Today, the Fed’s policies are hurting the dollar. Aside from recent interest rate cuts, the Fed has been injecting liquidity into the banking system through repurchase agreements and renewed asset (T-Bills) purchases. Moreover, the rate cuts are also easing global funding conditions and promoting a re-steepening of the yield curve. This will incentivize banks to lend and boost the US money supply. As growth re-accelerates and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, and consumer goods) rises, the current account deficit will widen further. This process will increase the international supply of dollars. Historically, these dynamics usually hurt the dollar. What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. Like you, we are deeply uncomfortable with negative interest rates. Thankfully, the nascent pickup in global economic activity is lifting global bond yields. So far, foreign bond markets have led this move. More specifically, countries that have suffered most from the global manufacturing slowdown are now seeing their bond yields rise the quickest (Chart 53). For example, yields in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have risen by a lot more than those in the US since global yields troughed in September. Should the initial signals of stabilization in global growth morph into a synchronized recovery, the US yield advantage will evaporate. In a nutshell, interest rates might be negative in Europe and Switzerland, but the positive carry offered by US assets is rapidly fading. Chart 53AAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates? Chart 53BAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates?   Chart 54Foreigners Are Selling Treasuries For international investors, the currency risk inherent in owning US bonds is just too large at the current juncture. Remember, the trade-weighted dollar stands 25% above its long-term equilibrium and the US twin deficits are expanding. Markets priced in cheap currencies with some potential upside, such as Australia, Canada, Norway or even the European periphery, might be better bets. Flows highlight just how precarious the situation is for the US dollar. Since last August, overall flows into the US Treasury market have been negative. Net foreign purchases by private investors are still positive at an annualized US$180 billion, but they are clearly rolling over. Moreover, official net outflows are running at $350 billion, easily cancelling out the private sector’s inflows (Chart 54). Essentially, foreigners’ appetite for US fixed-income assets is waning exactly as interest rate differentials have started moving against the dollar. Ms. X: I share my father’s concerns, but how would you implement your negative dollar view. Which currencies should I be loading up on as we enter the business cycle’s end game? BCA: The more export-dependent economies (and currencies) should benefit the most from a rebound in global growth. Within the G-10, we particularly like the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone and the British pound. Bond yields for these currencies are rising the fastest vis-à-vis the US. As a result, the currencies themselves should soon follow (previously mentioned Chart 53). We also expect commodity currencies to benefit, but only upon clearer signs that the resource-thirsty Chinese economy is improving. Until then, they are likely to lag the pro-cyclical European currencies, which are less directly dependent on Chinese stimulus. The euro could become the greatest beneficiary from a weaker dollar because a large headwind for European economic activity is disappearing for now. For the past ten years, European real interest rates have been too low for the most productive, competitive exporter – Germany – but too high for others such as Spain and Italy. Consequently, the euro has been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising neutral rate of interest for Germany and a very low one for the peripheral economies. Via its rate cuts, asset purchase programs, and aggressive TLTRO packages, the ECB may have now finally eased policy to the point where nearly all Eurozone countries enjoy an accommodative monetary environment. 10-year government bond yields in France, Spain, Portugal and even Italy now all sit close to the neutral rate of interest for the entire eurozone (Chart 55). Chart 55The ECB Has Eased Policy Enough Finally, the euro is likely to benefit from inflows into European equity markets. The euro’s drop since 2018 has eased financial conditions and made euro area businesses more competitive. This is an important tailwind for European corporate profits and thus stocks. Moreover, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, as illustrated by their cheap valuations compared to other advanced economies. Additionally, analysts’ earnings expectations for eurozone equities are perking up relative to US stocks. If the sell-side is right, powerful inflows into the region will lift the euro in 2020. Mr. X: Thank you. I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the euro, a currency backed by such a flimsy edifice. While I would agree that it could rebound next year, I find currencies highly unpredictable on such a time horizon. I prefer to think about them on a long-term basis, and while the euro is cheap, its weak institutional underpinning is too concerning. Let’s move on to commodities. Following our meeting last year, we took your advice on oil and gold. Overall, these calls helped our portfolio. Going forward, these markets are extremely perplexing. There is so much risk in oil markets, such as the tensions in the Middle East and the uncertainty stemming from the trade war between the US and China. How would you recommend playing the oil market in 2020? Chart 56Inventory Drawdown Will Support Oil BCA: Your assessment of these markets is spot on. Yet, price risk is skewed to the upside because fiscal and monetary stimulus will revive commodity demand. The oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia will continue to restrain production, and will probably extend its 1.2mm b/d production cut due to expire at the end of March to year-end 2020. In the US, market-imposed capital discipline will keep reducing the growth of US shale-oil supply. Additionally, US shale-oil supply growth is threatened by flaring of associated natural gas in the Bakken and Permian basins. Failure to limit the burn-off at oil-production sites could provide the environmental lobby an opening to challenge growth. Ms. X: What about the demand side of the oil markets? The fall in the growth rate of demand this year caught most participants off guard. What do you make of that? BCA: Demand data shows a lot of lingering weakness, much of which was caused by tight financial conditions last year in the US and China. But now, most global central banks are pursuing highly accommodative monetary policy and many governments are also easing fiscal policy. As a result, this demand weakness will fade next year. We think next year growth will clock in at 1.4mm b/d. Not as robust as 2017, but still respectable. This should stop the downward pressure on oil prices that has prevailed since May (Chart 56). Mr. X: You’re describing a fairly strong market for next year. What are the downside risks to your view? BCA: Global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated. Uncertainty is one of the key factors driving demand for USD, which is one of the most popular safe havens in the world (Chart 57). A strong dollar creates a headwind for commodity demand. It raises the local-currency costs of consumers in the EM economies that drive oil demand, and lowers production costs outside of the US, encouraging supply growth at the margin. Chart 57Elevated Global Economic Uncertainty Has Kept The USD Well Bid Chart 58Gold: A Valuable Portfolio Hedge Ms. X: So, pulling it all together, what is your call for 2020? BCA: The weaker 2019 demand data and the upward revisions to global oil inventories pushed our 2020 Brent Oil forecast to $67/bbl from $70/bbl. We still expect WTI to trade at a $4/bbl discount to Brent. As we mentioned earlier, the risk to our forecast is to the upside: a resolution of the US-China trade war, and lower global economic policy uncertainty could trigger a sharp rally in crude prices. Mr. X: Thank you for your insight on oil. I would like to hear your thoughts on gold. You can tell that I see little absolute value in stocks or bonds at the moment, so I have an outsized preference for the yellow metal this year. Also, how could the US dollar and gold both rally at the same time in 2019? BCA: Let’s start with your dollar/gold question. It is very rare to see gold and the dollar rally together. Normally a strong dollar hurts gold. As you know, we’ve been recommending an allocation to gold since 2017, mostly as a portfolio hedge. We like that gold strongly outperforms other safe havens in equity bear markets and can participate in the upside (even if to a limited extent) in bull markets. We think the safe-haven properties of gold and the US dollar really have come to the fore over the past couple of years (Chart 58). Economic policy uncertainty, and divisive politics globally have raised the level of uncertainty to record levels. In such an environment, the dollar and gold both provide a safe haven and a portfolio hedge. Hence, their joint popularity this past year. We should also remember that gold is a good inflation hedge, and is particularly negatively correlated with real interest rates. A Fed that is willing to let the economy overheat is a Fed that will limit how high real rates climb. Moreover, global liquidity is plentiful. Finally, EM central banks have been slowly divesting from Treasuries and diversifying into gold lately, buying most of the new supply in the process. This backdrop, along with our forecast of a weaker dollar, should support gold again in 2020. That being said, because gold is tactically overbought and could face temporary headwinds if global uncertainty recedes, we prefer silver, which is not as stretched. Furthermore, silver’s higher industrial use means that it should also benefit from a global manufacturing recovery. Geopolitics Chart 59Multipolarity Creates An Unstable Environment Mr. X: Let’s return to geopolitical and policy risks, both of which abound. Global economic policy uncertainty is the highest it has been since academics began measuring it. The world is fraught with populism, authoritarianism, war, immigration, technological disruption, inequality, and corruption. With so much chaos, and so little consensus, is there anything solid for an investor to grasp about the political backdrop next year? BCA: Geopolitics is the likeliest candidate to short circuit this long bull market, given that the Federal Reserve, the usual culprit, has paused its rate tightening campaign. On a secular basis, geopolitical risk is rising because the United States’ national power is declining relative to that of other world powers (Chart 59). China’s rise, in particular, is stirring conflict with the US and its allies in the western Pacific. Beijing’s technological and military advance is generating fear across the American political establishment. Russia and China continue to deepen their relationship in the face of an increasingly unpredictable United States. These strategic tensions will persist despite any tariff ceasefire with China. Chart 60Globalization Has Peaked Competition among the great powers makes for a world of contested authority. As the rules of the road have become less certain, the tailwind behind international trade and investment has weakened (Chart 60). Deglobalization is a headwind for the earnings of large cap global companies in the long run. Emerging markets, which are exposed to trade, face persistent unrest. Mr. X: Given the above, how can an investor take an optimistic view of the global economy and markets next year? BCA: We have a framework for analyzing politics: constraints over preferences. We cannot predict what the chief politicians will prefer at any given time, but we can try to identify and measure the constraints that will restrict their freedom of movement. With global growth slowing, world leaders have become more sensitive to their constraints. The Fed has reversed rate hikes; China is easing policy; President Trump has refrained from attacking Iran; and President Trump and President Xi are negotiating a ceasefire. The UK has avoided a “no deal” Brexit – not once but twice. In short, the risk of recession (or conflict) has been sufficient to alter the policy trajectory. As a result, there is a prospect for global geopolitical risks to abate somewhat in 2020. Both the American and Chinese administrations need to see growth stabilize despite their ongoing strategic conflict. Both the British and European governments need to avoid a disorderly Brexit despite their lack of clarity beyond that. Geopolitical risk is declining, albeit from an extremely elevated level. Mr. X: The US and China have already come close to a deal only to get cold feet and back away from it. The British Prime Minister is committed to leaving the EU with or without a deal. Surely you cannot believe that the Middle East, Russia, other emerging markets, or North Korea will be any bastion of stability. BCA: The US-China trade war is still the single greatest threat to the equity bull market. Brexit is not resolved and a new deadline for a trade deal looms at the end of 2020. Investors must remain vigilant and hedge their portfolios, particularly with gold. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore this year’s reaffirmation of the Fed put, the China put, and Trump’s “Art of the Deal.” The base case for next year should be constructive, albeit with vigilant attention to the major risks: President Trump, China and Iran. The other issues you mention have varying degrees of market relevance. Russia is focusing on pacifying domestic discontent. North Korea is on a diplomatic track with the United States. Emerging market unrest is particularly relevant where it can have a bearing on global stability: Iraq, Iran and Hong Kong in particular. Ms. X: If I may interject: It seems to me that the worst of the trade war has passed, that the risk of a no-deal Brexit is negligible, and that Iran is unlikely to outdo its attack against Saudi Arabia in September. Doesn’t this imply that geopolitical risk is overrated and that investors should rush to capture the risk premium in equities? BCA: What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. After all, any fall in global risks will be amply made up for by the impending rise in US domestic political risk. Indeed, US politics are the chief source of global political risk in 2020. First, if President Trump becomes a “lame duck” then he could take actions that are hugely disruptive to global markets in a desperate attempt to win reelection as a “war president.” Chart 61European Political Risk Is Now Low Second, if President Trump is reelected, then his disruptive populism will have a new mandate and his “America First” foreign and trade policy will be unshackled. Third, if the opposition Democrats succeed in unseating an incumbent president, they will likely take the Senate too, removing the main hurdle to a dramatic policy change. That would mark the third 180-degree reversal in national policy in 12 years. Moreover, investors may find the country merely exchanged right-wing populism for left-wing populism, which has a more negative impact on corporate earnings prospects. Polarization and institutional erosion will continue. The election results may be razor thin; swing states may have to recount votes; and the outcome could hinge on rare or unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, the Supreme Court or cyberspace. A crisis of legitimacy could easily afflict the next administration. In short, there are few scenarios in which US political risk does not rise over the next 12-24 months. Rising American risk stands in stark contrast to Europe (Chart 61), where the will to integrate has overcome several challenges since the sovereign debt crisis. Substantial majority of voters support the euro and the European Union. Germany is on the brink of a major political succession but it is not turning its back on the European project. France is successfully pursuing structural reforms. Italy remains the weakest link, but even the populist Northern League accepts the euro. This leaves two remaining global risks: China and Iran. Chinese political risk is generally understated. President Xi Jinping, lacking President Trump’s electoral constraint, could overestimate his leverage. He could overreach in the trade talks, in his battle to prevent excessive debt growth, or in his handling of Hong Kong, Taiwan, North Korea, or Iran. The result could be a breakdown in the trade talks or a separate strategic crisis with the United States. Another cold war-style escalation in tensions could easily kill the green shoots in global growth. As for Iran, the regime is under crippling American sanctions and faces unrest both at home and within its regional sphere of influence. There is a non-negligible risk that it will lash out and cause an extended oil supply shock. Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground but I remain deeply concerned that staying invested in risk assets today is akin to picking-up pennies in front of a steamroller. I accept your opinion that a recession is unlikely in 2020, but valuations of both stocks and bonds are uncomfortably stretched for my taste. As a result, I believe stocks could suffer whether growth is good or bad next year. Finally, since so many things need to go right for the global economy to continue to defy gravity, a recession may hit faster than you envision. To me, there is simply not enough margin of safety in stocks to compensate me for the risk! Ms. X: I agree with my father that the risks are high because we are entering the end game of the cycle. But I also see pockets of value, some of which you have mentioned today. Moreover, I am sympathetic to your view that global growth will recover next year. Corporate earnings should therefore expand. Hence, I fear that being out of the market will be very painful, especially because policy is quite accommodative. While stocks may not perform as well as they did in 2019, I expect them to outperform bonds handily. I’m therefore willing to continue holding risk assets, even if I need to be more judicious in my sector and regional allocation. BCA: Your family debate mirrors our own internal discussions. There is always a trade-off between maximizing short-term returns and taking a longer-term approach. Valuations are the ultimate guidepost for long-term return prospects. Because so many assets have become more expensive this year, long-term returns are likely to be uninspiring compared to recent history. Table 6 shows our baseline calculations of what a balanced portfolio will earn over the coming decade. We estimate that such a portfolio will deliver average annual returns of 4.4% over the next ten years, or 2.4% after adjusting for inflation. That is a noticeable deterioration from our inflation-adjusted estimate of 2.8% from last year, and also still well below the 6.5% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1982 and 2019. Table 6Asset Market Return Projections Our outlook for next year hinges on global growth rebounding and policy uncertainty receding. Monetary policy is less of a threat to equities than it was last year because central banks have already eased considerably and have been very open about their willingness to let inflation run above target for a while before retightening the monetary screws. We propose the following list of easy-to-track milestones to monitor whether or not our central scenario for the global economy and asset markets is playing out, and how close we are to the end of the cycle: Chinese money and credit numbers. Chinese credit growth must stabilize for the economy to do so. If credit origination continues to decelerate, this will indicate that Beijing has decided to tolerate the slowdown and prioritize its reform and deleveraging agenda. In this case, the Chinese debt supercycle is over sooner and the global economy will pay the price. Our China Investment Strategy Activity Index. Global policy is accommodative and liquidity conditions have improved significantly. However, if the Chinese economy continues to deteriorate, global growth will not rebound. The China Activity Index must stabilize and even improve somewhat for our global growth view to come to fruition. Progress in the “phase one” deal. China and the US must agree to a trade détente. As long as uncertainty around immediate tariffs remain high and retaliation risks stay alive, global capital spending intentions and thus the global manufacturing sector will be hamstrung. Surveys of global growth. The Global manufacturing PMI and the global growth expectation component of the ZEW survey must both recover. If these variables cannot gain any traction, the global economy is sicker than we estimate and risk assets will suffer. Commodity prices and the dollar. In the first quarter, industrial commodity prices must rebound and the dollar must start to depreciate. These two developments will not only reflect an improvement in global growth. They will also alleviate deflationary pressures around the world, revive profits and sponsor a business spending recovery. Moreover, a weaker dollar will also ease global financial conditions by decreasing the global cost of capital. 10-year inflation breakeven rate. If US breakevens move above the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, the Fed will become more proactive about raising rates. This would provoke a quicker end to the business cycle. President Trump’s approval rating. If President Trump’s approval rating stabilizes below 42%, he could give up on the economy and instead bet on a “rally around the flag” as his best strategy for re-election. This would result in a much more hawkish and confrontational White House that would become an even greater source of uncertainty for the economy, and thus risk asset prices. Ms. X: Thank you for this comprehensive list of variables to monitor. As always, you have left us with much to think about. We look forward to these discussions every year. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: It will be our pleasure. The key points are as follow: Global equities are entering the end game of their nearly 11-year bull market. Stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. As a result, if global growth can recover and the US can avoid a recession in 2020, earnings will not weaken significantly and stocks will again outperform bonds. Low rates reflect the end of the debt supercycle in the advanced economies. However, the debt supercycle is still alive in EM in general, and in China, in particular. The global economic slowdown that begun more than 18 months ago started when China tried to limit debt growth. If Beijing continues to push for more deleveraging, global growth will continue to suffer as the EM debt supercycle will end. Nonetheless, we expect China to try to mitigate domestic deflationary pressures in 2020. As a result, a small wave of Chinese reflation, coupled with the substantial easing in global monetary and liquidity conditions should promote a worldwide re-acceleration in economic activity. Policy uncertainty will recede next year. Domestic constraints are forcing China and the US toward a trade détente. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is now marginal, and President Trump is still the favorite in 2020. A decline in policy risk will foster a global economic rebound. That being said, some pockets of risk remain, such as in the Middle East. Global central banks are highly unlikely to remove the punch bowl anytime soon. Not only will it take some time before global deflationary forces recede, monetary authorities in the G10 want to avoid the Japanification of their economies. As a result, they are already announcing that they will allow inflation to overshoot their 2% target for a period of time. This will ultimately raise the need for higher rates in 2021, which will push the global economy into recession in late 2021, or early 2022. These dynamics are key to our categorization of 2020 as the end game. US growth will re-accelerate. The US consumer remains in good shape thanks to healthy balance sheets and robust employment and wage growth prospects. Meanwhile, corporate profits and capex should benefit from a decline in global uncertainty and a pick-up in global economic activity. China will continue to stimulate its economy but will not do so as aggressively as it did over the past 10 years. Consequently, EM growth will also bottom but is unlikely to boom. Europe and Japan will re-accelerate in 2020. Bond yields will grind higher in 2020. However, Treasury yields are unlikely to break above the 2.25% to 2.5% range until much later in the year. Inflationary pressures won’t resurface quickly, so the Fed is unlikely to signal its intention to raise interest rates until late 2020 or later. European bonds are particularly unattractive. Corporate bonds are a mixed offering. Investment grade credit is unattractive owing to low option-adjusted spreads and high duration, especially when corporate health is deteriorating. Agency mortgage-backed securities and high-yield bonds offer better risk-adjusted value. Global stocks will enjoy their last-gasp rally in 2020. As global growth recovers, favor the more cyclical sectors and regions which also happen to offer the best value. US stocks are the least attractive bourse; they are very expensive and loaded with defensive and tech-related exposure, two groups that could suffer from higher bond yields. We are neutral on EM equities. Investors should pare exposure to equities after inflation breakevens have moved back into their 2.3% to 2.5% normal range and the Fed funds rate has moved closer to neutral. We anticipate this to be a risk in 2021. The dollar is likely to decline because it is a countercyclical currency. Balance of payment dynamics and valuation considerations are also becoming headwinds. The pro-cyclical European currencies and the euro should be the main beneficiary of any dollar depreciation. Oil and gold will have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand on the back of the improving growth outlook. Gold will strengthen as global central banks limit the upside to real rates by allowing inflation to run a bit hot. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 2.4% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.5% a year between 1982 and 2019. We would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 22, 2019

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Declining uncertainty over policy, stabilizing growth in China and improvements in international liquidity, all will allow global economic activity to pick up in the months ahead. A weak dollar will reinforce this positive economic outlook; investors should favor pro-cyclical currencies such as the AUD, NZD and SEK. Bond yields will rise and stocks will outperform bonds on a 12- to 18-month basis. Cyclical stocks are more attractive than defensives. European stocks will outperform U.S. equities and European financials will shine. Copper is a promising buy; stay long the silver-to-gold ratio. Feature The outlook for risk assets and bond yields hinges on global economic activity. The S&P 500 has hit a new high, but our BCA Equity Scorecard Indicator remains non-committal towards stocks (Chart I-1). If global economic activity improves, the Scorecard will begin to flash a clear buy signal, but if growth deteriorates, the indicator will point towards sell. Chart I-1Stocks Could Go Either Way Cautious optimism is in order. Politics, China, liquidity conditions and the dollar collectively will determine the global economic outlook. The liquidity backdrop has significantly improved, political uncertainty should recede and China will morph from a headwind to a modest tailwind. A weak dollar will indicate that the world is healing, and also will ease global financial conditions which will facilitate economic strength. We remain committed to a positive stance on equities on a 12- to 18-month horizon, and recommend below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Cyclicals should outperform defensives, European banks offer an attractive tactical buying opportunity and European equities will outperform their U.S. counterparts. Heightened Risks… Chart I-2Risks To The Economy And Stocks Many domestic indicators overstate the intrinsic fragility in the U.S. The Duncan LEI, which is the ratio of consumer durable spending and residential and business investment to final sales, has flattened. Therefore, the S&P 500 looks vulnerable and real GDP may contract (Chart I-2). CEO confidence and small business capex intentions warn of a looming retrenchment in household income (Chart I-2, bottom two panels). If consumer spending weakens, then a recession will be unavoidable. As worrisome as these indicators may be, we previously discussed that the major debt imbalances that often precede U.S. recessions are absent,1 the rebound in housing starts and homebuilding confidence is inconsistent with a restrictive monetary stance,2 and pipeline inflationary pressures are absent.3 Instead, business confidence and the Duncan LEI have been eroded by heightened political uncertainty and weak global manufacturing and trade. … Meet Receding Policy Uncertainty … The two biggest sources of policy uncertainty affecting markets, the Sino-U.S. trade war and Brexit, are diminishing. However, the U.S. election will continue to lurk in the background. Chart I-3Weaker Brexit Support = No Hard Brexit Support Brexit Westminster and Britain’s Supreme Court have rebuked U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s threat of a “No-Deal” Brexit. Moreover, parliamentary support for his latest plan, which essentially keeps Northern Ireland’s economy within the EU, indicates that the probability of a “No-Deal” Brexit has collapsed to less than 5%. This assessment is reinforced by the delay of Brexit to January 31, 2020. An election is scheduled for December 12 and the chance of a new referendum to vet the deal is escalating. According to Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist, an election does not increase the risk of a hard Brexit. Meanwhile, support for Brexit is near its lowest point since the June 2016 referendum (Chart I-3). Thus, a new plebiscite would not favor a “No Deal” Brexit. Sino-U.S. Trade War Chart I-4Why The Trade-War Ceasefire? The trade war truce will also greatly diminish economic uncertainty. Uncertainty created by the China-U.S. conflict accentuated the collapse in business confidence and capex intentions. The “phase one deal” announced earlier this month will likely materialize. The White House’s tactical retreat on trade is tied to U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire for a second term. He cannot risk inflicting further economic pain on his base of constituents.  Weekly earnings are decreasing for workers in swing states located in the industrial rust belt, especially in those areas that Trump carried in 2016 (Chart I-4). Those swing states are most affected by the slowdown in the global manufacturing and trade sectors. Beijing is also motivated to agree to truce due to its soft economy and deflationary pressures. An easing in trade uncertainty will be positive for the domestic economy. China’s willingness to replace Carrie Lam, the embattled Chief Executive of Hong Kong, and to withdraw the extradition bill at the heart of the protests confirms its eagerness to come to an agreement with the U.S. China’s readiness to make a deal is also made evident by its increasing imports of U.S. agricultural products (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Ultimately, the U.S. will not implement tariffs in December on $160 billion of Chinese shipments. Consequently, investors and businesses should become less concerned about the chances of a worsening trade war. Moreover, chances are growing of a decrease (but not a complete annulation) of the previously imposed U.S. tariffs on China. … And A Q1 2020 Acceleration In Global Growth Global economic activity will improve in Q1 2020 because the drag from China will dissipate and global liquidity conditions will improve. Many activity indicators increasingly reflect these fundamental supports. China China’s economy has reached a new low point: Q3 annual GDP growth is at a 27-year low of 6%, capital spending is weak, industrial production and profits show little life, the labor market is soft, and imports and exports continue to contract. However, a turn in policy has materialized, which will protect the domestic economy. Moreover, this summer’s Politburo and State Council statements showed an increased willingness to reflate the economy. The global economy will accelerate in Q1 2020. Credit creation has stabilized and monetary conditions have eased (Chart I-5). Faced with producer price inflation of -1.2% and employment PMIs of 47.3 and 48.2 in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors, respectively, authorities have allowed the credit impulse to improve to 26% of GDP from a low of 23.8%. In accordance with this new policy direction, the drag from the shadow banking system’s contraction will slow considerably, thanks to a stabilization in both the growth rate of deposits of non-depository financial institutions and the issuance of bonds by small financial institutions. Additionally, the emission of local government bonds will accelerate. Beijing has also meaningfully eased fiscal policy, which is its preferred reflationary tool. Policymakers have cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP in the past two years. The marginal propensity of households to consume is trying to bottom (Chart I-5, bottom). If history is a guide, the acceleration in the rate of change of public-sector capex will fuel this turnaround in China’s marginal propensity to consume, and push up BCA’s China Activity Indicator (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Overlooked Chinese Improvements Chart I-6Public Investment Matters   Chart I-7A Bottom In Chinese Exports Growth? China’s economy is unlikely to bounce back as violently as in 2009, 2012 or 2016. Authorities are much more circumspect in their use of credit to reflate the economy than they were previously. Moreover, the regulatory environment will prevent a boom in the shadow banking system. Nonetheless, the fiscal push and the end of the decline in aggregate credit growth will allow the Chinese economy to stabilize and maybe pick up a bit. Therefore, China will move from a large headwind to a slight tailwind for global activity (Chart I-7, top panel). Mounting public capex also points toward a modest global recovery (Chart I-7, middle panel). Finally, the upturn in our Chinese reflation indicator, which incorporates both fiscal and monetary policy, points to a re-acceleration in U.S. capex intentions (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Global Liquidity Global liquidity conditions continue to improve and the global economy should soon respond within normal policy lags. 95% of central banks are loosening policy, which normally leads to an escalation in global activity (Chart I-8). The dominant central banks (the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan) will not tighten anytime soon. Inflation expectations in the U.S., the euro area and Japan stand at 1.9%, 1.1%, and 0.2%, respectively, well below levels consistent with a 2% inflation target. Moreover, U.S. core CPI has been perky, but both the ISM and the performance of transportation equities relative to utilities indicate that a deceleration in inflation is imminent (Chart I-9). Salaries are not yet inflationary either because U.S. real wages are growing in line with productivity (Chart I-9, bottom panel). In the euro area and Japan, realized core inflation remains at 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively, and supports the dovish message emanating from inflation expectations. Chart I-8Easier Global Policy Is Important Chart I-9If Inflation Peaks, The U.S. Economy Will Breath A Sigh Of Relief     Liquidity indicators are reflecting this accommodative policy setting. The growth of U.S. and European bank deposits has reaccelerated from 2.5% to 6%, a development linked to the exit of a soft patch (Chart I-10). Moreover, BCA’s U.S. Financial Liquidity Indicator is still moving higher and flashing a resurgence in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), the ISM Manufacturing Index, commodity prices, and EM export prices (Chart I-11). Finally, U.S. and global excess money reinforce the message of BCA’s U.S. Financial liquidity Indicator (Chart I-12). Chart I-10Deposits Suggest The Worst Of The Slowdown Is Behind Us Chart I-11Continued Pick-Up In Financial Liquidity       The Fed will add to the supply of global liquidity by tackling the repo market’s seize-up. Depleting excess reserves and mounting financing needs among primary dealers resulted in the September surge in the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR). The Fed announced three weeks ago it would buy $60 billion per month of T-Bills and T-Notes, which will lead to a climbing stock of excess reserves. Higher excess reserves create a weaker dollar, stronger EM currencies and firming global PMIs (Chart I-13). Ultimately, EM currency strength eases EM financial conditions, which supports global growth (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12Excess Liquidity Is Accelerating Chart I-13U.S. Excess Reserves Will Grow Again   Borrowing activity in Advanced Economies is showing signs of life. Bank credit is already responding to the drop in global yields, and global corporate bond issuance in September 2019 rose to $434 billion. In the U.S., new issues of corporate bonds have also reaccelerated (Chart I-14). Global Growth Indicators Crucial indicators of global economic activity are picking up on this improving fundamental backdrop. The list includes: A sharp takeoff in the annualized three-month rate of change of capital goods orders in the U.S., the Eurozone and Japan (Chart I-15, top panel). Improvement in this indicator precedes progress in the annual growth rate of orders and in capex itself. Chart I-14Borrowers Are Responding To Easier Financial Conditions Chart I-15Some Green Shoots Are Coming Through Chart I-16Positive Market Signals A significant upturn in the Philly Fed, Empire State, and Richmond Fed manufacturing surveys for October, which sends a positive signal for the ISM Manufacturing Index (Chart I-15, second panel). Moreover, the new orders and employment components of these surveys indicate that cyclical sectors of the economy will recover and the recent deterioration in employment conditions will be fleeting. A rebound in BCA’s EM economic diffusion index, which incorporates 23 variables. Such an increase usually precedes inflections in global industrial production (Chart I-15, bottom panel). An acceleration – both in absolute and relative terms - in the annual appreciation of Taiwanese stocks. A strong and outperforming Taiwanese equity market is a harbinger of firmer PMIs (Chart I-16, top two panels). A solid performance of EM carry trades financed in yen, European luxury equities, and the relative performance of global semiconductors, materials and industrial stocks, which signal stronger global PMIs (Chart I-16, bottom three panels). Bottom Line: The global economy will accelerate in Q1 2020. A melting probability of a “No-Deal” Brexit and a truce in the Sino-U.S. trade war will allow global uncertainty to recede. Concurrently, China’s economic slowdown is ending and global liquidity conditions are improving. The Dollar As The Arbiter Of Growth Chart I-17The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency The dollar faces potent headwinds. The greenback is a countercyclical currency; a business cycle upswing and a weak USD go hand in hand (Chart I-17). The tightness of this relationship results from a powerful feedback loop: weak growth boosts the dollar, but the dollar’s strength foments additional economic slowdown. Global liquidity and activity indicators signal a weaker dollar because they point toward an economic recovery. BCA’s U.S. Financial Liquidity Index, which foresaw a deceleration in the greenback’s rate of appreciation, is calling for an outright depreciation (Chart I-18, top panel). The expanding holdings of securities on U.S. commercial banks’ balance sheets (a key measure of liquidity) corroborates this message. According to a model based on the U.S., Eurozone, Japanese and Chinese broad money supply, the USD should significantly depreciate in the coming 12 months (Chart I-18, third panel). Finally, our EM Economic Diffusion Index validates pressures on the greenback, especially against commodity currencies (Chart I-18, bottom two panels). Chart I-18Liquidity And Growth Indicators Point To A Weaker Dollar Growth differentials support this picture. Late last year, the stimulating effect of President Trump’s tax cuts allowed the U.S. to temporarily diverge from a weak global economy, but the U.S. manufacturing sector is now succumbing to the global slowdown. Once global growth snaps back, the U.S. is likely to lag behind as fiscal policy is becoming more stimulative outside the U.S. than in the U.S. Based on historical delays, this will continue to hurt the dollar (Chart I-19, top panel). Finally, the European economy generally outperforms the U.S. when China reflates, especially if Beijing’s push lifts the growth rate of M1 relative to M2, a proxy for China’s aggregate marginal propensity to consume (Chart I-20). Europe’s greater cyclicality reflects is larger exposure to both trade and manufacturing compared with the U.S. Chart I-19A Global Growth Convergence Will Hurt The Dollar Chart I-20European Growth To Rise Vis-A-Vis The U.S.   The greenback is expensive and technically vulnerable, which compounds its cyclical risk. The trade-weighted dollar is at a 25% premium to its purchasing power parity equilibrium (PPP), an overvaluation comparable to its 1985 and 2002 peaks. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicator is overextended and has formed a negative divergence with the price of the dollar (see page 54, Section III). Finally, speculators are massively long the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). Balance-of-payment flows also flash a significant downside in the dollar (Chart I-21). The U.S. current account deficit stands at 2.5% of GDP, but it is widening in response to the dollar’s overvaluation and the White House’s expansive fiscal policy. Since 2011, foreign direct investments (FDI) have been the main driver of the dollar’s gyrations. Last year, net FDI surged in response to profit repatriations encouraged by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, while portfolio flows stayed in neutral territory. This regulatory change had a one-off impact and FDI will begin to dry out. Therefore, financing the widening current account deficit will become harder. Finally, after years in the red, net portfolio flows into Europe have turned positive (Chart I-21, bottom panel). The USD’s depreciation will ease global financial conditions and supports growth further. In this context, interest rate differentials are noteworthy. The two-year spread in real rates between the U.S. and the rest of the G-10 has fallen significantly since October 2018. Reversals in real rates herald a weaker dollar, especially when it faces valuation, technical and flow handicaps. Moreover, European five-year forward short rate expectations are near record lows. If global growth can stabilize, then the five-year forward one-month OIS will pick up, especially relative to the U.S. An uptick will boost the EUR/USD pair and hurt the dollar (Chart I-22). Chart I-21Balance-Of-Payments Dynamics Turning Against The USD Chart I-22Relative Long-Term Rate Expectations And The Euro   The three most pro-cyclical currencies in the G-10 – the AUD, NZD and SEK - strengthen the most when BCA’s Global LEI bottoms but global inflation slows (Chart I-23). The GBP will likely generate a much stronger-than-normal performance next year. Cable trades at a 22% discount to PPP. It is also 19% cheap versus short-term interest rate parity models. The absence of a “No-Deal” Brexit should allow these risk premia to dissipate and the pound to recover. The CAD is also more attractive than Chart I-23 implies. The loonie is trading 10% below its PPP, and the USD/CAD often lags the EUR/CAD, a pair that has broken down (Chart I-24). Chart I-23Currency Performance As A Function Of Growth And Inflation Chart I-24EUR/CAD Flashing A Bearish USD/CAD Signal Bottom Line: A rebound in the global manufacturing sector next year will hurt the USD. The dollar is particularly vulnerable because growth differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world have melted, the greenback is expensive, balance-of-payment dynamics are deteriorating and interest rate differentials are becoming less supportive. The USD’s depreciation will ease global financial conditions and supports growth further. Additional Investment Implications Bond Yields Have More Upside While the short-term outlook for bonds remains murky, the 12- to 18-month outlook is unambiguously bearish. The BCA Bond Valuation Index is still consistent with much higher U.S. yields in the next 12-18 months (see Section III, page 51). BCA’s Composite Technical Indicator for T-Notes is massively overbought and sentiment, as approximated by the Long-Term Interest Rates component of the ZEW survey, is overly bullish (Chart I-25). Thus, bonds represent an attractive cyclical sell. The Fed will not cut rates aggressively enough for bonds to ignore these valuation and technical risks. Treasurys have outperformed cash by 7.5% in the past year. Based on historical relationships, the Fed needs to cut rates to zero for bonds to beat cash in the coming 12 months (Chart I-26). After this week’s Fed cut to 1.75%, our base case is none to maybe one more rate cut. Chart I-25Sentiment Points To Yield Upside Chart I-26The Fed Must Cut To Zero For T-Notes To Outperform Cash Further   Bond yields will need a recession to move lower. The deviation of 10-year Treasury yields from their two-year moving average closely tracks the Swedish Economic Diffusion Index (Chart I-27, top panel). Sweden, a small, open economy highly levered to the global industrial cycle, is a good gauge of the global business cycle. The broad weakness in the Swedish economy is unlikely to worsen unless the global slowdown morphs into a deep recession. Even if global growth remains mediocre, Sweden’s Economic Diffusion Index will rise along with yields. The expansion in securities holdings of U.S. commercial banks and the stabilization in China’s credit flows both support this notion (Chart I-27, bottom panel). Financial market developments also point to higher yields. Sectors that typically capture the momentum in the global economy are perking up. For example, bottoms in the annual performance of European luxury equities or Taiwanese stocks have preceded increases in yields (Chart I-28). Chart I-27Yields Have Upside Chart I-28Key Financial Market Signals For Yields   Stocks Will Outperform Bonds Our conviction is strengthening that equities will outperform bonds. The total return of the stock-to-bond ratio has upside. BCA’s Global Economic and Financial Diffusion Index has rallied sharply, which often precedes an ascent in the stock-to-bond ratio, both in the U.S. and globally (Chart I-29). Bonds are much more expensive than stocks, therefore, only a recession will allow stocks to underperform in the coming 12 to 18 months. The environment is positive for equities. BCA’s Monetary Indicator is very elevated and our Composite Sentiment Indicator shows little complacency toward stocks among investors (see Section III, page 47). Finally, the strength in the U.S. Financial Liquidity Indicator supports the S&P 500’s returns (Chart I-30). Chart I-29Cyclical Indicators Argue In Favor Of Stocks Over Bonds Chart I-30Liquidity Tailwind For The S&P 500   A few market developments are noteworthy. 55.6% of the S&P 500’s constituents have reported Q3 earnings, and 74% of those firms are beating estimates. Moreover, the market is generously rewarding firms with the largest positive earnings surprises. Additionally, the Value Line Geometric Index is forming a reverse head-and-shoulder pattern, while the relative performance of the Russell 2000 has formed a double bottom (Chart I-31). The environment also favors cyclicals relative to defensive equities. By lifting bond yields, stronger economic activity leads to a contraction in the multiples of defensives relative to cyclicals. The latter’s earnings expectations respond more positively to reviving economic activity, which creates an offset to climbing discount rates. As a result, cyclicals often outperform defensives when the stock-to-bond ratio increases, or after Taiwanese equities gain momentum (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Improving Equity Market Dynamics Chart I-32Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives   Compared to other equity markets, the U.S. faces the most challenges. Our model forecasts a 3% annual drop in the S&P 500’s operating earnings in June 2020, and the deviation of U.S. equities from their 200-day moving average has greatly diverged from net earnings revisions (Chart I-33). U.S. equities have already discounted a turnaround in earnings. Moreover, the S&P 500’s margins have downside, a topic covered by BCA’s Chief Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou.4 Our Composite Margin Proxy, Operating Margins Diffusion Index and Corporate Pricing Power Indicator all remain weak (Chart I-34). Downward pressure on margins will limit how rapidly earnings respond when a rebound in global economic activity lifts revenues. Finally, the S&P 500 trades at a historically elevated forward P/E ratio of 18.4, the MSCI EAFE trade at a much more reasonable 14-times forward earnings. Chart I-33Headwinds For U.S. Stocks Chart I-34Headwinds For U.S. Margins   The tech sector will also weigh on the performance of U.S. equities relative to international stocks. Tech stocks represent 22.5% of the U.S. benchmark, compared with 9.7% for the euro area. Anastasios recently argued that software spending has remained surprisingly resilient despite the global economic slowdown; it will likely lag spending on machinery and structures when the cycle picks up.5 Consequently, tech earnings will lag other traditional cyclical sectors. Moreover, tech multiples will suffer when the dollar depreciates and bond yields rise (Chart I-35). As high-growth stocks, tech equities derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, tech multiples are highly sensitive to discount factors. Unaffected by those negatives, European equities will benefit most from the outperformance of stocks relative to bonds. A weak dollar will be the first positive for the common-currency returns of European equities. Valuations are the second tailwind. The risk premium for European equities is 300 basis points higher than for U.S. stocks. Moreover, U.S. margins will likely diminish relative to the Eurozone’s because of stronger unit labor costs in the U.S. Sector composition will also dictate the performance of European equities. Compared with the U.S., Europe is underweight tech and healthcare stocks, a defensive sector (Table I-1). Investors who favor Europe will also bet against these two sectors. Europe is a wager on the other cyclical sectors: materials, industrials, energy and financials. Chart I-35Tech P/Es Are At Risk Table I-1Europe Overweights The Correct Cyclicals   European financials are particularly attractive. Negative European yields are a major handicap for European financials, but this handicap is already reflected in their price. European banks trade at a price-to-book ratio of 0.6 versus 1.3 for the U.S. This discount should be narrowing, not widening. Yields are bottoming and European loan growth is contracting at a -2% annual rate relative to the U.S. versus -8.6% five years ago. Meanwhile, the annual rate of change of European deposits is in line with the U.S. The attraction of European banks comes from the outlook for their return on tangible equity. A model shows that three variables govern European banks’ ROE: German yields, Italian spreads and the momentum of the silver-to-gold ratio (SGR). German yields impact net interest margins, Italian spreads drive peripheral financial conditions and thus, loan generation in the European periphery, and the SGR tracks the global manufacturing cycle (silver has more industrial uses than gold, but is equally sensitive to real yields), which affects loan flows in the European core. This model logically tracks the performance of European banks and financials (Chart I-36). Our positive outlook on global growth and yields, along with the fall in Italian spreads, augurs well for cheap European financial equities and banks in particular. Commodities Our constructive stance on the global business cycle and yields, plus our negative view on the greenback, is consistent with higher industrial commodity prices. Copper looks particularly attractive. Speculators are aggressively selling the metal, whose price stands at an important technical juncture (Chart I-37). Chart I-36The Drivers Of RoE Point To Higher European Bank Stock Prices Chart I-37Cooper Is An Attractive Play On Global Growth   Chart I-38Favorable Technical Backdrop For Silver-To-Gold Ratio Finally, we have favored the SGR since late June. Silver is deeply oversold and under-owned relative to the yellow metal (Chart I-38). Consequently, silver’s greater industrial usage should be a potent tailwind for the SGR.6 Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 31, 2019 Next Report: November 22, 2019 - Outlook 2020   II. Back To The Nineteenth Century The Cold War is a limited analogy for the U.S.-China conflict; In a multipolar world, complete bifurcation of trade is difficult if not impossible; History suggests that trade between rivals will continue, with minimal impediments; On a secular horizon, buy defense stocks, Europe, capex, and non-aligned countries. There is a growing consensus that China and the U.S. are hurtling towards a Cold War. BCA Research played some part in this consensus – at least as far as the investment community is concerned – by publishing “Power and Politics in East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” in September 2012.7 For much of this decade, Geopolitical Strategy focused on the thesis that geopolitical risk was rotating out of the Middle East, where it was increasingly irrelevant, to East Asia, where it would become increasingly relevant. This thesis remains cogent, but it does not mean that a “Silicon Curtain” will necessarily divide the world into two bifurcated zones of capitalism. Trade, capital flows, and human exchanges between China and the U.S. will continue and may even grow. But the risk of conflict, including a military one, will not decline. In this report, we first review the geopolitical logic that underpins Sino-American tensions. We then survey the academic literature for clues on how that relationship will develop vis-à-vis trade and economic relations. The evidence from political theory is surprising and highly investment relevant. We then look back at history for clues as to what this means for investors. The U.S.-China conflict will not lead to complete bifurcation of the global economy. Our conclusion is that it is highly likely that the U.S. and China will continue to be geopolitical rivals. However, due to the geopolitical context of multipolarity, it is unlikely that the result will be “Bifurcated Capitalism.” Rather, we expect an exciting and volatile environment for investors where geopolitics takes its historical place alongside valuation, momentum, fundamentals, and macroeconomics in the pantheon of factors that determine investment opportunities and risks. The Thucydides Trap Is Real … Speaking in the Reichstag in 1897, German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow proclaimed that it was time for Germany to demand “its own place in the sun.”8 The occasion was a debate on Germany’s policy towards East Asia. Bülow soon ascended to the Chancellorship under Kaiser Wilhelm II and oversaw the evolution of German foreign policy from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik. While Realpolitik was characterized by Germany’s cautious balancing of global powers under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Weltpolitik saw Bülow and Wilhelm II seek to redraw the status quo through aggressive foreign and trade policy. Imperial Germany joined a long list of antagonists, from Athens to today’s People’s Republic of China, in the tragic play of human history dubbed the “Thucydides Trap.”9 Chart II-1Imperial Overstretch The underlying concept is well known to all students of world history. It takes its name from the Greek historian Thucydides and his seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides explains why Sparta and Athens went to war but, unlike his contemporaries, he does not moralize or blame the gods. Instead, he dispassionately describes how the conflict between a revisionist Athens and established Sparta became inevitable due to a cycle of mistrust. Graham Allison, one of America’s preeminent scholars of international relations, has argued that the interplay between a status quo power and a challenger has almost always led to conflict. In 12 out of the 16 cases he surveyed, actual military conflict broke out. Of the four cases where war did not develop, three involved transitions between countries that shared a deep cultural affinity and a respect for the prevailing institutions.10 In those cases, the transition was a case of new management running largely the same organizational structure. And one of the four non-war outcomes was nothing less than the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The fundamental problem for a status quo power is that its empire or “sphere of influence” remains the same size as when it stood at the zenith of power. However, its decline in a relative sense leads to a classic problem of “imperial overstretch.” The hegemonic or imperial power erroneously doubles down on maintaining a status quo that it can no longer afford (Chart II-1). The challenger power is not blameless. It senses weakness in the hegemon and begins to develop a regional sphere of influence. The problem is that regional hegemony is a perfect jumping off point towards global hegemony. And while the challenger’s intentions may be limited and restrained (though they often are ambitious and overweening), the status quo power must react to capabilities, not intentions. The former are material and real, whereas the latter are perceived and ephemeral. In a multipolar world, the U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system. The challenging power always has an internal logic justifying its ambitions. In China’s case today, there is a sense among the elite that the country is merely mean-reverting to the way things were for many centuries in China’s and Asia’s long history (Chart II-2). In other words, China is a “challenger” power only if one describes the status quo as the past three hundred years. It is the “established” power if one goes back to an earlier state of affairs. As such, the consensus in China is that it should not have to pay deference to the prevailing status quo given that the contemporary context is merely the result of western imperialist “challenges” to the established Chinese and regional order. Chart II-2China’s Mean Reverting Narrative In addition, China has a legitimate claim that it is at least as relevant to the global economy as the U.S. and therefore deserves a greater say in global governance. While the U.S. still takes a larger share of the global economy, China has contributed 23% to incremental global GDP over the past two decades, compared to 13% for the U.S. (Chart II-3). Chart II-3The Beijing Consensus Bottom Line: The emerging tensions between China and the U.S. fit neatly into the theoretical and empirical outlines of the Thucydides Trap. We do not see any way for the two countries to avoid struggle and conflict on a secular or forecastable horizon. What does this mean for investors? For one, the secular tailwinds behind defense stocks will persist. But what beyond that? Is the global economy destined to witness complete bifurcation into two armed camps separated by a Silicon Curtain? Will the Alibaba and Amazon Pacts suspiciously glare at each other the way that NATO and Warsaw Pacts did amidst the Cold War? The answer, tentatively, is no. … But It Will Not Lead To Economic Bifurcation President Trump’s aggressive trade policy also fits neatly into political theory, to a point. Realism in political science focuses on relative gains over absolute gains in all relationships, including trade. This is because trade leads to economic prosperity, prosperity to the accumulation of economic surplus, and economic surplus to military spending, research, and development. Two states that care only about relative gains due to rivalry produce a zero-sum game with no room for cooperation. It is a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” that can lead to sub-optimal economic outcomes in which both actors chose not to cooperate. Diagram II-1 illustrates the effects of relative gain calculations on the trade behavior of states. In the absence of geopolitics, demand (Q3) is satisfied via trade (Q3-Q0) due to the inability of domestic production (Q0) to meet it. Diagram II-1Trade War In A Bipolar World However, geopolitical externality – a rivalry with another state – raises the marginal social cost of imports – i.e. trade allows the rival to gain more out of trade and “catch up” in terms of geopolitical capabilities. The trading state therefore eliminates such externalities with a tariff (t), raising domestic output to Q1, while shrinking demand to Q2, thus reducing imports to merely Q2-Q1, a fraction of where they would be in a world where geopolitics do not matter. The dynamic of relative gains can also have a powerful pull on the hegemon as it begins to weaken and rethink its originally magnanimous trade relations. As political scientist Duncan Snidal argued in a 1991 paper, When the global system is first set up, the hegemon makes deals with smaller states. The hegemon is concerned more with absolute gains, smaller states are more concerned with relative, so they are tougher negotiators. Cooperative arrangements favoring smaller states contribute to relative hegemonic decline. As the unequal distribution of benefits in favor of smaller states helps them catch up to the hegemonic actor, it also lowers the relative gains weight they place on the hegemonic actor. At the same time, declining relative preponderance increases the hegemonic state’s concern for relative gains with other states, especially any rising challengers. The net result is increasing pressure from the largest actor to change the prevailing system to gain a greater share of cooperative benefits.11 History teaches us that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime. The reason small states are initially more concerned with relative gains is because they are far more concerned with national security than the hegemon. The hegemon has a preponderance of power and is therefore more relaxed about its security needs. This explains why Presidents George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jr. all made “bad deals” with China. Writing nearly thirty years ago, Snidal cogently described the current U.S.-China trade war. Snidal thought he was describing a coming decade of anarchy. But he and fellow political scientists writing in the early 1990s underestimated American power. The “unipolar moment” of American supremacy was not over, it was just beginning! As such, the dynamic Snidal described took thirty years to come to fruition. When thinking about the transition away from U.S. hegemony, most investors anchor themselves to the Cold War as it is the only world they have known that was not unipolar. Moreover the Cold War provides a simple, bipolar distribution of power that is easy to model through game theory. If this is the world we are about to inhabit, with the U.S. and China dividing the whole planet into spheres like the U.S. and Soviet Union, then the paragraph we lifted from Snidal’s paper would be the end of it. America would abandon globalization in totality, impose a draconian Silicon Curtain around China, and coerce its allies to follow suit. But most of recent human history has been defined by a multipolar distribution of power between states, not a bipolar one. The term “cold war” is applicable to the U.S. and China in the sense that comparable military power may prevent them from fighting a full-blown “hot war.” But ultimately the U.S.-Soviet Cold War is a poor analogy for today’s world. In a multipolar world, Snidal concludes, “states that do not cooperate fall behind other relative gains maximizers that cooperate among themselves. This makes cooperation the best defense (as well as the best offense) when your rivals are cooperating in a multilateral relative gains world.” Snidal shows via formal modeling that as the number of players increases from two, relative-gains sensitivity drops sharply.12 The U.S.-China relationship does not occur in a vacuum — it is moderated by the global context. Today’s global context is one of multipolarity. Multipolarity refers to the distribution of geopolitical power, which is no longer dominated by one or two great powers (Chart II-4). Europe and Japan, for instance, have formidable economies and military capabilities. Russia remains a potent military power, even as India surpasses it in terms of overall geopolitical power. Chart II-4The World Is No Longer Bipolar A multipolar world is the least “ordered” and the most unstable of world systems (Chart II-5). This is for three reasons: Chart II-5Multipolarity Is Messy Math: Multipolarity engenders more potential “conflict dyads” that can lead to conflict. In a unipolar world, there is only one country that determines norms and rules of behavior. Conflict is possible, but only if the hegemon wishes it. In a bipolar world, conflict is possible, but it must align along the axis of the two dominant powers. In a multipolar world, alliances are constantly shifting and producing novel conflict dyads. Lack of coordination: Global coordination suffers in periods of multipolarity as there are more “veto players.” This is particularly problematic during times of stress, such as when an aggressive revisionist power uses force or when the world is faced with an economic crisis. Charles Kindleberger has argued that it was exactly such hegemonic instability that caused the Great Depression to descend into the Second World War in his seminal The World In Depression.13 Mistakes: In a unipolar and bipolar world, there are a very limited number of dice being rolled at once. As such, the odds of tragic mistakes are low and can be mitigated with complex formal relationships (such as U.S.-Soviet Mutually Assured Destruction, grounded in formal modeling of game theory). But in a multipolar world, something as random as an assassination of a dignitary can set in motion a global war. The multipolar system is far more dynamic and thus unpredictable. Diagram II-2 is modified for a multipolar world. Everything is the same, except that we highlight the trade lost to other great powers. The state considering using tariffs to lower the marginal social cost of trading with a rival must account for this “lost trade.” In the context of today’s trade war with China, this would be the sum of all European Airbuses and Brazilian soybeans sold to China in the place of American exports. For China, it would be the sum of all the machinery, electronics, and capital goods produced in the rest of Asia and shipped to the United States. Diagram II-2Trade War In A Multipolar World Could Washington ask its allies – Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. – not to take advantage of the lucrative trade (Q3-Q0)-(Q2-Q1) lost due to its trade tiff with China? Sure, but empirical research shows that they would likely ignore such pleas for unity. Alliances produced by a bipolar system produce a statistically significant and large impact on bilateral trade flows, a relationship that weakens in a multipolar context. This is the conclusion of a 1993 paper by Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield.14 The authors draw their conclusion from an 80-year period beginning in 1905, which captures several decades of global multipolarity. Unless the U.S. produces a wholehearted diplomatic effort to tighten up its alliances and enforce trade sanctions – something hardly foreseeable under the current administration – the self-interest of U.S. allies will drive them to continue trading with China. The U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system; nor will China be able to achieve Xi Jinping’s vaunted “self-sufficiency.” A risk to our view is that we have misjudged the global system, just as political scientists writing in the early 1990s did. To that effect, we accept that Charts II-1 and II-4 do not really support a view that the world is in a balanced multipolar state. The U.S. clearly remains the most powerful country in the world. The problem is that it is also clearly in a relative decline and that its sphere of influence is global – and thus very expensive – whereas its rivals have merely regional ambitions (for the time being). As such, we concede that American hegemony could be reasserted relatively quickly, but it would require a significant calamity in one of the other poles of power. For instance, a breakdown in China’s internal stability alongside the recovery of U.S. political stability. Bottom Line: The trade war between the U.S. and China is geopolitically unsustainable. The only way it could continue is if the two states existed in a bipolar world where the rest of the states closely aligned themselves behind the two superpowers. We have a high conviction view that today’s world is – for the time being – multipolar. American allies will cheat and skirt around Washington’s demands that China be isolated. This is because the U.S. no longer has the preponderance of power that it enjoyed in the last decade of the twentieth and the first decade of the twenty-first century. Insights presented thus far come from formal theory in political science. What does history teach us? Trading With The Enemy In 1896, a bestselling pamphlet in the U.K., “Made in Germany,” painted an ominous picture: “A gigantic commercial State is arising to menace our prosperity, and contend with us for the trade of the world.”15 Look around your own houses, author E.E. Williams urged his readers. “The toys, and the dolls, and the fairy books which your children maltreat in the nursery are made in Germany: nay, the material of your favorite (patriotic) newspaper had the same birthplace as like as not.” Williams later wrote that tariffs were the answer and that they “would bring Germany to her knees, pleading for our clemency.”16 By the late 1890s, it was clear to the U.K. that Germany was its greatest national security threat. The Germany Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900 launched a massive naval buildup with the singular objective of liberating the German Empire from the geographic constraints of the Jutland Peninsula. By 1902, the First Lord of the Royal Navy pointed out that “the great new German navy is being carefully built up from the point of view of a war with us.”17 There is absolutely no doubt that Germany was the U.K.’s gravest national security threat. As a result, London signed in April 1904 a set of agreements with France that came to be known as Entente Cordiale. The entente was immediately tested by Germany in the 1905 First Moroccan Crisis, which only served to strengthen the alliance. Russia was brought into the pact in 1907, creating the Triple Entente. In hindsight, the alliance structure was obvious given Germany’s meteoric rise from unification in 1871. However, one should not underestimate the magnitude of these geopolitical events. For the U.K. and France to resolve centuries of differences and formalize an alliance in 1904 was a tectonic shift — one that they undertook against the grain of history, entrenched enmity, and ideology.18 Political scientists and historians have noted that geopolitical enmity rarely produces bifurcated economic relations exhibited during the Cold War. Both empirical research and formal modeling shows that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime.19 This was certainly the case between the U.K. and Germany, whose trade steadily increased right up until the outbreak of World War One (Chart II-6). Could this be written off due to the U.K.’s ideological commitment to laissez-faire economics? Or perhaps London feared a move against its lightly defended colonies in case it became protectionist? These are fair arguments. However, they do not explain why Russia and France both saw ever-rising total trade with the German Empire during the same period (Chart II-7). Either all three states were led by incompetent policymakers who somehow did not see the war coming – unlikely given the empirical record – or they simply could not afford to lose out on the gains of trade with Germany to each other. Chart II-6The Allies Traded With Germany ... Chart II-7… Right Up To WWI   Chart II-8Japan And U.S. Never Downshifted Trade A similar dynamic was afoot ahead of World War Two. Relations between the U.S. and Japan soured in the 1930s, with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In 1935, Japan withdrew from the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty – the bedrock of the Pacific balance of power – and began a massive naval buildup. In 1937, Japan invaded China. Despite a clear and present danger, the U.S. continued to trade with Japan right up until July 26, 1941, few days after Japan invaded southern Indochina (Chart II-8). On December 7, Japan attacked the U.S. A skeptic may argue that precisely because policymakers sleepwalked into war in the First and Second World Wars, they will not (or should not) make the same mistake this time around. First, we do not make policy prescriptions and therefore care not what should happen. Second, we are highly skeptical of the view that policymakers in the early and mid-twentieth century were somehow defective (as opposed to today’s enlightened leaders). Our constraints-based framework urges us to seek systemic reasons for the behavior of leaders. Political science provides a clear theoretical explanation for why London and Washington continued to trade with the enemy despite the clarity of the threat. The answer lies in the systemic nature of the constraint: a multipolar world reduces the sensitivity of policymakers to relative gains by introducing a collective action problem thanks to changing alliances and the difficulty of disciplining allies’ behavior. In the case of U.S. and China, this is further accentuated by President Trump’s strategy of skirting multilateral diplomacy and intense focus on mercantilist measures of power (i.e. obsession with the trade deficit). An anti-China trade policy that was accompanied by a magnanimous approach to trade relations with allies could have produced a “coalition of the willing” against Beijing. But after two years of tariffs and threats against the EU, Japan, and Canada, the Trump administration has already signaled to the rest of the world that old alliances and coordination avenues are up for revision. There are two outcomes that we can see emerging over the course of the next decade. First, U.S. leadership will become aware of the systemic constraints under which they operate, and trade with China will continue – albeit with limitations and variations. However, such trade will not reduce the geopolitical tensions, nor will it prevent a military conflict. In facts, the probability of military conflict may increase even as trade between China and the U.S. remains steady. Second, U.S. leadership will fail to correctly assess that they operate in a multipolar world and will give up the highlighted trade gains from Diagram II-2 to economic rivals such as Europe and Japan. Given our methodological adherence to constraint-based forecasting, we highly doubt that the latter scenario is likely. Bottom Line: The China-U.S. conflict is not a replay of the Cold War. Systemic pressures from global multipolarity will force the U.S. to continue to trade with China, with limitations on exchanges in emergent, dual-use technologies that China will nonetheless source from other technologically advanced countries. This will create a complicated but exciting world where geopolitics will cease to be seen as exogenous to investing. A risk to the sanguine conclusion is that the historical record is applicable to today, but that the hour is late, not early. It is already July 26, 1941 – when U.S. abrogated all trade with Japan – not 1930. As such, we do not have another decade of trade between U.S. and China remaining, we are at the end of the cycle. While this is a risk, it is unlikely. American policymakers would essentially have to be willing to risk a military conflict with China in order to take the trade war to the same level they did with Japan. It is an objective fact that China has meaningfully stepped up aggressive foreign policy in the region. But unlike Japan in 1941, China has not outright invaded any countries over the past decade. As such, the willingness of the public to support such a conflict is unclear, with only 21% of Americans considering China a top threat to the U.S. Investment Implications This analysis is not meant to be optimistic. First, the U.S. and China will continue to be rivals even if the economic relationship between them does not lead to global bifurcation. For one, China continues to be – much like Germany in the early twentieth century – concerned with access to external markets on which 19.5% of its economy still depend. China is therefore developing a modern navy and military not because it wants to dominate the rest of the world but because it wants to dominate its near abroad, much as the U.S. wanted to, beginning with the Monroe Doctrine. This will continue to lead to Chinese aggression in the South and East China Seas, raising the odds of a conflict with the U.S. Navy. Given that the Thucydides Trap narrative remains cogent, investors should look to overweight S&P 500 aerospace and defense stocks relative to global equity markets. An alternative way that one could play this thesis is by developing a basket of global defense stocks. Multipolarity may create constraints to trade protectionism, but it engenders geopolitical volatility and thus buoys defense spending. Second, we would not expect another uptick in globalization. Multipolarity may make it difficult for countries to completely close off trade with a rival, but globalization is built on more than just trade between rivals. Globalization requires a high level of coordination among great powers that is only possible under hegemonic conditions. Chart II-9 shows that the hegemony of the British and later American empires created a powerful tailwind for trade over the past two hundred years. Chart II-9The Apex Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Apex of Globalization has come and gone – it is all downhill from here. But this is not a binary view. Foreign trade will not go to zero. The U.S. and China will not completely seal each other’s sphere of influence behind a Silicon Curtain. Instead, we focus on five investment themes that flow from a world that is characterized by the three trends of multipolarity, Sino-U.S. geopolitical rivalry, and apex of globalization: Europe will profit: As the U.S. and China deepen their enmity, we expect some European companies to profit. There is some evidence that the investment community has already caught wind of this trend, with European equities modestly outperforming their U.S. counterparts whenever trade tensions flared up in 2019 (Chart II-10). Given our thesis, however, it is unlikely that the U.S. would completely lose market share in China to Europe. As such, we specifically focus on tech, where we expect the U.S. and China to ramp up non-tariff barriers to trade regardless of systemic pressures to continue to trade. A strategic long in the secularly beleaguered European tech companies relative to their U.S. counterparts may therefore make sense (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Europe: A Trade War Safe Haven Chart II-11Is Europe Really This Incompetent? USD bull market will end: A trade war is a very disruptive way to adjust one’s trade relationship. It opens one to retaliation and thus the kind of relative losses described in this analysis. As such, we expect that U.S. to eventually depreciate the USD, either by aggressively reversing 2018 tightening or by coercing its trade rivals to strengthen their currencies. Such a move will be yet another tailwind behind the diversification away from the USD as a reserve currency, a move that should benefit the euro. Bull market in capex: The re-wiring of global manufacturing chains will still take place. The bad news is that multinational corporations will have to dip into their profit margins to move their supply chains to adjust to the new geopolitical reality. The good news is that they will have to invest in manufacturing capex to accomplish the task. One way to articulate this theme is to buy an index of semiconductor capital companies (AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, MKSI, AEIS, BRIKS, and TER). Given the highly cyclical nature of capital companies, we would recommend an entry point once trade tensions subside and green shoots of global growth appear. “Non-aligned” markets will benefit: The last time the world was multipolar, great powers competed through imperialism. This time around, a same dynamic will develop as countries seek to replicate China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.” This is positive for frontier markets. A rush to provide them with exports and services will increase supply and thus lower costs, providing otherwise forgotten markets with a boon of investments. India, and Asia-ex-China more broadly, stand as intriguing alternatives to China, especially with the current administration aggressively reforming to take advantage of the rewiring of global manufacturing chains. Capital markets will remain globalized: With interest rates near zero in much of the developed world and the demographic burden putting an ever-greater pressure on pension plans to generate returns, the search for yield will continue to be a powerful drive that keeps capital markets globalized. Limitations are likely to grow, especially when it comes to cross-border private investments in dual-use technologies. But a completely bifurcation of capital markets is unlikely. The world we are describing is one where geopolitics will play an increasingly prominent role for global investors. It would be convenient if the world simply divided into two warring camps, leaving investors with neatly separated compartments that enabled them to go back to ignoring geopolitics. This is unlikely. Rather, the world will resemble the dynamic years at the end of the nineteenth century, a rough-and-tumble era that required a multi-disciplinary approach to investing. Marko Papic Consulting Editor, BCA Research Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is making marginally new all-time highs. Seasonality is becoming very favorable for stock prices. However, our U.S. profit model continues to point south and expanding multiples have already driven this year’s equity gains. The S&P 500 has therefore already priced in a significant improvement in profits. Further P/E expansion will be harder to come by with bond yields set to rise. Thus, until the dollar falls and creates another tailwind for profits, stocks will not be as strong as seasonality suggests and will only make marginal new highs. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remains cautious towards equities. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if strong market momentum is not supported by valuations and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Until global growth bottoms and boosts the earnings forecasts of our models, stock gains will stay limited. The outlook for next year remains constructive for stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. continues to improve. This same indicator has recently turned lower in Japan. Meanwhile, it is deteriorating further in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Global yields have turned higher but they remain at exceptionally stimulating levels. Moreover, money and liquidity growth has picked up around the world, and global central banks continue to conduct very dovish policies. As a result, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator is still flashing a buy signal. Also, our BCA Composite Valuation index is still improving. As a result, our Speculation Indicator is back in the neutral zone. 10-year Treasury yields continue to rise, but they remain very expensive. Moreover, both our Bond Valuation Index and our Composite Technical Indicators are still flashing high-conviction sell signals. If the strengthening of the Commodity Index Advance/Decline line results in higher natural resource prices, then, inflation breakevens will also climb meaningfully. Therefore, the current setup argues for a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Weak global growth has been the key support for the dollar in recent months. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar remains extremely expensive. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator has lost momentum and has formed a negative divergence with the Greenback’s level. Moreover, the U.S. current account deficit has begun to widen anew. This backdrop makes the dollar highly vulnerable to a rebound in global growth. In fact, a breakdown in the greenback will be the clearest signal yet that global growth is rebounding for good. 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 ComponentsChart 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-23Euro/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   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "September 2019," dated August 29, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2019," dated July 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4   Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Peak Margins," dated October 7, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5   Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Follow The Profit Trail," dated October 15, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 6   Please see Foreign  Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver," dated October 11, 2019, available on fes.bcaresearch.com 7   Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” September 25, 2012, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think,” October 4, 2013, “The Great Risk Rotation,” December 11, 2013, and “Strategic Outlook 2014 – Stay The Course: EM Risk – DM Reward,” January 23, 2014, “Underestimating Sino-American Tensions,” November 6, 2015, “The Geopolitics Of Trump,” December 2, 2016, “How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia,” March 1, 2017, and others available at gps.bcaresearch.com or upon request. 8   Please see German Historical Institute, “Bernhard von Bulow on Germany’s ‘Place in the Sun’” (1897), available at http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/ 9   See Graham Allison, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017).  10  The three cases are Spain taking over from Portugal in the sixteenth century, the U.S. taking over from the U.K. in the twentieth century, and Germany rising to regional hegemony in Europe in the twenty-first century. 11   Duncan Snidal, “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation,” The American Political Science Review, 85:3 (September 1991), pp. 701-726. 12   We do not review Snidal’s excellent game theory formal modeling in this paper as it is complex and detailed. However, we highly encourage the intrigued reader to pursue the study on their own.  13   See Charles P. Kindleberger, The World In Depression, 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 14   Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield, “Power Politics and International Trade,” The American Political Science Review, 87:2 (June 1993), pp. 408-420. 15   See Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (reprint, Ithaca: Cornell University Press), available at https://archive.org/details/cu31924031247830. 16   Quoted in Margaret MacMillan, The War That Ended Peace (Toronto: Allen Lane, 2014). 17   Peter Liberman, “Trading with the Enemy: Security and Relative Economic Gains,” international Security, 21:1 (Summer 1996), pp. 147-175. 18  Although France and Russia overcame even greater bitterness due to the ideological differences between a republic founded on a violent uprising against its aristocracy – France – and an aristocratic authoritarian regime – Russia.  19  See James Morrow, “When Do ‘Relative Gains’ Impede Trade?” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41:1 (February 1997), pp. 12-37; and Jack S. Levy and Katherine Barbieri, “Trading With the Enemy During Wartime,” Security Studies, 13:3 (December 2004), pp. 1-47.

Highlights The lack of dollar liquidity has been a tailwind behind the dollar bull market. Going forward, an end to a contraction in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet should help stem the global shortage of dollars. Outside of a few basket cases, there remains scant evidence that the shortage of dollars has begun to trigger widespread negative feedback loops, symptomatic of a funding crisis. If the global economy picks up steam, a deterioration in the U.S. current account and rising FX reserves will improve the dollar liquidity situation. A trade war remains the key risk to this view. For the remainder of the year, portfolio managers should focus on relative value trades on the crosses rather than outright dollar bets. The European Central Bank’s resumption of quantitative easing could be paradoxically bullish for the euro beyond the near term. For now, stay short the euro versus a basket of petro-currencies. Feature At the center of the global financial architecture is the U.S. dollar and the Federal Reserve. The process behind the creation of dollars is a simple one, which goes as follows: In order to stimulate the U.S. economy, the authorities pursue macroeconomic policies that tend to weaken the dollar, such as lowering rates and/or running a wider fiscal deficit. The central bank helps finance this fiscal deficit via expanding the monetary base (seignorage). The drop in rates causes the yield curve to steepen. This incentivizes banks to lend, which in turn boosts U.S. money supply. As the economy recovers, and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, consumer goods) rises, the current account deficit widens. As a reserve currency, the U.S. trade deficit is settled in dollars. This leads to a flow of greenbacks outside U.S. borders. Wary of losing competitiveness via a rising exchange rate, other central banks will purchase these dollars from the private sector in exchange for local currency. The rise in foreign exchange reserves can be reinvested back into Treasurys and held in custody at the Fed, meaning that the current account deficit (or capital account surplus) finances the budget deficit. Call this an exorbitant privilege. The key question is whether dollar liquidity will ease over the near term or the shortage will intensify. A few factors suggest the former.  The sum of the Fed’s custody holdings together with the U.S. monetary base constitutes the root of global dollar liquidity. Each time this measure has severely contracted, the reduction in dollars has triggered a blowup somewhere, typically among other countries running twin deficits (Chart I-1). For example, since the Global Financial Crisis, a fall in the growth of this measure below the critical zero line coincided with the European debt crisis, China’s slowdown, and more recently slowing global trade and a manufacturing recession. Importantly, the slowdown in global trade preceded escalation in trade tensions between the U.S. and China, meaning other endogenous factors were also at play. Lack of dollar liquidity was perhaps a factor. Chart I-1A Liquidity Squeeze Of Dollars Chart I-2The U.S. Budget Deficit Needs To Be Financed In the past, the Fed was quick to correct the situation:  most episodes when the U.S. current account deficit was shrinking, the domestic economy was on the cusp of a slowdown or recession. This time around, easy fiscal policy and a trade-hawkish President have allowed the Fed to ignore the liquidity crisis happening outside the U.S. Key to this is that the lines are now blurred between how much of the trade slowdown is tariff escalation, and how much is due to endogenous factors. As a result, the Fed no longer felt obliged to intervene for markets outside the U.S., especially if the U.S. domestic economy was faring well. A shrinking U.S. current account deficit is incompatible with a resolution to the dollar crisis, especially as the greenback remains the global reserve currency (Chart I-2). On the surface, this is dollar bullish. Meanwhile, our geopolitical strategists contend that the trade war is just a symptom of a much larger battle for hegemonic supremacy, which will last for many years to come. However, the key question is whether dollar liquidity will ease over the near term or the shortage will intensify. A few factors suggest the former. Balance Sheet, Current Account And Foreign Debt Chart I-3The Contraction In Custody Holdings Is Over The Fed’s tapering of asset purchases has been a net drain on global dollar liquidity. But that is slated to change. The Fed’s balance sheet peaked a nudge above US$4.5 trillion in early 2015 and has been falling since. This has triggered a severe contraction in the U.S. monetary base, and severely curtailed commercial banks’ excess reserves. The Federal Reserve’s custody holdings argue that this was a huge drag on international dollar liquidity, even worse than during the 2008 crisis (Chart I-3). The good news is that the Fed has ended the tapering of its balance sheet and has started cutting rates. This combination will improve dollar's liquidity going forward. Meanwhile, balance-of-payment dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. Over the next five years, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. budget deficit will swell to 4.8% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit widens a bit and then stabilizes, this will pin the twin deficits at around 8% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to swell the deficit even further. Part of these deficits will need to be funded through money printing. One difference between now and the past is that over the last several years, the dollar has become expensive. The narrowing of the U.S. current account balance might therefore be over. The U.S. saw its twin deficits swell to almost 13% of GDP following the financial crisis. However, then the dollar was cheap and commodity currencies were overvalued, following a natural resource bust. One way to solve an overvaluation problem is to increase the supply of dollars. Dollar liquidity shortages tend to be vicious because they trigger negative feedback loops. As the velocity of international U.S. dollars rises, offshore dollar rates begin to rise, lifting the cost of capital for borrowing countries. Debt repayment replaces capital spending. Yet there is little evidence that a dollar shortage has been triggering this sort of negative feedback loop. U.S. dollar funding to external entities is growing by circa 4% a year and has slowed to a crawl among both developed and emerging markets (Chart I-4). Historically, this slowdown has been symptomatic of a funding crisis in EM. Yet this time around, there have been other forces at play: The growth in euro- and yen-denominated debt is exploding, which mirrors the gradual shift in the allocation of FX reserves away from dollars into other currencies. The growth in euro- and yen-denominated debt is exploding (Chart I-5). This is much smaller in outstanding amounts than U.S.-denominated debt, but mirrors the gradual shift in the allocation of FX reserves away from dollars into other currencies. If the U.S. has started to weaponize the U.S. dollar, foreign entities may have no other choice than to rally into other currency blocs, which may eventually entail the Chinese yuan. Chart I-4Growth In The Dollar Short Position Has Eased Chart I-5Lots Of Yen And Euro Debt ##br##Issuance The fall in the use of dollars gradually redistributes the “exhorbitant priviledge” of the U.S. currency. This alleviates the need for the U.S. to run a wider current account deficit (President Trump’s goal). This means lower growth in foreign exchange reserves could become the norm rather than the exception (Chart I-6). Historically, current account imbalances have been a major source of currency crises, meaning the system could actually be more stable. Chart I-6The Drop In FX Reserves Is Not Precarious The performance of some emerging market currency pairs will determine if the so-called funding crisis stays benign or becomes more malignant. Despite a deeper liquidity shortage than during the 2015-2016 crisis, most EM currency pairs are still trading within well-defined wedges and/or above critical thresholds (Chart I-7). Meanwhile, EM volatility remains much subdued – not symptomatic of a funding crisis (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Currency Pairs Remain Outside The Danger Zone Chart I-8EM FX Volatility##br## Is Low Bottom Line: One way to track if a dollar-funding crisis is becoming more acute is through the convenience yield, or cross-currency basis swap.1 This measures the difference in yield between an actual Treasury and a synthetic one trading in the offshore market. On this basis, it remains well below the panic levels observed in 2008, 2011 and 2015-2016, suggesting the dollar shortage is not as acute as back then (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Convenience Yield For The Dollar Remains Low The ECB Bazooka Chart I-10Relative R-Star* In The Eurozone Could Rebound The ECB provided the stimulus the market wanted: they cut rates 10 basis points, offered a tiered system for their marginal deposit facility, and are starting an open-ended QE program at €20 billion a month in November. Yet the euro bounced. Our bias is that European rates were already well below equilibrium compared to the U.S., and the ECB’s dovish shift will help further lift the euro area’s growth potential (Chart I-10). If a central bank eases financing conditions at a time when growth is hitting a nadir, it is hardly bearish for the currency. Since the introduction of the euro, most of the economic imbalances from the region have stemmed from the standard contradiction of a common currency regime. This has been that interest rates have always been too low for one nation, while expensive for others. As such, the euro has typically been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising equilibrium rate of interest for one country, but a very low neutral rate for others.2 In the early 2000s, Spanish and Irish long-term rates were too low, and the reverse was true for Germany. The result was a massive boom in Spanish real estate, the accumulation of debt and buildup of major imbalances. Once bond vigilantes started punishing the periphery for their sins after the Great Recession, Germany found itself with rates that were too low relative to its newly reformed economy, while the periphery deflated. Capital spending in the peripheral countries has been rising faster than in core Europe, suggesting the spread between the cost of capital in these countries and the return on capital remains wide. The good news is this has not been the case for a few months now: 10-year government bond yields in France, Spain and even Portugal now sit at -24 basis points, 22 basis points and 24 basis points respectively, much below the neutral rate. This is severely easing financial conditions across the entire euro zone (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Common-Currency Dilemma Solved There has been a reason behind the collapse in spreads, aside from a dovish ECB. Labor market reforms in Mediterranean Europe have seen unit labor costs in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain collectively contract by almost 10%. This has effectively eliminated the competitiveness gap that had accumulated over the past two decades (Chart I-12). Italy remains saddled with a rigid and less productive workforce, but overall adjustments have still come a long way to closing a key fissure plaguing the common-currency area. The result is in the numbers. Capital spending in the peripheral countries has been rising faster than in core Europe, suggesting the spread between the cost of capital in these countries and the return on capital remains wide (Chart I-13). More rapid capital spending in the periphery is a key channel to close the productivity gap between member nations and lift the neutral rate of interest for the entire euro zone. Chart I-12The Competitiveness Gap Has Closed Chart I-13The Cost Of Capital Is Low In The Periphery The euro tends to be largely driven by pro-cyclical flows. Fortunately for investors, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, given they are trading at some of the cheapest cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings multiples in the developed world. Analysts began revising up their earnings estimates for euro zone equities earlier this year. If they are right, this tends to firmly lead the euro by about nine to 12 months (Chart I-14).  Meanwhile, European bonds in hedged terms still remain very attractive (Table I-1). Chart I-14The Euro Might Soon Pop Table I-1Bond Markets Across The Developed World A key barometer to watch will be the performance of European banks. So far, they have avoided falling below the critical death zone (Chart I-15). We are awaiting further evidence that the global growth environment is becoming less precarious to place outright long euro bets. Stay tuned. Chart I-15Watch Eurozone Banks Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Arvind Krishnamurthy and Hanno Lustig, “Mind the Gap in Sovereign Debt Markets: The U.S. Treasury basis and the Dollar Risk Factor,” Stanford University, August 29, 2019. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate of Interest,” dated June 14, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in U.S. have been mostly positive: Starting with labor market, nominal average hourly earnings were little changed at 3.2% year-on-year in August, however real average hourly earnings yearly growth increased from 1.3% to 1.5% year-on-year. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.7%. Nonfarm payrolls increased by 130,000 in August, below expectations of 158,000. NFIB small business optimism index fell from 104.7 to 103.1 in August. Both headline and core PPI increased by 1.8% and 2.3% year-on-year in August. While headline inflation somewhat slowed to 1.7% year-on-year in August, core inflation came in strong at 2.4% year-on-year. DXY index appreciated initially by 0.6% post ECB, then soon plunged, ending -0.2% this week. BLS reported a large increase in temporary positions in the federal government, reflecting the preparation for the 2020 Census. Notable job gains also occurred in health care and finance, while mining lost jobs. During a Q&A session in Zurich last Friday, Powell noted that the outlook remains a favorable one despite global trade risks. The most likely scenario for the U.S. is continued moderate growth.  Report Links: Preserving Capital During Riot Points - September 6, 2019 Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been mostly negative: GDP growth increased to 1.2% year-on-year in Q2, from a downwardly-revised 1.1% in the previous quarter. Sentix confidence came in at -11.1 in September, remaining in negative territory but higher than expected. Industrial production contracted by 2% year-on-year in July. EUR/USD fell by 0.9% post ECB meeting, followed by a quick rebound, gaining 0.3% in total this week. Mario Draghi’s last meeting as governor delivered another “bazooka.” The deposit facility rate was cut by 10 bps to a new low of -0.5%, and the ECB will restart QE at €20 billion monthly in November. It will also introduce a two-tiered system for interest rates. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: Average cash earnings contracted by 0.3% year-on-year in July. Annualized GDP growth slowed from 1.8% to 1.3% quarter-on-quarter in Q2. The adjusted BoP current account balance narrowed to ¥1.65 trillion in July. The BoP trade balance shifted to a deficit of ¥74.5 billion. While the ECO watchers current index rebounded to 42.8 in August, the outlook component dropped to 39.1, the lowest since 2014. Preliminary machine tool orders kept contracting by 37.1% year-on-year in August. Core machinery orders yearly growth fell from 12.5% to 0.3% in July. PPI decreased by 0.9% year-on-year in August. USD/JPY increased by 1% this week. The outlook for Japan remains worrisome in anticipation of the scheduled consumption tax hike next month. Besides that, the relationship between Japan and South Korea is in the worst state in decades. Tourist arrivals between the two neighbors are both deteriorating. However, the BoJ remains out of policy bullets. This puts a floor under the safe-haven yen, until the BoJ acts. Report Links: Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in U.K. have been slightly improving: Manufacturing production grew by 0.3% month-on-month in July. On a year-on-year basis, it contracted by 0.6%, an improvement from the previous -1.4%. Industrial production contracted by 0.9% year-on-year in July, higher than the consensus of -1.1%. Total trade deficit (including EU) slightly increased to £0.22 billion in July. Trade deficit (non-EU) widened to £1.93 billion. ILO unemployment rate fell to 3.8% in July. Average earnings growth increased to 4% year-on-year in July. GBP/USD increased by 0.4% this week. We believe that the probability of a no-deal Brexit remains low, but for the time being, we are standing aside while waiting for the chaos to settle. Next week we will be publishing an update on the U.K. economy. Stay tuned. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mixed: Home loans grew by 4.2% month-on-month in July, up from 0.4% in the previous month. Westpac consumer confidence fell by 1.7% month-on-month in September. National Australia Bank (NAB) business confidence fell from 4 to 1 in August. AUD/USD appreciated by 0.5% this week. Investor and consumer sentiment remain depressed amid global trade worries and the diminishing returns from Chinese stimulus. However, we are seeing tentative signs of recovery as the housing sector stabilizes. We maintain a positive view on the Australian dollar. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been neutral: Net migration increased by 5100 in July. Manufacturing sales contracted by 2.7% quarter-on-quarter in Q2. The New Zealand dollar has been more or less flat against the U.S. dollar this week, but fell by 0.5% against the Australian dollar. China granted several U.S. products a one-year exemption from tariffs this week. While the good news regarding a potential U.S.-China trade deal could benefit pro-cyclical currencies, we believe the kiwi will underperform at the crosses. Report Links: USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been solid: In August, 81,100 jobs were added, the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.7%, and average hourly wages grew by 3.8% year-on-year. Ivey PMI increased to 60.6 in August, from the previous 54.2 in July. Bloomberg Nanos confidence was little changed at 56.5 for the past week. Housing starts increased by 226,600 in August.  Building permits grew by 3% month-on-month in July. New house price index fell by 0.4% year-on-year in July. USD/CAD increased by 0.2% this week. While the oil prices and robust job numbers could benefit the Canadian dollar in the near term, a rising exchange rate, and increasing interest rate differentials might tighten financial conditions, and thus limit the upside of the loonie. Report Links: Preserving Capital During Riot Points - September 6, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 There is scant data from Switzerland this week: Producer and import prices contracted by 1.9% year-on-year in August. Unemployment rate was unchanged at 2.3% in August. USD/CHF has been flat this week. Last Friday, during the Q&A session in Zurich, SNB chairman Jordan emphasized that as a small open economy, Switzerland is heavily impacted by global economic developments, notably what is happening in the U.S., Europe, and China. The recent slowdown has weighed on the Swiss economy. More importantly, Jordan noted that price stability remains an important mandate for the Swiss people and the bank. Further policy adjustments, besides interest rates, might be necessary to stimulate the economy. The ECB policy meeting this week has also put more pressure on SNB to further ease monetary policy. Report Links: What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been neutral: Manufacturing output grew by 1% in July. Headline and core inflation both slowed to 1.6% and 2.1% year-on-year in August. USD/NOK fell by 0.4% this week, as oil prices continued to rally. Prince Abdulaziz Bin Salman was appointed as the new Energy Minister of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and he is committed to oil production control. Moreover, the possible good news over a U.S.-China trade deal is likely to revive oil demand, thus lifting Norwegian krone. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mostly negative: Household consumption increased by 2.8% year-on-year in July. Headline inflation slowed from 1.7% to 1.4% year-on-year in August. Core inflation also slowed to 1.6% year-on-year, from the previous 1.7%. USD/SEK fell by 0.4% this week. Last week, the Riksbank kept interest rates on hold, and said that they are still planning to raise interest rates but at a slower pace. The slowdown in inflation this week might further delay their plan for a rate hike.  Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights China’s infrastructure investment growth rate could rebound moderately from its current nominal 3% pace, but will remain well below the double-digit rate it has registered for most of the past decade.  A lack of funding for local governments and their financing vehicles will somewhat cap the upside in infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI) in the next six to nine months. Special bond issuance will be insufficient to ensuring a major recovery in infrastructure spending. Investors should tread cautiously on infrastructure plays in financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Nominal infrastructure investment growth in China has slowed from over 15% in 2017 to 3% currently (Chart I-1). This is the weakest growth rate since 2005 excluding the late 2011-early 2012 period. Over the past decade, each time the Chinese economy experienced a considerable slowdown, infrastructure construction was ramped up to revive growth. Infrastructure spending growth skyrocketed in 2009 and was also boosted in 2012. In 2015-2016, it was not allowed to decelerate with the issuance of nearly RMB 2 trillion of special infrastructure bonds. This time the government has also reacted. Since mid-2018, the Chinese authorities have dramatically raised local governments’ special bonds balance limits, prompted local governments to front-load their issuance this year, and also encouraged the private sector to participate in public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects. Will Chinese infrastructure FAI growth accelerate over the next six to nine months from its current nominal 3% pace to double digits? The short answer is no. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. For purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service, (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management, and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. Chart I-2 presents the breakdown of the nominal infrastructure FAI by category. Funding Constraint Preceding both the 2011-2012 and 2018 infrastructure investment slumps, the Chinese central government increased its scrutiny on local government debt and tightened funding conditions for infrastructure projects. As a result, all three categories of infrastructure spending experienced a sharp deceleration (Chart I-3). Overall, financing and qualitative limitations that Beijing imposes on local government infrastructure spending hold the key to the outlook. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. Looking forward, without a considerable recovery in available financing, there will be no meaningful rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment and construction activity. For now, we are not very optimistic on financing. Chart I-4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. All of them are likely to face considerable funding constraints over the next six to nine months. Chart I-3Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board   1. Self-Raised Funds Self-raised funds contribute nearly 60% of overall infrastructure funding. They include net local government special bond issuance, PPP financing and government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues excluding proceeds from special bond issuance. A. Local government special bond issuance, which is exclusively used to fund infrastructure projects, has been the major source of financing for local governments in the past 12 months. The authorities significantly boosted net local government bond issuance to RMB 1.2 trillion in the first six months of this year from only RMB 361 billion in the same period in 2018. However, the amount of special bond issuance in the second half of this year will unlikely be significant enough to boost infrastructure FAI greatly. First, the central government has not only set a limit on the aggregate local government special bond balance, but it also set limits for each of the 31 provinces/provincial-level cities.1 In the past three years, nearly all provinces did not use up their special bond issuance quotas. This resulted in an outstanding aggregate amount of special bonds of only about 85% of the limit.2 In both 2017 and 2018, local governments were left with RMB 1.1 trillion special bond issuance quota unused for that year. Second, based on the limit on outstanding amount special bonds set by the central government for the end of 2019, local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of this year. In comparison, in 2018, the issuance was heavily concentrated in the second half of the year with RMB 1.6 trillion. Our estimate shows there will be only RMB 400-600 billion increase in net total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018.3 This will translate into a merely 2-3% growth in Chinese infrastructure investment. Third, net local government special bond issuance made up only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Hence, there is still a huge financing gap to be filled (Chart I-5). B. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are unlikely to meet the financing shortage either. PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments since 2014. Nevertheless, to control rising local government debt risks, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early last year. A series of tightened rules have resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPPs contributions to total infrastructure FAI have plunged from over 30% in 2017 to 10% currently (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Chart I-6Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage   So far, the rules on PPP projects on local governments remain tight. In March, the central government tightened its rule on local government participation in PPP projects. The new rule states that, if a local government has already spent more than 5% of its overall general expenditures on PPP projects excluding sewage and waste disposal PPP projects, it will not be allowed to invest in any new PPP projects. Before March, the threshold was over 10%. In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded all PPP projects undertake a thorough feasibility study. The NDRC emphasized that PPP projects that do not follow standard procedures will not be allowed. Chart I-7Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales C. Government-managed funds (GMF) excluding special bond issuance accounts, which contribute about 15% of overall infrastructure financing, are also facing constraints. According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures of the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. Land sales by local governments are one major revenue source for GMFs. Contracting property floor space sold is likely to depress real estate developers’ land purchases, further reducing local governments’ revenues from selling land (Chart I-7). This will curb local governments’ ability to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. 2. Domestic Loans Domestic loans contribute to about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. Infrastructure projects are generally long term in nature. Presently, the impulse of non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) lending has stabilized but has not yet improved (Chart I-8). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending reflects commercial banks’ reluctance to finance infrastructure projects. We believe a decelerating economy, mounting local government debt, and often-low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to constrain loan funding of infrastructure projects from both banks and the private sector. 3. General Government Budget The general government budget (which includes central and local governments) accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. The general budget is also facing headwinds from declining revenue due to recent tax cuts and lower corporate profit growth (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Chart I-9Government General Budget: Large Deficit   Bottom Line: Funding constraints will likely linger, making any recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment growth moderate over the next six to nine months. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. While local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of 2019, it would be well below the RMB 1.4 trillion of special bond issuance that was rolled out in the second half of 2018. FAI In Transportation: In Nominal Terms… The transportation sector accounts for about 31% of total Chinese infrastructure investment. It includes railway, highway, urban public transit, air and water transport. Table I-1 shows the 13th five-year (2016-2020) transportation investment plan released by the government in February 2017,4 which excludes urban public transit. The authorities planned to invest RMB 15 trillion in the transportation sector over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020, with highways accounting for over half of the investment, followed by railways (23%), air transportation (4.3%) and water transportation (3.3%). The table also shows our calculation of the realized investment amount in these four sub-sectors for the period of January 2016 to June 2019. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Table I-1 suggests the remaining FAI for the transportation sector for the July 2019 to December 2020 period will be considerably smaller than the FAI amount over the past 18 months. This entails a major drag on infrastructure investment at least over the next 18 months. It is important to emphasize that this is conditional on the central planners in Beijing sticking to their five-year plan for infrastructure FAI. As of now, there has been no announcement of revisions to these five-year FAI targets. Bottom Line: China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. …And Real Terms Table I-2 summarizes the 2020 targets for major Chinese infrastructure development (urban rail transit, railway, highway and airport) in real terms. Chart I-10Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away In real terms, the annual growth of transportation infrastructure will likely be 4.2% in both 2019 and 2020. We illustrated in the previous section that the five-year budget plan had been front-loaded, leaving a very small budget for transportation investment over the next 18 months. This may suggest that without considerably exceeding the budget, transportation infrastructure will fail to achieve the 4.2% annual growth in real terms both this year and next. In brief, more funding should be dispatched/allowed by the central planners in Beijing for infrastructure FAI not to shrink. Second, urban rail transit, high-speed railways, highways and airports will reach their respective 2020 targets, while non-high-speed railway construction will likely be a little bit off its 2020 target. Third, based on the 2020 targets, urban rail transit will enjoy very fast growth over the next one and a half years. Fourth, the growth of high-speed railways and highways will be very low, at around 1-2% in real terms (Chart I-10). Finally, while the number of airports will increase at a faster pace, their contribution to overall infrastructure investment will remain insignificant as they only account for about 1.4% of overall infrastructure investment. Bottom Line: In real terms, transport infrastructure growth will likely be only about 4% over the next six to nine months. Future Infrastructure Investment Focus Urban rail transit, environmental management and public utility management will likely be the major driving forces for Chinese infrastructure investment over the next 18 months. Urban rail transit line length will likely register fast growth of around 10% over the next six to nine months. As the central government enforces increasingly stringent rules on environmental protection, investment in environmental management will likely experience continued growth acceleration (Chart I-11). China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, as the country’s urbanization continues and more townships and city suburbs become urbanized,5 public utility management investment will also grow moderately. Public utility management investment, contributing a massive 45% of overall infrastructure investment, includes sewer systems, sewer treatment facilities, waste treatment and disposal, streetlights, city roads construction, parks, bridges and tunnels in the city. Investment Implications Investors should not hold their breath expecting a major upswing in infrastructure FAI and a major rally in related financial markets. Chinese steel demand is sensitive to construction of railways and urban rail transit lines (Chart I-12, top panel). In turn, mainland cement demand is dependent on highway construction (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Chart I-12Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand...   Chart I-13...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of total Chinese steel use, and about 30-40% of Chinese cement consumption. Nevertheless, given that we believe Chinese infrastructure spending will only have a moderate recovery, the positive effect on steel and cement prices will be muted as well (Chart I-13). The same holds true for spending on industrial machinery, equipment, chemicals and various materials. Notably, risks to this baseline scenario of a muted recovery are to the downside because of the lack of funding. Barring a substantial increase in the special bond issuance quota this year or a major credit binge, infrastructure FAI growth could in fact stall. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please note that the central government only set the special bond balance limit (not the quota) for local governments. The often-cited “quota” in the news is derived by calculating the difference between the current limit and the previous year’s limit. The “quota” used in this report is the difference between the current special bond balance limit and the actual special bond balance of the previous year end. 2  At the end of 2018, Chinese special bond balance was RMB 7.4 trillion, only 85.8% of the special bond balance limit of RMB 8.6 trillion. This ratio was 84.6% in 2017 and 85.5% in 2016. On average, the ratio was 85.3% in the past three years. 3  Given that the central government is aiming to somewhat stimulate infrastructure spending by increasing special bond issuance, we assume special bond balance at the end of 2019 to reach 88%-90% of the limit (RMB 10.8 trillion) that it has set for 2019. This will be higher than the 85% average of the past three years. In turn, this means that the special bond balance at the end of this year will likely be RMB 9.5-9.7 trillion. Since the balance at the end of last year was RMB 7.4 trillion, this results that net special bond issuance will be around RMB 2.1-2.3 trillion in 2019. Given the net special bond issuance last year was RMB 1.7 trillion, it follows that there will only be a RMB 400-600 billion increase in total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018. 4  Please see www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-02/28/content_5171576.htm, published February 28, 2017, by the Chinese central government website. 5  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report “Industrialization-Driven Urbanization In China Is Losing Steam,” dated January 2, 2019, available on ems.bcaresearch.com

NOTE: There will be no report on Wednesday, July 17 due to our regular summer break. Highlights Chinese policymakers as well as the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) have historically been reactive, meaning they have typically waited for economic pain to become entrenched before accelerating reflationary measures. The agreement reached at the June G20 Summit to renew trade negotiations with the U.S., while temporary, takes the pressure off the immediate need to further stimulate the economy. While China has the ability to juice the economy, the pain threshold has been raised higher during this cycle, and the country’s leadership has been reluctant to let go of its financial deleveraging campaign. This approach has resulted in a “half measure” stimulus over the past 12 months. The outlook for Chinese stocks is negative over the next three months, as a flip-flop policy approach will increase market volatility.  However, over a cyclical (i.e. six- to 12-month) time horizon, we are maintaining a bullish stance toward Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms. Feature Last week marked the first anniversary of the imposition of tariffs on imports from China by the U.S. – an event that has clearly had a lasting and meaningful impact on global economic activity. Last week was also the first anniversary of a significant monetary easing measure: China’s 3-month interbank repo rate fell 90 basis points on July 3, 2018, 3 days before the first tranche of import tariffs took effect. This decline was just under half of what would ultimately occur (the 3-month repo rate fell from 4.5% in early July to 2.4% in early August), and was taken as a sign by many investors that the PBoC had shifted to a maximum reflationary stance (Chart 1). Chart 1Indecisively Falling Interbank Rate However, several facts underscore that either the PBoC did not, in retrospect, move completely toward a pro-growth stance, or that China’s monetary transmission mechanism is seriously impaired. In our view, it is a combination of both: Despite evidence suggesting it should, the PBoC did not cut its benchmark lending rate. The repo rate declined in the third quarter last year on the back of increased liquidity supply in the interbank market. The weighted average lending rate also fell, but not massively, and not by as much as our model had predicted (Chart 2). A pickup in credit expansion has significantly lagged easing. Excluding local government bonds, the general pickup in credit has been modest. Based on this measure of Total Social Financing, new credit to GDP still remains lower today than at any point during the 2015-2016 downturn (Chart 3). Chart 2Lending Rate: Not Much Easing Chart 3No Strong Re-Leveraging With the conclusion of the G20 Summit temporarily halting the trade war escalation and implementation of additional tariffs, these observations raise important questions: Will the PBoC be proactive in easing policy? What does this mean for investors over the coming year? The PBoC Will Be Reactive Rather Than Proactive Chart 4Shadow-Banking Crackdown Continues In our view, the PBoC’s policy actions last year can at best be described as half-measures, despite the fact that the central bank was quick to reduce interbank interest rates in last July by cutting the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The reason is that the PBoC clearly maintained macro-prudential/administrative restrictions on shadow banking activity, despite significantly easing liquidity in the interbank market. Chart 4 shows that shadow-banking credit as a share of total adjusted social financing continued to decelerate rapidly throughout 2018. It now accounts for a mere 12% of the stock of total adjusted social financing, by far the lowest point since 2009. This underscores that the PBoC and policymakers more generally have a deep-seated desire to avoid (further) inflating China’s substantial money and credit excesses – a dynamic that we have discussed in previous reports.1 Looking forward, there are three reasons why the PBoC’s reactive nature is unlikely to change in the near term, in addition to policymakers’ concerns about financial system’s excesses. First, the PBoC has historically been a reactive central bank, in a way that goes beyond the now-typical “data dependent” approach of its developed-market peers. Chart 5 provides a close look at China’s previous economic growth cycles and their corresponding credit expansions. The chart highlights that Chinese policymakers tend to stay behind the curve when it comes to monetary easing: In the previous three growth cycles, the first sign of monetary easing (defined as an RRR and/or benchmark lending rate cut) lagged the peak of nominal GDP growth by an average of four quarters. Rate cuts took place not when economic growth peaked, but once economic activity had already weakened considerably (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Policymakers Tend To Stay 'Behind The Curve' Chart 6More 'Pain' Needed For Massive Easing The same pattern has applied to other monetary easing tools that the PBoC has deployed in the past, including the Medium Lending Facility (MLF), the Targeted Medium-term Lending Facility (TMLF), the standing Lending Facility (SLF), and the Pledged Supplementary Lending program (PSL) – all of which only took shape after the economy had already shown across-the-board weakness. It will take more widespread and entrenched economic weakness for the PBoC to meaningfully ease further. The local government debt-to-bond swap program was also launched well into the 2015 growth downturn. When widespread and sustained weakness in activity emerged, Chinese policymakers responded by “throwing the kitchen sink” at the economy – by moving forward with multiple rate cuts and often creating new forms of easing in an attempt to catalyze a quick rebound. Since the PBoC has already implemented a series of easing measures, we believe it will take more widespread and entrenched weakness in the real economy for the PBoC to meaningfully ease further. Chart 7Chinese Currency Is Under Pressure Second, the PBoC is likely to be reactive because of the potentially negative effects that proactive rate cuts could cause on sentiment towards the RMB. Chart 7 highlights the close historical correlation between the RRR, interest rate differentials and the USD/CNY. USD/CNY was trading at 7.8 the last time the weighted average RRR was at 11%, which was back in 2007. At the current juncture, interest rate differentials already point to a weaker currency. The PBoC has signaled that USD/CNY at 7 is no longer a line in the sand that must be defended, meaning this level is not a hard constraint that would prevent the central bank from cutting either the RRR or the benchmark lending rates if warranted. In fact, a measured depreciation in the RMB would help mitigate some of the blow from increased tariffs. Nevertheless, in an environment where the currency has already weakened significantly, cutting the RRR or the benchmark lending rates quickly or by a large amount could create self-reinforcing expectations of further depreciation. China has implemented a better counter-cyclical mechanism to defend the RMB than it had in 2015-‘16,2 but the potential for capital outflows remains a serious concern.3 Third, the Trump-Xi meeting at the June G20 Summit in Osaka temporarily averted a further escalation of the trade war and additional tariffs. The agreement to continue trade negotiations lacks tangible progress from either side, and thus the “truce” is likely to be short-lived. Chart 8Markets So Far Unimpressed By Stimulus However, as we pointed out in last week’s report,4 the existence of talks is likely to take some pressure off Chinese policymakers’ immediate need to floor the reflation accelerator. Readouts from recent PBoC leadership meetings indicate that speculative excesses in the financial system remain a top concern for Chinese policymakers. China’s onshore market, after rallying by 2% following the good news from the G20 meeting, has given back all its gain (Chart 8). Given that the onshore equity market is extremely sensitive to China’s credit growth, the short-lived rally since the G20 meeting suggests markets have been unimpressed by the authorities’ reflationary efforts so far. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers have not fully abandoned their financial deleveraging campaign, which President Xi Jinping initiated two years ago. This implies China’s central bank is likely to maintain its reactive approach in further easing monetary policy, and will likely try to avoid going “all-in” on stimulus for as long as possible. The Reduced Effectiveness Of Monetary Policy The events of the past year have also demonstrated that the effectiveness of Chinese monetary policy has declined relative to past economic cycles. This, in conjunction with the reluctant/reactive nature of the monetary authorities, has clear implications for investors over the coming year. When there is lack of clarity in policy interpretation, Chinese banks tend to stay on the sidelines. Chart 9A Long Delayed Credit Response To Monetary Easing The PBoC has cut the RRR five times since the second quarter of last year, which has freed up a total of 3.35 trillion yuan of liquidity for the banking system5 and has helped spur significant easing in overall monetary conditions. Yet, as we noted earlier, overall credit growth did not pick up until January of this year, lagging the first rate cut by three quarters (Chart 9). Prior to the economic slowdown in 2015-2016, credit growth used to respond to cuts in the RRR almost immediately. In other words, when banking system liquidity was ample, banks historically lent without hesitation. Post-2015, however, this relationship has changed. The PBoC has increasingly been having trouble channeling new liquidity into actual financing for the real economy. A sharp deterioration in reported bank asset quality that began in 2014 is likely part of the explanation,6 but we suspect that more recent extreme policy contradiction – in particular, repeated flip-flopping among authorities between their desire to support growth and their focus on financial stability – has caused economic agents to wait on the sidelines. While monetary conditions eased and the government urged banks to lend (particularly to the private sector) in the second half of 2018, the “prudent” stance coming from Chinese top leaders was little changed, and tight regulations on financial institutions remained in place. This combination did not give banks the confidence to lend. This changed in the first quarter of this year, when new credit creation-to-GDP surged from 23.6% to 25.6%. The surge occurred shortly after the late-December Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC), which sent a clear message that the central government’s policy focus had shifted to “stabilizing aggregate demand.” Incredibly, the tone shifted again in February, when Premier Li Keqiang and the PBoC publicly disputed whether the January credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus, something Premier Li made clear was to be avoided.7 Charts 10 and 11 highlight how these shifts impacted credit growth: The first quarter was clearly on track for a 2015-2016-magnitude outcome, whereas April and May saw the path of credit growth return back to a moderate re-leveraging scenario. To get back on track for a 2015-2016 magnitude reflation, we will need to see June’s credit creation at or above 5 trillion yuan – equivalent to January’s credit numbers (Chart 12). Chart 12'Credit Binge' In June Unlikely As we go to press, the number for June’s total social financing has not been officially released yet. But the official reading from the total local government bond issuance in June (including both general bond and special-purpose bond issuance), a key component of our adjusted total social financing series, came in at 900 billion yuan. This is three times more than local government bonds issued in May and twice the size of January’s. Nevertheless, January’s bank lending, particularly short-term lending, was unusually large; an episode highly criticized by Chinese leadership as we mentioned above. As PBoC stated in its defense to this criticism, January is “traditionally the biggest month of the year for bank loans due to seasonal factors”. Therefore, without a clear shift in policy signal from China’s top leadership, we do not expect June’s bank lending number to be a repeat of January’s. Instead, June’s total credit impulse will likely put the cumulative progress in credit growth closer to our 27% of nominal GDP assumption (assuming an 8% nominal GDP growth for the remainder of 2019). This would fall into our “half-strength” credit cycle scenario relative to past reflationary episodes. Bottom Line: Ultimately, we do not doubt that Chinese policymakers will be able to engineer a significant re-acceleration in economic activity should they choose to do so. But in order for policymakers to achieve this goal, policy ambiguity and inconsistency will have to be meaningfully reduced.  Investment Implications Over a cyclical time horizon, we recommend staying long/overweight Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms. From our perspective, neither policymakers’ bias towards reluctance nor the reduced effectiveness of monetary policy convincingly argue against our bullish stance towards Chinese stocks over a cyclical (i.e. six- to twelve-month) time horizon, but the tactical implications are clearly negative. Over a cyclical horizon, one of two scenarios is likely to unfold: Either downside risk brought on by current tariffs and weakness in domestic demand is contained enough such that Chinese economic activity does not materially decelerate, or the trade dispute escalates into a full-tariff scenario of 25% on all U.S. imports from China that dramatically impacts Chinese growth. In the first scenario, policymakers will likely to continue providing half-measured responses, and unconstrained “across-the-board” easing will not occur. But Chart 13 highlights that Chinese stocks, particularly the investable market, are priced for a much worse economic outcome, suggesting Chinese relative equity performance would trend higher in these circumstances. Chart 13Chinese Stocks Priced In For A Worse Economic Outlook Chart 14Bullish On A Cyclical Horizon, Bearish In The Near Term In the second scenario, Chinese business and consumer sentiment is likely to collapse and policymakers will be facing high odds of a substantial slowdown in economic activity. This will create the political will necessary for unconstrained “across-the-board” easing, similar to what occurred in 2015-2016. The sharp re-acceleration in economic activity that would result from broad-based stimulus would clearly be positive for listed Chinese earnings per share (Chart 14), meaning the cyclical outlook for Chinese stocks would likely be even more positive than in the first scenario. However, the near-term equity market outlook of the second scenario would be extremely negative, as a financial market meltdown in of itself would likely be required to build the political will necessary to ultimately ease. Bottom Line: For investors with a time horizon of less than three months, we would not recommend a long position in Chinese stocks, neither in absolute terms nor relative to the global benchmark. However, over a strictly cyclical (i.e. six- to 12-month) time horizon, we recommend staying long/overweight Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “China: How Stimulating is The Stimulus?”, dated August 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2      A series of countercyclical measures China implemented in 2016-2017 includes: tightening controls on capital outflows, reducing offshore RMB liquidity supply, raising offshore RMB borrowing costs, and setting a firmer daily reference point for the RMB’s trading band. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro and Market Review”, dated July 4, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5      According to PBoC announcements. 6      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7      Please see “Chinese Premier In Rare Spat With Central Bank”, Financial Times. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The EM equity and currency rebounds should be faded. When corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. This is the case in EM and China. Our leading indicators for the Chinese business cycle continue to point to intensifying profit contraction in both China and EM. The ratio of global broad money supply to the current value of securities worldwide is at an all-time low. This casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. Feature Chart I-1EM Share Prices: Decision Time EM share prices are at a critical juncture (Chart I-1). Their ability to hold their recent lows and break above their April highs will signify that a sustainable cyclical rally is in the making. Failure to punch through April’s highs will pose a major breakdown risk. In brief, EM is facing a make-it-or-break-it moment. Fundamentally, the outlook for EM risk assets and currencies largely hinges on economic growth in general and corporate profits in particular. In our June 20 report, we illustrated that the primary drivers of EM risk assets and currencies have historically been their business cycles and profit growth – not U.S. interest rates. Falling interest rates are positive for share prices when profits are expanding, even if at a slower rate. However, when corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. Hence, lower global interest rates in of themselves are not a sufficient condition to foster a sustainable cyclical EM rally. As to EM corporate profits, the rate of their contraction will continue deepening. Since early this year, we have been arguing that expectations of recovery in the Chinese economy and global trade are unwarranted. That is why BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team contends that EM risk assets and currencies, as well as China-plays, face the risk of a breakdown. This differs from BCA’s house view, which is positive on global risk assets in general. Global And Chinese Business Cycles: No Recovery So Far Chart I-2Chinese A-Share EPS Is Heading Into Contraction The rebound in EM risk assets and currencies since last December has occurred despite no improvement in both China’s business cycle and global trade, and despite the deepening contraction in EM corporate profits. Since early this year, we have been arguing that expectations of recovery in the Chinese economy and global trade are unwarranted. So far, our baseline economic view has played out – mainland growth has been rather weak, and global trade has contracted. Yet EM financial markets have done better than we had anticipated. China’s domestic industrial new orders lead Chinese A-share earnings per share growth rate by about nine months and point to intensifying profit slump into early 2020 (Chart I-2). Furthermore, China’s adjusted narrow money(M1+)1 growth leads Chinese investable stocks earnings per share (EPS) by about nine months, and is also pointing to further compression (Chart I-3). Finally, Korea’s exports are shrinking, as are EM EPS (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-3Chinese Investable Companies' EPS Is Already Shrinking Chart I-4Korean Exports And EM EPS   Notably, both Korean exports values and EM EPS in U.S. dollars terms are on par with their early  2011 levels (Chart I-4, bottom panel). This indicates that neither Korean exports nor EM EPS have expanded sustainably over the past eight years. Chart I-5Global Stocks Did Not Lead Global PMI Historically Is it possible that the current gap between global share prices and global manufacturing is due to the fact that financial markets are forward-looking and lead business cycles? Historical evidence suggests that global share prices have not led the global manufacturing PMI, as exhibited in Chart I-5. In fact, global share prices have actually been coincident with the global manufacturing PMI not only throughout this decade but before that as well. The de-coupling between share prices and the manufacturing PMI is currently also present in EM, albeit in a less-striking form. Chart I-6 illustrates that the EM manufacturing PMI has slipped below 50 line, yet share prices have recently rebounded and sovereign spreads have tightened. In a nutshell, the divergence between global share prices and the global manufacturing PMI is unprecedented. This cannot be explained by falling global bond yields either. The latter were falling in the previous business cycle downtrends (2011-12 and 2015), yet share prices did not deviate from the global manufacturing PMI during those episodes (Chart I-5). Chart I-6EM PMI And EM Risk Assets Chart I-7The Rest Of World's Exports To China Will Continue Shrinking It seems that the global equity and credit markets expect an imminent recovery in the global business cycle in general and in China in particular. As we elaborated in the previous reports, the current global manufacturing recession stems primarily from China. Our leading indicators of the mainland business cycle suggest that more growth disappointments are likely before China’s growth and other economies’ shipments to the mainland hits a bottom (Chart I-7). For example, Korea’s exports to China in June were still dropping by 24% from a year ago. The primary reason for the lack of revival in growth is that China’s stimulus efforts have so far not been large enough, and the marginal propensity to spend among households and companies is diminishing, offsetting the positive effect of the stimulus, as we have discussed in previous reports. Will the recent G20 trade truce between the U.S. and China boost business confidence worldwide and in China? In our view, it is unlikely to produce a quick and meaningful recovery in business confidence among multinational companies and Chinese businesses. Corporate managers have probably come to realize that the U.S.-China row is not about import tariffs but rather geopolitical confrontation between the existing hegemon and a rising superpower. Hence, there is no easy solution that will satisfy both parties. An acceptable resolution for China will be unacceptable for the U.S., and vice versa. Hence, it will be hard to find a formula that gratifies both sides politically and economically. Overall, we reckon there are low odds in the next six months of an agreement between the U.S. and China that removes tariffs, addresses structural issues and satiates both nations. Korea’s exports are shrinking, as are EM EPS. Finally, even though the S&P 500 is hovering around its previous highs, under-the-surface dynamics have been less upbeat. Specifically, the equal-weighted share price index of U.S. high-beta stocks in cyclical sectors such as industrials, technology and consumer discretionary versus the S&P 500 has been tame and has not yet broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-8, top panel). The same holds true for the relative performance of an equal-weighted stock index of global cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials and semiconductors against the overall global equity benchmark (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Conversely, despite its recent setback, the U.S. dollar has technically not yet broken down (Chart I-9, top panel). In fact, our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted dollar has troughed at zero – a sign that downside is limited and another up-leg will likely emerge soon (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-8Cyclical Stocks Have Been Underperforming Chart I-9The U.S. Dollar Has Technically Not Broken Down   Bottom Line: The EM equity and currency rebounds should be faded. As EM currencies depreciate, sovereign and corporate credit spreads will likely widen. Asset allocators should continue underweighting EM equities and credit markets relative to their DM peers. Too Much Money Chasing Too Few Assets? Many investors identify “liquidity” as the main reason why global equity and credit markets have done so well this year, despite the relapsing global business cycle. Yet there are as many definitions of “liquidity” as there are investors. Many commentators use the term “liquidity” to denote balance sheet expansion by global central banks. As part of their quantitative easing programs, central banks in the U.S., U.K., Japan, the euro area, Switzerland and Sweden have expanded their balance sheets enormously. In line with their asset expansion, their liabilities – the monetary base, consisting primarily of commercial banks’ excess reserves – have also mushroomed. Nevertheless, broad money supply has grown only modestly in these economies.2 The principal reason behind this phenomenon has been a collapse in the money multiplier due to both banks’ unwillingness to boost lending proportionally to their swelling excess reserves, and a persistent lack of demand for credit among households and businesses. This computation casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. Broad money supply includes all types of deposits at commercial banks and cash in circulation. Crucially, it does not include commercial banks’ excess reserves at central banks. This differentiation between broad money and excess reserves at central banks is vital because excess reserves are not used to purchase goods, services or assets/securities. Hence, a true measure of purchasing power for assets, goods and services is broad money supply. Consistently, the pertinent liquidity ratio for financial markets can be computed by dividing global broad money supply by the value of all securities outstanding excluding those owned by central banks. The top panel of Chart I-10 depicts the ratio of the sum of broad money supply in 12 economies3 - excluding China - to the market value of investable global equities and bonds. The latter is calculated as the market cap of the Datastream World Equity Index plus the market value of the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, excluding securities owned by central banks (Chart I-11). Bonds include both government and corporate issues. Chart I-10Comparing Global Broad Money And Market Value Of Outstanding Securities Chart I-11Broad Money, Securities Absorbed By QEs And Value Of Outstanding Securities   We exclude China from this calculation because its money supply (deposits) is not internationally “mobile” – i.e., due to capital controls, Chinese residents cannot convert their renminbi deposits to other currencies, or use them to purchase international securities. Likewise, we exclude Chinese on-shore equity and bond markets from the calculation because they are not easily accessible to all foreign investors. This broad money supply-to-asset values ratio can be regarded as a rough proxy for available liquidity for financial markets.4 Our interpretation is that a lower ratio means investors have lower cash balances relative to the value of financial assets they hold, and vice versa. Interestingly, the ratio of global broad money to the current value of securities worldwide is at an all-time low (Chart I-10, top panel). Hence, this computation casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. By flipping this ratio, we compute the ratio of market value of all investable securities (excluding the ones owned by central banks) to broad money supply (Chart I-10, bottom panel). It is at all-time high entailing that the market value of globally investable publically-traded securities has expanded much more than global broad money supply/deposits. Bottom Line: We recognize that this is a simplistic macro exercise, and a more comprehensive methodology is required to compute global cash balances that are available to purchase securities worldwide. However, at minimum the above casts doubt on the hypothesis that “too much money is chasing too few assets”. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      M1+ is calculated as M1 plus household demand deposits and deposits at third-party payment platforms. 2      Note that when a central bank purchases securities from commercial banks, this operation originates excess reserves, but not a new deposit at commercial banks. However, when a central bank acquires securities from a non-bank entity, such as a pension fund or an insurance company, this transaction creates both excess reserves and a bank deposit that did not exist before. Hence, QE programs have created some deposits but less so than excess reserves. 3      Economies included into this aggregate are the U.S., the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. 4      This calculation does not strip out transactional demand for money, i.e., how much money is required to finance regular  economic activity. Given transactional demand for money is not stable, it is hard to estimate and adjust for it.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Dear Client, Credit in China has expanded at an exponential pace, with the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio climbing from 143% to more than 250% over the last decade. The speed and scale of China’s debt surge dwarfs Japan and the U.S.’ respective credit binges in the 1980’s and 2000’s, each of which ultimately led to financial market meltdowns. Why should China’s experience be any different? Given that China has pursued a different economic model whereby the banking sector is largely state-sponsored and the currency is tightly managed by the central bank, the answer to this pressing question for global markets is the subject of spirited debate at BCA and within the investment community at large. Clients are already aware that my colleagues, Peter Berezin and Arthur Budaghyan, disagree on the macro and market ramifications of China’s decade-long credit boom. The aim of this report is to provide visibility on the root sources of the view divergence, not to reconcile the gaps. We hope these insights will help shape your own conviction about this important topic. Caroline Miller Global Strategy Feature   Caroline: Arthur, your cautious outlook towards emerging markets in general and China’s prospects in particular stems from your belief that China’s economy is dangerously addicted to credit as a growth driver. Please explain why you dismiss the more sanguine view that China’s elevated debt burden is a function of an equally unusually high household savings rate. Arthur: It is simple: When people use the word “savings,” they typically and intuitively refer to bank deposits or securities investments; but this is incorrect. Chart 1 (Arthur)No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = 'Savings' Money supply/deposits in the banking system have no relationship with the savings rate of a nation in general or households in particular (Chart 1). When households save, they do not change the amount of money supply and deposits. Hence, households’ decision to save neither alters liquidity in the banking system nor helps banks to originate loans. In fact, banks do not intermediate deposits into loans or savings into credit.1 The terms “savings” in economics does not denote an increase in the stock of money and deposits. The term “savings” in economics means the amount of goods and services produced but not consumed. When an economy produces a steel bar, it is registered as national “savings.” We cannot consume (say, eat or expense) a steel bar. Therefore, once a steel bar or any equipment is produced, economic statistics will count it as “savings.” Besides, the sole utilization of a steel bar is in capital goods and construction, and hence, it cannot be consumed. Once a steel bar is produced, both national savings and investment will rise. That is how the “savings” = “investment” identity is derived. Chart 2 (Arthur)Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones It would avoid confusion and help everyone if economists were to call it “excess production” not “excess savings.” Banks do not need “excess production” – i.e., national “savings” – to create loans. Critically, the enormous amount of bank deposits in China is not due to household “savings” but is originated by banks “out of thin air.” In fact, Chinese households are now more leveraged than U.S. ones (Chart 2). The surge of credit and money supply in China during the past 10 years has been due to animal spirits running wild among lenders and borrowers on the mainland, not its households’ “savings.” In short, the root of China’s credit bubble is not any different from Japan’s (in the 1980s), or the U.S.’ (in the 2000s) and so on. Peter: Yes, banks can create deposits “out of thin air,” as Arthur says. However, people must be willing to hold those deposits. The amount of deposits that households and businesses wish to hold reflects many things, including the interest rate paid on deposits and the overall wealth of the society. The interest rate is a function of savings. The more people save, the lower interest rates will be. And the lower interest rates are, the more demand for credit there will be (Chart 3). It’s like asking what determines how many apples are consumed. Is it how many apple trees farmers want to plant or how many apples people want to eat? The answer is both. Prices adjust so that supply equals demand. How about national wealth? To a large extent, wealth represents the accumulation of tangible capital – factories, plant and machinery, homes and office buildings: the sort of stuff that banks can use as collateral for lending. And what determines how much tangible capital a country possesses? The answer is past savings, of the exact sort Arthur is referring to: the excess of production over consumption. So this form of “economic” savings also plays an important indirect role in determining the level of bank deposits. Chart 4 (Peter)China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt I think the main problem with Arthur’s argument is that he is observing an accounting identity, which is that total bank assets (mostly loans) must equal liabilities (mostly deposits and capital) in equilibrium, without fully appreciating the economic forces – savings being one of them – that produce this equilibrium. In any case, the whole question of whether deposits create savings or savings create deposits misses the point. China’s fundamental problem is that it does not consume enough of what it produces. In the days when China had a massive current account surplus, it could export its excess savings abroad (Chart 4). It can’t do that anymore, so the government has consciously chosen to spur investment spending in order to prop up employment. Since a lot of investment spending is financed through credit, debt levels have risen. It really is just that simple.   Arthur: First, neither the stock nor the flow of credit and deposits has any relevance to (1) the economic term “savings;” (2) a country’s capital stock; or (3) national wealth, contrary to what Peter claims. China’s broad money supply (M2) now stands at 190 trillion yuan, equivalent to US$28 trillion (Chart 5, top panel). It is equal to the size of broad money supply in the U.S. and the euro area combined (US$14 trillion each). Yet, China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds the size of the U.S. Does the level of China’s wealth and capital stock justify it having broad money supply (US$28 trillion) equivalent to the U.S. and the euro area combined? Chart 5 (Arthur)“Helicopter” Money In China Second, are Chinese households and companies willing to hold all RMB deposits that banks have created “out of thin air”? The answer: not really. Without capital controls, a notable portion of these deposits would have rushed into the foreign exchange markets and caused currency depreciation. Another sign of growing reluctance to hold the yuan is that households have been swapping their RMB deposits for real assets (property) at astronomical valuations. There is a bubble in China but people are looking for reasons to justify why it is different this time. Caroline: OK, let’s get away from the term “savings,” and agree that China continues to generate a chronic surplus of production of goods and services relative to consumption, and that how China chooses to intermediate that surplus is the most market-relevant issue. Arthur, you have used the terms “money bubble” and “helicopter money” in relation to China. This implies that banks are unconstrained in their ability to make loans. Just because savings don’t equal deposits, and banks can create deposits when they make loans doesn’t mean there is no relationship between the flow of credit and the stock of deposits. Arthur: Money supply and deposits expand only when banks originate a loan or buy an asset from a non-bank. In short, both credit and money/deposits are created by commercial banks “out of thin air.” This is true for any country.2 Consider a loan transaction by a German commercial bank. When it grants a €100 loan to a borrower, two accounting entries occur on its balance sheet. On the assets side, the amount of loans, and therefore total assets, increases by €100. Simultaneously, on the liabilities side, this accounting entry creates €100 of new deposits “out of thin air” (Figure 1). Hence, new purchasing power of €100 has been created via a simple accounting entry, which otherwise would not exist. Critically, no one needed to save for this loan and money to be originated. The bank does not transfer someone else’s deposits to the borrower; it creates a new deposit when it lends. Banks also create deposits/money “out of thin air” when they buy securities from non-banks. In China, fiscal stimulus is largely financed by commercial banks – banks purchase more than 80% of government-issued bonds. This also leads to money creation. In short, when banks originate too much credit – as they have in China – they generate a money bubble. The money bubble is the mirror image of a credit bubble. Chinese banks have created 141 trillion yuan (US$21 trillion) of new money since 2009, compared with $8.25 trillion created in the U.S., euro area, and Japan combined over the same period (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is why I refer to it as “helicopter” money. Caroline: If banks need capital and liquidity to make loans, and deposits are one potential source of funds, don't these capital and liquidity constraints drive banks’ willingness and ability to lend, creating a link between the two variables? Arthur: Let me explain how mainland banks were able to circumvent those regulatory lending constraints. In 2009, they expanded their credit assets by about 30%. Even though a non-trivial portion of those loans were not paid back, banks did not recognize NPLs and instead booked large profits. By retaining a portion of those earnings, they boosted their equity, say, by 20%. As a result, the next year they were able to expand their credit assets by another 20% and so on. If banks lend and do not recognize bad loans, they can increase their equity and continue lending. With respect to liquidity, deposits are not liquidity for banks; excess reserves at the central bank are true liquidity for them. The reason why banks need to attract deposits is not to appropriate the deposits themselves, but to gain access to the excess reserves that come with them. When a person shifts her deposit from Bank A to Bank B, the former transfers a similar amount of excess reserves (liquidity) to the latter. When expanding their credit assets aggressively, banks can: (1) create more loans per one unit of excess reserves/liquidity, i.e., expand the money multiplier; and (2) borrow excess reserves/liquidity from the central bank or other banks. Chinese banks have used both channels to expand their balance sheets over the past 10 years (Chart 6). Chart 6 (Arthur)Broad Money Can Expand Without Growing Banks' Excess Reserves At The Central Bank Crucially, commercial banks create deposits, but they cannot create excess reserves (liquidity).3 The latter are issued only by central banks “out of thin air.” So, neither deposits nor excess reserves have any relevance to household or national “savings.” Caroline: Peter, Arthur argues that Chinese credit policy has been unconstrained by the traditional metrics of capital adequacy that prevail in capitalist, free-market economies. In other words, there is no connection between the availability of funds to lend via deposits in the banking system, and the pace of credit creation. Rather, the central bank has controlled the terms and volume of lending via regulation and fiat reserve provisioning. You’ve argued that credit creation has served the greater good of propping up employment via investment spending. Moreover, you posit that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. Our colleague, Martin Barnes, has analyzed national savings rates (as a proxy for over-production) relative to debt-GDP ratios in other countries. The relationship doesn’t look that strong elsewhere (Chart 7). Please elaborate on why you see credit growth as an inevitable policy response to the dearth of aggregate demand we observe in China? Peter: I would not say that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. For example, if most business investment is financed through retained earnings, you can have a lot of investment with little new debt. Debt can also result from activities not directly linked to the intermediation of savings. For instance, if you take out a mortgage to buy some land, your consumption and savings need not change, even though debt will be created. I think Arthur and I agree on this point. Thus, I am not saying that debt is always and everywhere the result of savings. I am simply pushing back against Arthur’s extremist position that debt never has anything to do with savings. Caroline: So what determines the level of debt in an economy in your view, Peter? Peter: In general, debt levels will rise if there are large imbalances between income and spending within society and/or if there are significant differences in the mix of assets people wish to hold. Think about the U.S. in the pre-financial crisis period. First, there was a surge in income inequality beginning in the early 1980s. For all intents and purposes, rich households with excess savings ended up lending their surplus income to poor households struggling to pay their bills. Overall savings did not rise, but debt levels still increased. That’s one reason why Martin’s chart doesn’t show a strong correlation between the aggregate savings rate and debt-to-GDP. Sometimes you need to look beneath the aggregate numbers to see the savings intermediation taking place. Unlike in the U.S., even poor Chinese households are net savers (Chart 8). Thus, the aggregate savings rate in China is very high4 (Chart 9). Much of these savings are funnelled to finance investment in the corporate and public sectors. This fuels debt growth. Chart 9 (Peter)Chinese Households Have More Savings Than The U.S., Europe And Japan Combined The second thing that happened in the U.S. starting in 2000 was a massive housing boom. If you bought a second home with credit, you ended up with one more asset (the house) but one more liability (the mortgage). The person who sold you the home ended up losing one asset (the house) but gaining another asset (a bigger bank deposit). The net result was both higher debt and higher bank deposits. Lending to finance asset purchases has also been a big source of debt growth in China, as it was in the U.S. before the crisis. The U.S. mortgage boom ended in tears, and so the question that we should be asking is whether the Chinese debt boom will end the same way. Arthur: We agreed not to use the term “savings,” yet Peter again refers to “savings” being funnelled into credit. As I explained above, banks do not funnel “savings” (i.e., “excess production”) into credit. China, Japan, and Germany have high “savings” rates because they produce a lot of steel, chemicals, autos, and machinery that literally cannot be consumed and, thus, are recorded as “savings.” The U.S. produces too many services that are consumed/expensed and, hence, not recorded as “savings.” That is why the U.S. has a lower “savings” rate. Chart 10 (Arthur)The Myth Of Deficient Demand In China Economic textbook discussions on “savings” and “investment” are relevant for a barter economy where banks do not exist. When this framework is applied to modern economies with banks, it generates a lot of confusion.5 Caroline: OK, so Peter argues that an imbalance between spending and income CAN be a marker for high debt levels. Arthur, please explain why you see no relationship between China’s chronic shortfall in demand and authorities’ explicit decision to support growth via credit creation. Arthur: First, China does not have deficient demand – consumer spending and capital expenditures have been growing at 10% and 9.4%, respectively, in real terms annually compounded for the past 10 years (Chart 10). The mainland economy has been suffering from excess production, not a lack of demand. China has invested a lot (Chart 11) and ended up with too much capacity to produce steel, cement, chemicals and other materials as well as machinery and industrial goods. So, China has an excess production of goods relative to firms’ and households’ underlying demand. In a market economy, these producers would become non-profitable, halt their investments, and shut down some capacity. Chart 11 (Arthur)China Has Been Over-Investing On An Unprecedented Scale In China, to keep the producers of these unwanted goods operating, the government has allowed and encouraged banks to originate loans creating new purchasing power literally “out of thin air” to purchase these goods. This has created a credit/money bubble. In a socialist system, banks do not ask debtors to repay loans and government officials are heavily involved in resource and capital allocation. China’s credit system and a growing chunk of its economy have been operating like a typical socialist system. Socialism leads to lower productivity growth for well-known reasons. With labor force growth set to turn negative, productivity is going to be the sole source of China’s potential growth rate. If the nation continues expanding this money/credit bubble to prop up zombie enterprises, its potential growth rate will fall considerably. As the potential growth rate drops, recurring stimulus will create nominal but not real growth. In short, the outcome will be stagflation. Caroline: The theoretical macro frameworks that you have both outlined make for interesting thought experiments, and spirited intellectual debate. However, investors are most concerned about the sustainability of China’s explosive credit growth, implications for the country’s growth rate, and the return on invested capital. Arthur, given your perspective on how Chinese credit policy has been designed and implemented, please outline the contours of how and when you see the music stopping, and the debt mountain crumbling. Arthur: Not every credit bubble will burst like the U.S. one did in 2008. For example, in the case of the Japanese credit bubble, there was no acute crisis. The bubble deflated gradually for about 20 years. In the cases of the U.S. (2008), Japan (1990), the euro area (2008-2014), Spain (2008-2014) and every other credit bubble, a common adjustment was a contraction in bank loans in nominal terms (Chart 12). Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (I) Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (II) Why do banks stop lending? The reason is that banks’ shareholders absorb the largest losses from credit booms. Given that banks are levered at least 20-to-1 at the peak of a typical credit boom, every $1 of non-performing loans leads to a $20 drop in their equity value. Bank shareholders halt the flow of credit to protect their wealth. Chart 13 (Arthur)China: Deleveraging Has Not Yet Begun In fact, credit in China is still growing at a double-digit rate, above nominal GDP growth (Chart 13). Hence, aggregate deleveraging in China has not yet begun. If banks do not curtail credit origination, the music will not stop. However, uninterrupted credit growth happens only in a socialist system where banks subsidize the economy at the expense of their shareholders. But even then, there is no free lunch. Credit origination by banks also expands the money supply as discussed above. An expanding money bubble will heighten devaluation pressure on the yuan in the long run. The enormous amount of money supply/deposits – the money bubble – in China is like “the sword of Damocles” hanging over the nation’s currency. Chinese households and businesses are becoming reluctant to hold this ballooning supply of local currency. Continuous “helicopter” money will only increase their desire to diversify their RMB deposits into foreign currencies and assets. Yet, there is an insufficient supply of foreign currency to accommodate this conversion. The nation’s current account surplus has almost vanished while the central bank carries US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve representing only 11% of the yuan deposits and cash in circulation (Chart 14). It is inconceivable that China can open its capital account in the foreseeable future. “Helicopter” money also discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, which reduces productivity growth. A combination of slowing productivity growth, and thus potential GDP, and strong money growth ultimately lead to stagflation – the dynamics endemic to socialist systems. Peter: Arthur’s answer implicitly assumes that private investment would increase if the government removed credit/fiscal stimulus. But where is the evidence for that? We had just established that the Chinese economy suffers from a lack of aggregate demand. Public-sector spending, to the extent that it increases employment and incomes, crowds in private-sector investment rather than crowding it out. Ask yourself what would have happened if China didn’t build that “bridge to nowhere.” Would those displaced construction workers have found more productive work elsewhere or would they have remained idle? The answer is almost certainly the latter. After all, the reason the Chinese government built the bridge in the first place was to increase employment in an economy that habitually struggles to consume enough of what is produces. Arthur talks about the “misallocation” of resources. But doesn’t an unemployed worker also represent a misallocation of resources? In my view, it certainly does – and one that is much more threatening to social stability than an underutilized bridge or road. If you understand the point above, you will also understand why Arthur’s comparison between Chinese banks and say, U.S. banks is misplaced. The Chinese government is the main shareholder in Chinese banks. The government cares more about social stability than anything else. There is no way it would let credit growth plunge. Moreover, as the main shareholder, the government has a strong incentive to raise the share price of Chinese banks. After all, it is difficult to have a reserve currency that rivals the U.S. dollar, as China aspires to have, if your largest banks trade like penny stocks. My guess is that the Chinese government will shut down a few small banks to “show” that it is concerned about moral hazard, but then turn around and allow the larger banks to sell their troubled loans to state-owned asset management companies on very favourable terms (similar to what happened in the early 2000s). Once investors get wind that this is about to happen, Chinese bank shares will rally like crazy. Caroline: Isn’t shuffling debt from one sector of the economy to another akin to a shell game? Wouldn’t rampant debt growth eventually cause investors to lose confidence in the currency? Peter: China has a problem with the composition of its debt, not with its total value. Debt is a problem when the borrower can’t or won’t repay the loan. Chart 15 (Peter)China Is On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers I completely agree that there is too much shadow bank lending in China. There is also too much borrowing by state-owned enterprises. Ideally, the Chinese government would move all this quasi-public spending onto its own balance sheet. It would significantly raise social spending to discourage precautionary household savings. It would also adopt generous pro-natal policies — free childcare, education, government paid parental leave, and the like. The fact that the Chinese working-age population is set to shrink by 400 million by the end of the century is a huge problem (Chart 15). If the central government borrowed and spent more, state-owned companies and local governments would not have to borrow or spend as much. Banks could then increase their holding of high-quality central government bonds. Debt sustainability is only a problem if the interest rate the government faces exceeds the growth rate of the economy.6 That is manifestly not the case in China (Chart 16). And why are interest rates so low in relation to growth? Because Chinese households save so much! We simply can’t ignore the role of savings in the discussion. Chart 16 (Peter)China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy As far as the currency is concerned, if debt growth rose so much that the economy overheated and inflation soared, then yes, the yuan would plunge. But that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about bringing debt growth to a level that generates just enough demand to achieve something resembling full employment. No one is calling for raising debt growth beyond that point. Curbing debt growth in a demand-deficient economy, as Arthur seems to be recommending, would cause unemployment to rise. Investors would then bet that the Chinese government would try to boost net exports by engineering a currency devaluation. Capital outflows would intensify. Far from creating the conditions for a weaker yuan, fiscal/credit stimulus obviates the need for a currency depreciation. Caroline: Peter, even if we accept your argument that the counterfactual of curbing credit growth in a demand-deficient economy would be a more deflationary outcome than sustaining the government-sponsored credit growth engine, how is building bridges to nowhere a positive sum for investors? Even if this strategy maintains social stability in the interests of the CCP’s regime preservation, won’t investors eventually recoil at the retreat to socialism that Arthur outlines, reducing the appeal of holding the yuan, even if, as you both seem to agree, no apocalyptic debt crisis is at hand? In other words, isn’t two times nothing still nothing? Peter: First of all, many of these infrastructure projects may turn out to be quite useful down the road, pardon the pun. Per capita vehicle ownership in China is only one one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 17). A sparsely used expressway today may be a clogged one tomorrow. Chart 17 (Peter)The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Would China really be better off if it had fewer infrastructure projects and more big screen TVs? An economy where people are always buying stuff they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like, is hardly a recipe for success. I am not sure what these references to socialism are supposed to accomplish. You want to see a real retreat to socialism? Try creating millions of unemployed workers with no jobs and no hope. All sorts of pundits decried Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as creeping socialism. The truth is that the New Deal took the wind out of the sails of the fledgling U.S. communist movement at the time. Arthur: I believe that Peter is confusing the structural and cyclical needs for stimulus. When an economy is in a recession – banks are shrinking their balance sheets and property prices are deflating – the authorities must undertake fiscal and credit stimulus. Chart 18 (Arthur)What Will Productivity Growth Look Like If Public Officials Allocate 55%-60% Of GDP? Credit and fiscal stimulus made sense in China in early 2009 when growth plunged. However, over the past 10 years, we have witnessed credit and property market booms of gigantic proportions. Does this economy warrant continuous stimulus? What will productivity growth look like if government bureaucrats continuously allocate 55-60% of GDP each year (Chart 18)? Caroline: Arthur and Peter, you can both argue with one another about the semantic economic definition of the term ‘savings’, the implications of chronic excess production (relative to consumption), and the root drivers of credit growth in China long past the expiry of every BCA client’s investment horizon. Clients benefit from understanding your distinct perspectives only to the extent that they inform your outlook for markets. Will each of you now please outline how you see high levels of credit in China’s economy impacting the following over a cyclical (6-12 month) and structural (3-5 year) horizon: Global growth Commodity prices China-geared financial assets Peter: Regardless of what one thinks about the root causes of China’s high debt levels, it seems certain to me that the Chinese are going to pick up the pace of credit/fiscal stimulus over the next six months in response to slowing growth and trade war uncertainties. If anything, the incentive to open the credit spigots this time around is greater than in the past because the Chinese government wants to have a fast-growing economy to gain leverage over trade negotiations with the U.S. Chart 19 (Peter)Stronger Chinese Credit Growth Bodes Well For Commodity Prices Chart 20 (Peter)The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Stronger Chinese growth will boost growth in the rest of the world. Commodity prices will rise (Chart 19). As a counter-cyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will likely peak over the next month or so and then weaken in the back half of 2019 and into 2020 (Chart 20). The combination of stronger Chinese growth, higher commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will be manna from heaven for emerging markets. If a trade truce between China and the U.S. is reached, investors should move quickly to overweight EM equities. European stocks should also benefit. Looking further out, China’s economy will slow in absolute terms. In relative terms, however, Chinese growth will remain near the top of the global rankings. China has one of the most educated workforces in the world (Chart 21). Assuming that output-per-hour reaches South Korean levels by the middle of the century, Chinese real GDP would need to expand by about 6% per year over the next decade (Chart 22). That’s a lot of growth – growth that will eventually help China outgrow its debt burden. Chart 22 (Peter)China Has More Catching Up To Do Keep in mind that credit growth of 1% when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 300% yields 3% of GDP in credit stimulus, compared with only 1% of stimulus when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. That does not mean that more debt is intrinsically a good thing, but it does mean that China will eventually be able to slow debt growth even if excess savings remains a problem. Structurally, Chinese and EM equities will likely outperform their developed market peers over a 3-to-5 year horizon. The P/E ratio for EM stocks is currently 4.7 percentage points below that of developed markets, which is below its long-term average (Chart 23). While EM EPS growth has lagged DM earnings growth over the past eight years, the long-term trend still favors EM (Chart 24). EM currencies will appreciate over this period, with the RMB leading the way. Chart 23 (Peter)EM Stocks: Valuations Are Attractive Chart 24 (Peter)Earnings Growth In EM Has Outpaced That Of DM Over The Long Haul Arthur: China is facing a historic choice between two scenarios. Medium- and long-term macro outcomes will impact markets differently in each case. Table 1 shows my cyclical and structural investment recommendations for each scenario. Table 1 (Arthur)Arthur’s Recommended Investment Strategy For China-Geared Financial Assets Allowing Markets to Play A Bigger Role = Lower credit growth (deleveraging), corporate restructuring, and weaker growth (Chart 25). This is bearish for growth and financial markets in the medium term but it will make Chinese stocks and the currency structural (long-term) buys. Credit/Money Boom Persists (Socialist Put) = Secular Stagnation, Inflation and Currency Depreciation: The structural outlook is downbeat but there are mini-cycles that investors could play (Chart 26). Cyclically, China-geared financial assets still remain at risk. However, lower asset prices and more stimulus in China could put a floor under asset prices later this year. Timing these mini-cycles is critical. A buy-and-hold strategy for Chinese assets will not be appropriate in this scenario. In short, capitalism is bad but socialism is worse. I hope China will pursue the first path. Caroline: Thank you both for clarifying your perspectives. Over a multi-year horizon, markets will render the ultimate judgement on whether China’s credit boom has represented a reckless misallocation of capital, or a rational policy response to an imbalance between domestic spending and income. In the meantime, we will monitor the complexion of Chinese stimulus and evidence of its global growth multiplier effect over the coming weeks and months. These will be the key variables to watch as we determine when and at what level to upgrade BCA’s cyclical outlook for China-geared assets. Can’t wait for that debate. Footnotes 1 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 2 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 3 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB,” dated November 23, 2016. 4 For a discussion on the reasons behind China’s high savings rate, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 5 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil,” dated March 22, 2018. 6 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019 and “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019.

Special Report

Dear Client, Credit in China has expanded at an exponential pace, with the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio climbing from 143% to more than 250% over the last decade. The speed and scale of China’s debt surge dwarfs Japan and the U.S.’ respective credit binges in the 1980’s and 2000’s, each of which ultimately led to financial market meltdowns. Why should China’s experience be any different? Given that China has pursued a different economic model whereby the banking sector is largely state-sponsored and the currency is tightly managed by the central bank, the answer to this pressing question for global markets is the subject of spirited debate at BCA and within the investment community at large. Clients are already aware that my colleagues, Peter Berezin and Arthur Budaghyan, disagree on the macro and market ramifications of China’s decade-long credit boom. The aim of this report is to provide visibility on the root sources of the view divergence, not to reconcile the gaps. We hope these insights will help shape your own conviction about this important topic. Caroline Miller Global Strategy Feature   Caroline: Arthur, your cautious outlook towards emerging markets in general and China’s prospects in particular stems from your belief that China’s economy is dangerously addicted to credit as a growth driver. Please explain why you dismiss the more sanguine view that China’s elevated debt burden is a function of an equally unusually high household savings rate. Arthur: It is simple: When people use the word “savings,” they typically and intuitively refer to bank deposits or securities investments; but this is incorrect. Chart 1 (Arthur)No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = 'Savings' Money supply/deposits in the banking system have no relationship with the savings rate of a nation in general or households in particular (Chart 1). When households save, they do not change the amount of money supply and deposits. Hence, households’ decision to save neither alters liquidity in the banking system nor helps banks to originate loans. In fact, banks do not intermediate deposits into loans or savings into credit.1 The terms “savings” in economics does not denote an increase in the stock of money and deposits. The term “savings” in economics means the amount of goods and services produced but not consumed. When an economy produces a steel bar, it is registered as national “savings.” We cannot consume (say, eat or expense) a steel bar. Therefore, once a steel bar or any equipment is produced, economic statistics will count it as “savings.” Besides, the sole utilization of a steel bar is in capital goods and construction, and hence, it cannot be consumed. Once a steel bar is produced, both national savings and investment will rise. That is how the “savings” = “investment” identity is derived. Chart 2 (Arthur)Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones It would avoid confusion and help everyone if economists were to call it “excess production” not “excess savings.” Banks do not need “excess production” – i.e., national “savings” – to create loans. Critically, the enormous amount of bank deposits in China is not due to household “savings” but is originated by banks “out of thin air.” In fact, Chinese households are now more leveraged than U.S. ones (Chart 2). The surge of credit and money supply in China during the past 10 years has been due to animal spirits running wild among lenders and borrowers on the mainland, not its households’ “savings.” In short, the root of China’s credit bubble is not any different from Japan’s (in the 1980s), or the U.S.’ (in the 2000s) and so on. Peter: Yes, banks can create deposits “out of thin air,” as Arthur says. However, people must be willing to hold those deposits. The amount of deposits that households and businesses wish to hold reflects many things, including the interest rate paid on deposits and the overall wealth of the society. The interest rate is a function of savings. The more people save, the lower interest rates will be. And the lower interest rates are, the more demand for credit there will be (Chart 3). It’s like asking what determines how many apples are consumed. Is it how many apple trees farmers want to plant or how many apples people want to eat? The answer is both. Prices adjust so that supply equals demand. How about national wealth? To a large extent, wealth represents the accumulation of tangible capital – factories, plant and machinery, homes and office buildings: the sort of stuff that banks can use as collateral for lending. And what determines how much tangible capital a country possesses? The answer is past savings, of the exact sort Arthur is referring to: the excess of production over consumption. So this form of “economic” savings also plays an important indirect role in determining the level of bank deposits. Chart 4 (Peter)China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt I think the main problem with Arthur’s argument is that he is observing an accounting identity, which is that total bank assets (mostly loans) must equal liabilities (mostly deposits and capital) in equilibrium, without fully appreciating the economic forces – savings being one of them – that produce this equilibrium. In any case, the whole question of whether deposits create savings or savings create deposits misses the point. China’s fundamental problem is that it does not consume enough of what it produces. In the days when China had a massive current account surplus, it could export its excess savings abroad (Chart 4). It can’t do that anymore, so the government has consciously chosen to spur investment spending in order to prop up employment. Since a lot of investment spending is financed through credit, debt levels have risen. It really is just that simple.   Arthur: First, neither the stock nor the flow of credit and deposits has any relevance to (1) the economic term “savings;” (2) a country’s capital stock; or (3) national wealth, contrary to what Peter claims. China’s broad money supply (M2) now stands at 190 trillion yuan, equivalent to US$28 trillion (Chart 5, top panel). It is equal to the size of broad money supply in the U.S. and the euro area combined (US$14 trillion each). Yet, China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds the size of the U.S. Does the level of China’s wealth and capital stock justify it having broad money supply (US$28 trillion) equivalent to the U.S. and the euro area combined? Chart 5 (Arthur)“Helicopter” Money In China Second, are Chinese households and companies willing to hold all RMB deposits that banks have created “out of thin air”? The answer: not really. Without capital controls, a notable portion of these deposits would have rushed into the foreign exchange markets and caused currency depreciation. Another sign of growing reluctance to hold the yuan is that households have been swapping their RMB deposits for real assets (property) at astronomical valuations. There is a bubble in China but people are looking for reasons to justify why it is different this time. Caroline: OK, let’s get away from the term “savings,” and agree that China continues to generate a chronic surplus of production of goods and services relative to consumption, and that how China chooses to intermediate that surplus is the most market-relevant issue. Arthur, you have used the terms “money bubble” and “helicopter money” in relation to China. This implies that banks are unconstrained in their ability to make loans. Just because savings don’t equal deposits, and banks can create deposits when they make loans doesn’t mean there is no relationship between the flow of credit and the stock of deposits. Arthur: Money supply and deposits expand only when banks originate a loan or buy an asset from a non-bank. In short, both credit and money/deposits are created by commercial banks “out of thin air.” This is true for any country.2 Consider a loan transaction by a German commercial bank. When it grants a €100 loan to a borrower, two accounting entries occur on its balance sheet. On the assets side, the amount of loans, and therefore total assets, increases by €100. Simultaneously, on the liabilities side, this accounting entry creates €100 of new deposits “out of thin air” (Figure 1). Hence, new purchasing power of €100 has been created via a simple accounting entry, which otherwise would not exist. Critically, no one needed to save for this loan and money to be originated. The bank does not transfer someone else’s deposits to the borrower; it creates a new deposit when it lends. Banks also create deposits/money “out of thin air” when they buy securities from non-banks. In China, fiscal stimulus is largely financed by commercial banks – banks purchase more than 80% of government-issued bonds. This also leads to money creation. In short, when banks originate too much credit – as they have in China – they generate a money bubble. The money bubble is the mirror image of a credit bubble. Chinese banks have created 141 trillion yuan (US$21 trillion) of new money since 2009, compared with $8.25 trillion created in the U.S., euro area, and Japan combined over the same period (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is why I refer to it as “helicopter” money. Caroline: If banks need capital and liquidity to make loans, and deposits are one potential source of funds, don't these capital and liquidity constraints drive banks’ willingness and ability to lend, creating a link between the two variables? Arthur: Let me explain how mainland banks were able to circumvent those regulatory lending constraints. In 2009, they expanded their credit assets by about 30%. Even though a non-trivial portion of those loans were not paid back, banks did not recognize NPLs and instead booked large profits. By retaining a portion of those earnings, they boosted their equity, say, by 20%. As a result, the next year they were able to expand their credit assets by another 20% and so on. If banks lend and do not recognize bad loans, they can increase their equity and continue lending. With respect to liquidity, deposits are not liquidity for banks; excess reserves at the central bank are true liquidity for them. The reason why banks need to attract deposits is not to appropriate the deposits themselves, but to gain access to the excess reserves that come with them. When a person shifts her deposit from Bank A to Bank B, the former transfers a similar amount of excess reserves (liquidity) to the latter. When expanding their credit assets aggressively, banks can: (1) create more loans per one unit of excess reserves/liquidity, i.e., expand the money multiplier; and (2) borrow excess reserves/liquidity from the central bank or other banks. Chinese banks have used both channels to expand their balance sheets over the past 10 years (Chart 6). Chart 6 (Arthur)Broad Money Can Expand Without Growing Banks' Excess Reserves At The Central Bank Crucially, commercial banks create deposits, but they cannot create excess reserves (liquidity).3 The latter are issued only by central banks “out of thin air.” So, neither deposits nor excess reserves have any relevance to household or national “savings.” Caroline: Peter, Arthur argues that Chinese credit policy has been unconstrained by the traditional metrics of capital adequacy that prevail in capitalist, free-market economies. In other words, there is no connection between the availability of funds to lend via deposits in the banking system, and the pace of credit creation. Rather, the central bank has controlled the terms and volume of lending via regulation and fiat reserve provisioning. You’ve argued that credit creation has served the greater good of propping up employment via investment spending. Moreover, you posit that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. Our colleague, Martin Barnes, has analyzed national savings rates (as a proxy for over-production) relative to debt-GDP ratios in other countries. The relationship doesn’t look that strong elsewhere (Chart 7). Please elaborate on why you see credit growth as an inevitable policy response to the dearth of aggregate demand we observe in China? Peter: I would not say that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. For example, if most business investment is financed through retained earnings, you can have a lot of investment with little new debt. Debt can also result from activities not directly linked to the intermediation of savings. For instance, if you take out a mortgage to buy some land, your consumption and savings need not change, even though debt will be created. I think Arthur and I agree on this point. Thus, I am not saying that debt is always and everywhere the result of savings. I am simply pushing back against Arthur’s extremist position that debt never has anything to do with savings. Caroline: So what determines the level of debt in an economy in your view, Peter? Peter: In general, debt levels will rise if there are large imbalances between income and spending within society and/or if there are significant differences in the mix of assets people wish to hold. Think about the U.S. in the pre-financial crisis period. First, there was a surge in income inequality beginning in the early 1980s. For all intents and purposes, rich households with excess savings ended up lending their surplus income to poor households struggling to pay their bills. Overall savings did not rise, but debt levels still increased. That’s one reason why Martin’s chart doesn’t show a strong correlation between the aggregate savings rate and debt-to-GDP. Sometimes you need to look beneath the aggregate numbers to see the savings intermediation taking place. Unlike in the U.S., even poor Chinese households are net savers (Chart 8). Thus, the aggregate savings rate in China is very high4 (Chart 9). Much of these savings are funnelled to finance investment in the corporate and public sectors. This fuels debt growth. Chart 9 (Peter)Chinese Households Have More Savings Than The U.S., Europe And Japan Combined The second thing that happened in the U.S. starting in 2000 was a massive housing boom. If you bought a second home with credit, you ended up with one more asset (the house) but one more liability (the mortgage). The person who sold you the home ended up losing one asset (the house) but gaining another asset (a bigger bank deposit). The net result was both higher debt and higher bank deposits. Lending to finance asset purchases has also been a big source of debt growth in China, as it was in the U.S. before the crisis. The U.S. mortgage boom ended in tears, and so the question that we should be asking is whether the Chinese debt boom will end the same way. Arthur: We agreed not to use the term “savings,” yet Peter again refers to “savings” being funnelled into credit. As I explained above, banks do not funnel “savings” (i.e., “excess production”) into credit. China, Japan, and Germany have high “savings” rates because they produce a lot of steel, chemicals, autos, and machinery that literally cannot be consumed and, thus, are recorded as “savings.” The U.S. produces too many services that are consumed/expensed and, hence, not recorded as “savings.” That is why the U.S. has a lower “savings” rate. Chart 10 (Arthur)The Myth Of Deficient Demand In China Economic textbook discussions on “savings” and “investment” are relevant for a barter economy where banks do not exist. When this framework is applied to modern economies with banks, it generates a lot of confusion.5 Caroline: OK, so Peter argues that an imbalance between spending and income CAN be a marker for high debt levels. Arthur, please explain why you see no relationship between China’s chronic shortfall in demand and authorities’ explicit decision to support growth via credit creation. Arthur: First, China does not have deficient demand – consumer spending and capital expenditures have been growing at 10% and 9.4%, respectively, in real terms annually compounded for the past 10 years (Chart 10). The mainland economy has been suffering from excess production, not a lack of demand. China has invested a lot (Chart 11) and ended up with too much capacity to produce steel, cement, chemicals and other materials as well as machinery and industrial goods. So, China has an excess production of goods relative to firms’ and households’ underlying demand. In a market economy, these producers would become non-profitable, halt their investments, and shut down some capacity. Chart 11 (Arthur)China Has Been Over-Investing On An Unprecedented Scale In China, to keep the producers of these unwanted goods operating, the government has allowed and encouraged banks to originate loans creating new purchasing power literally “out of thin air” to purchase these goods. This has created a credit/money bubble. In a socialist system, banks do not ask debtors to repay loans and government officials are heavily involved in resource and capital allocation. China’s credit system and a growing chunk of its economy have been operating like a typical socialist system. Socialism leads to lower productivity growth for well-known reasons. With labor force growth set to turn negative, productivity is going to be the sole source of China’s potential growth rate. If the nation continues expanding this money/credit bubble to prop up zombie enterprises, its potential growth rate will fall considerably. As the potential growth rate drops, recurring stimulus will create nominal but not real growth. In short, the outcome will be stagflation. Caroline: The theoretical macro frameworks that you have both outlined make for interesting thought experiments, and spirited intellectual debate. However, investors are most concerned about the sustainability of China’s explosive credit growth, implications for the country’s growth rate, and the return on invested capital. Arthur, given your perspective on how Chinese credit policy has been designed and implemented, please outline the contours of how and when you see the music stopping, and the debt mountain crumbling. Arthur: Not every credit bubble will burst like the U.S. one did in 2008. For example, in the case of the Japanese credit bubble, there was no acute crisis. The bubble deflated gradually for about 20 years. In the cases of the U.S. (2008), Japan (1990), the euro area (2008-2014), Spain (2008-2014) and every other credit bubble, a common adjustment was a contraction in bank loans in nominal terms (Chart 12). Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (I) Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (II) Why do banks stop lending? The reason is that banks’ shareholders absorb the largest losses from credit booms. Given that banks are levered at least 20-to-1 at the peak of a typical credit boom, every $1 of non-performing loans leads to a $20 drop in their equity value. Bank shareholders halt the flow of credit to protect their wealth. Chart 13 (Arthur)China: Deleveraging Has Not Yet Begun In fact, credit in China is still growing at a double-digit rate, above nominal GDP growth (Chart 13). Hence, aggregate deleveraging in China has not yet begun. If banks do not curtail credit origination, the music will not stop. However, uninterrupted credit growth happens only in a socialist system where banks subsidize the economy at the expense of their shareholders. But even then, there is no free lunch. Credit origination by banks also expands the money supply as discussed above. An expanding money bubble will heighten devaluation pressure on the yuan in the long run. The enormous amount of money supply/deposits – the money bubble – in China is like “the sword of Damocles” hanging over the nation’s currency. Chinese households and businesses are becoming reluctant to hold this ballooning supply of local currency. Continuous “helicopter” money will only increase their desire to diversify their RMB deposits into foreign currencies and assets. Yet, there is an insufficient supply of foreign currency to accommodate this conversion. The nation’s current account surplus has almost vanished while the central bank carries US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve representing only 11% of the yuan deposits and cash in circulation (Chart 14). It is inconceivable that China can open its capital account in the foreseeable future. “Helicopter” money also discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, which reduces productivity growth. A combination of slowing productivity growth, and thus potential GDP, and strong money growth ultimately lead to stagflation – the dynamics endemic to socialist systems. Peter: Arthur’s answer implicitly assumes that private investment would increase if the government removed credit/fiscal stimulus. But where is the evidence for that? We had just established that the Chinese economy suffers from a lack of aggregate demand. Public-sector spending, to the extent that it increases employment and incomes, crowds in private-sector investment rather than crowding it out. Ask yourself what would have happened if China didn’t build that “bridge to nowhere.” Would those displaced construction workers have found more productive work elsewhere or would they have remained idle? The answer is almost certainly the latter. After all, the reason the Chinese government built the bridge in the first place was to increase employment in an economy that habitually struggles to consume enough of what is produces. Arthur talks about the “misallocation” of resources. But doesn’t an unemployed worker also represent a misallocation of resources? In my view, it certainly does – and one that is much more threatening to social stability than an underutilized bridge or road. If you understand the point above, you will also understand why Arthur’s comparison between Chinese banks and say, U.S. banks is misplaced. The Chinese government is the main shareholder in Chinese banks. The government cares more about social stability than anything else. There is no way it would let credit growth plunge. Moreover, as the main shareholder, the government has a strong incentive to raise the share price of Chinese banks. After all, it is difficult to have a reserve currency that rivals the U.S. dollar, as China aspires to have, if your largest banks trade like penny stocks. My guess is that the Chinese government will shut down a few small banks to “show” that it is concerned about moral hazard, but then turn around and allow the larger banks to sell their troubled loans to state-owned asset management companies on very favourable terms (similar to what happened in the early 2000s). Once investors get wind that this is about to happen, Chinese bank shares will rally like crazy. Caroline: Isn’t shuffling debt from one sector of the economy to another akin to a shell game? Wouldn’t rampant debt growth eventually cause investors to lose confidence in the currency? Peter: China has a problem with the composition of its debt, not with its total value. Debt is a problem when the borrower can’t or won’t repay the loan. Chart 15 (Peter)China Is On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers I completely agree that there is too much shadow bank lending in China. There is also too much borrowing by state-owned enterprises. Ideally, the Chinese government would move all this quasi-public spending onto its own balance sheet. It would significantly raise social spending to discourage precautionary household savings. It would also adopt generous pro-natal policies — free childcare, education, government paid parental leave, and the like. The fact that the Chinese working-age population is set to shrink by 400 million by the end of the century is a huge problem (Chart 15). If the central government borrowed and spent more, state-owned companies and local governments would not have to borrow or spend as much. Banks could then increase their holding of high-quality central government bonds. Debt sustainability is only a problem if the interest rate the government faces exceeds the growth rate of the economy.6 That is manifestly not the case in China (Chart 16). And why are interest rates so low in relation to growth? Because Chinese households save so much! We simply can’t ignore the role of savings in the discussion. Chart 16 (Peter)China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy As far as the currency is concerned, if debt growth rose so much that the economy overheated and inflation soared, then yes, the yuan would plunge. But that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about bringing debt growth to a level that generates just enough demand to achieve something resembling full employment. No one is calling for raising debt growth beyond that point. Curbing debt growth in a demand-deficient economy, as Arthur seems to be recommending, would cause unemployment to rise. Investors would then bet that the Chinese government would try to boost net exports by engineering a currency devaluation. Capital outflows would intensify. Far from creating the conditions for a weaker yuan, fiscal/credit stimulus obviates the need for a currency depreciation. Caroline: Peter, even if we accept your argument that the counterfactual of curbing credit growth in a demand-deficient economy would be a more deflationary outcome than sustaining the government-sponsored credit growth engine, how is building bridges to nowhere a positive sum for investors? Even if this strategy maintains social stability in the interests of the CCP’s regime preservation, won’t investors eventually recoil at the retreat to socialism that Arthur outlines, reducing the appeal of holding the yuan, even if, as you both seem to agree, no apocalyptic debt crisis is at hand? In other words, isn’t two times nothing still nothing? Peter: First of all, many of these infrastructure projects may turn out to be quite useful down the road, pardon the pun. Per capita vehicle ownership in China is only one one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 17). A sparsely used expressway today may be a clogged one tomorrow. Chart 17 (Peter)The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Would China really be better off if it had fewer infrastructure projects and more big screen TVs? An economy where people are always buying stuff they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like, is hardly a recipe for success. I am not sure what these references to socialism are supposed to accomplish. You want to see a real retreat to socialism? Try creating millions of unemployed workers with no jobs and no hope. All sorts of pundits decried Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as creeping socialism. The truth is that the New Deal took the wind out of the sails of the fledgling U.S. communist movement at the time. Arthur: I believe that Peter is confusing the structural and cyclical needs for stimulus. When an economy is in a recession – banks are shrinking their balance sheets and property prices are deflating – the authorities must undertake fiscal and credit stimulus. Chart 18 (Arthur)What Will Productivity Growth Look Like If Public Officials Allocate 55%-60% Of GDP? Credit and fiscal stimulus made sense in China in early 2009 when growth plunged. However, over the past 10 years, we have witnessed credit and property market booms of gigantic proportions. Does this economy warrant continuous stimulus? What will productivity growth look like if government bureaucrats continuously allocate 55-60% of GDP each year (Chart 18)? Caroline: Arthur and Peter, you can both argue with one another about the semantic economic definition of the term ‘savings’, the implications of chronic excess production (relative to consumption), and the root drivers of credit growth in China long past the expiry of every BCA client’s investment horizon. Clients benefit from understanding your distinct perspectives only to the extent that they inform your outlook for markets. Will each of you now please outline how you see high levels of credit in China’s economy impacting the following over a cyclical (6-12 month) and structural (3-5 year) horizon: Global growth Commodity prices China-geared financial assets Peter: Regardless of what one thinks about the root causes of China’s high debt levels, it seems certain to me that the Chinese are going to pick up the pace of credit/fiscal stimulus over the next six months in response to slowing growth and trade war uncertainties. If anything, the incentive to open the credit spigots this time around is greater than in the past because the Chinese government wants to have a fast-growing economy to gain leverage over trade negotiations with the U.S. Chart 19 (Peter)Stronger Chinese Credit Growth Bodes Well For Commodity Prices Chart 20 (Peter)The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Stronger Chinese growth will boost growth in the rest of the world. Commodity prices will rise (Chart 19). As a counter-cyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will likely peak over the next month or so and then weaken in the back half of 2019 and into 2020 (Chart 20). The combination of stronger Chinese growth, higher commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will be manna from heaven for emerging markets. If a trade truce between China and the U.S. is reached, investors should move quickly to overweight EM equities. European stocks should also benefit. Looking further out, China’s economy will slow in absolute terms. In relative terms, however, Chinese growth will remain near the top of the global rankings. China has one of the most educated workforces in the world (Chart 21). Assuming that output-per-hour reaches South Korean levels by the middle of the century, Chinese real GDP would need to expand by about 6% per year over the next decade (Chart 22). That’s a lot of growth – growth that will eventually help China outgrow its debt burden. Chart 22 (Peter)China Has More Catching Up To Do Keep in mind that credit growth of 1% when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 300% yields 3% of GDP in credit stimulus, compared with only 1% of stimulus when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. That does not mean that more debt is intrinsically a good thing, but it does mean that China will eventually be able to slow debt growth even if excess savings remains a problem. Structurally, Chinese and EM equities will likely outperform their developed market peers over a 3-to-5 year horizon. The P/E ratio for EM stocks is currently 4.7 percentage points below that of developed markets, which is below its long-term average (Chart 23). While EM EPS growth has lagged DM earnings growth over the past eight years, the long-term trend still favors EM (Chart 24). EM currencies will appreciate over this period, with the RMB leading the way. Chart 23 (Peter)EM Stocks: Valuations Are Attractive Chart 24 (Peter)Earnings Growth In EM Has Outpaced That Of DM Over The Long Haul Arthur: China is facing a historic choice between two scenarios. Medium- and long-term macro outcomes will impact markets differently in each case. Table 1 shows my cyclical and structural investment recommendations for each scenario. Table 1 (Arthur)Arthur’s Recommended Investment Strategy For China-Geared Financial Assets Allowing Markets to Play A Bigger Role = Lower credit growth (deleveraging), corporate restructuring, and weaker growth (Chart 25). This is bearish for growth and financial markets in the medium term but it will make Chinese stocks and the currency structural (long-term) buys. Credit/Money Boom Persists (Socialist Put) = Secular Stagnation, Inflation and Currency Depreciation: The structural outlook is downbeat but there are mini-cycles that investors could play (Chart 26). Cyclically, China-geared financial assets still remain at risk. However, lower asset prices and more stimulus in China could put a floor under asset prices later this year. Timing these mini-cycles is critical. A buy-and-hold strategy for Chinese assets will not be appropriate in this scenario. In short, capitalism is bad but socialism is worse. I hope China will pursue the first path. Caroline: Thank you both for clarifying your perspectives. Over a multi-year horizon, markets will render the ultimate judgement on whether China’s credit boom has represented a reckless misallocation of capital, or a rational policy response to an imbalance between domestic spending and income. In the meantime, we will monitor the complexion of Chinese stimulus and evidence of its global growth multiplier effect over the coming weeks and months. These will be the key variables to watch as we determine when and at what level to upgrade BCA’s cyclical outlook for China-geared assets. Can’t wait for that debate. Footnotes 1 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 2 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 3 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB,” dated November 23, 2016. 4 For a discussion on the reasons behind China’s high savings rate, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 5 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil,” dated March 22, 2018. 6 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019 and “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores   Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Feature Markets have turned jittery in the past month. Global growth data have deteriorated further (Chart 1), with Korean exports, the German manufacturing PMI, and even U.S. industrial production weak. Moreover, trade negotiations between the U.S. and China appear to have broken down, with China threatening to retaliate against U.S. sanctions on Huawei by blocking sales of rare earths, and refusing to negotiate further unless the U.S. eases tariffs. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategists now give only a 40% probability of a trade deal by the time of the G20 summit at the end of June (Table 1). As a result, BCA alerted clients on 10 May to the risk of a further short-term 5% correction in global equities.1 Recommended Allocation Chart 1Worrying Signs? Table 1Chances Of A Trade Deal Fading Fast What is essentially behind the global slowdown, especially outside the U.S., is that both China and the U.S. last year were tightening monetary policy – China by slowing credit growth, the U.S. via Fed hikes. The U.S. economy was robust enough to withstand this, but economies in Europe, Asia, and Emerging Markets were not (Chart 2). The question now is whether the Chinese authorities and the Fed will come to the rescue and add stimulus that will cause a recovery in global growth. China has already triggered a rebound in credit growth since January (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S. Holding Up Better Than Elsewhere Chart 3China Stimulus Has Only Just Begun This has not come through clearly in Chinese – and other countries’ – activity data yet, partly because there is usually a lag of 3-12 months before this happens, and partly because Chinese authorities seemingly eased back somewhat on the gas pedal in April given rising expectations of a trade deal. But, judging by previous episodes such as 2009 and 2016, the Chinese will stimulate now based on the worst-case scenario. The risk is more that they overdo the stimulus than that they fail to do enough. Yes, China is worried about its excess debt situation. But this year they will prioritize growth – not least because of some sensitive anniversaries in the months ahead (for example, the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic on October 1), and because the government is falling behind on its promise to double per capita real income between 2010 and 2020 (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Communist Party Needs To Prioritize Growth Chart 5U.S. Consumers Look In Fine State     In the U.S., consumption is likely to continue to buoy the economy. Wages are growing 3.2% a year and set to accelerate further, and consumer confidence is close to a 50-year high (Chart 5). It is easy to exaggerate the impact of even an all-out trade war. For China, exports to the U.S. are only 3.4% of GDP. A hit to this could easily be offset by stimulus leading to greater capital expenditure. For the U.S, most academic studies show that the impact of tariffs will largely be passed on to the consumer via higher prices.2 But even if the U.S. imposes 25% tariffs on all Chinese exports and all is passed on to the consumer with no substitutions for goods from other countries the impact, about $130 billion, would represent only 1% of total U.S. consumption. The question now is whether the Chinese authorities and the Fed will come to the rescue and add stimulus that will cause a recovery in global growth. But if China will bail out the global economy, we are not so convinced that the Fed will cut rates any time soon. The market has priced in two Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 6). But we agree with comments from Fed officials that recent softness in inflation is transitory. For example, financial services inflation (mostly comprising financial advisor fees, linked to assets under management, and therefore very sensitive to the stock market) alone has deducted 0.4 percentage points from core PCE inflation over the past six months (Chart 7). The trimmed mean PCE (which cuts out other volatile items besides energy and food, which are excluded from the commonly used core PCE measure) is close to 2% and continues to drift up. Chart 6Will The Fed Really Cut Twice In 12 Months? Chart 7Soft Inflation Probably Is Transitory     Fed policy remains mildly accommodative: the current Fed Funds Rate is still two hikes below the neutral rate, as defined by the median terminal-rate dot in the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections (Chart 8). The market may be trying to push the Fed into cutting rates and could be disappointed if it does not. For now, we tend to agree with the Fed’s view that policy is about correct (Chart 9) but, if global growth does recover before the end of the year, one hike would be justified in early 2020 – before the upcoming Presidential election in November 2020 makes it less comfortable for the Fed to move. Chart 8Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative Chart 9Fed Doesn't Need To Move For Now     In this macro environment, we see global bond yields bottoming not far below their current (very depressed) levels, and equities eking out reasonable gains over the next 12 months. The risk of a global recession over the next year or so is not high, in our opinion. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on global equities and underweight on bonds over the cyclical horizon.  We see global bond yields bottoming not far below their current (very depressed) levels, and equities eking out reasonable gains over the next 12 months. Fixed Income: Government bond yields have fallen sharply over the past eight months (by 110 basis points for the U.S. 10-year, for example) because of 1) falling inflation expectations, caused mostly by a weak oil price, 2) expectations of Fed rate cuts, 3) especially weak growth in Europe, which pulled German yields down to -20 basis points in May, and 4) global risk aversion which pushed asset allocators into government bonds, and lowered the term premium to near record low levels (Chart 10). If Brent crude rises to $80 a barrel this year as we forecast, the Fed does not cut rates, and European growth rebounds because of Chinese stimulus, we find it highly improbable that yields will fall much further. Ultimately, the global risk-free rate is driven by global growth (Chart 11). Investors are already positioned very aggressively for a further fall in yields (Chart 12). We would expect the U.S. 10-year yield to move back towards 3% over the next 12 months. We remain moderately positive on credit, which should also benefit from a growth rebound: U.S. high-yield spreads are still around 70 basis points for Ba-rated bonds, and 110 basis points for B-rated ones, above the levels at which they typically bottom in expansions; investment-grade bonds, though, have less room for spread contraction (Chart 13). Chart 10Term Premium Near Record Low Chart 11Global Rebound Would Push Up Yields   Chart 12Investors Very Long Duration Chart 13Credit Spreads Can Tighten Further     Equities:  We remain overweight U.S. equities, partly as a hedge against our overweight on the equity asset class, since the U.S. remains a relatively low beta market. Our call for the second half will be 1) when will Chinese stimulus start to boost growth disproportionately for commodity and capital-goods exporters, and 2) does that justify a shift out of the U.S. (which may be somewhat hurt short term by the Trade War) and into euro zone and Emerging Markets equities. Given the structural headwinds in both (the chronically weak banking system and political issues in Europe; high debt and lack of structural reforms in EM), we want clear evidence that the Chinese stimulus is working before making this call. We are likely to remain more cautious on Japan, even though it is a clear beneficiary of Chinese growth, because of the risk presented by the rise in the consumption tax in October: after previous such hikes, consumption not only slumped immediately afterwards but remained depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14Japan's Sales Tax Hike Is A Worry Chart 15Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency   Currencies:  Again, China is the key. The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, and a pickup in global growth would weaken it (Chart 15). Any further easing by the ECB – for example, significantly easier terms on the next Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTRO) – might actually be positive for the euro since it would augur stronger growth in the euro area. Moreover, long dollar is a clear consensus view, with very skewed market positioning (Chart 16). Also, on a fundamental basis, compared to Purchasing Power Parity, the dollar is around 15% overvalued versus the euro and 11% versus the yen. Chart 17Industrial Metals Driven By China Too Commodities: Industrial metals prices have generally been weak in recent months with copper, for example, falling by 10% since mid-April. It will require a sustained rebound in Chinese infrastructure spending to push prices back up (Chart 17). Oil continues to be driven by supply-side factors, not demand. With OPEC discipline holding, Iran sanctions about to be reimposed, political turmoil in Libya and Venezuela, BCA’s energy strategists continue to see inventories drawing down this year, and therefore forecast Brent crude to reach $80 during 2019 (Chart 18). Chart 18Oil Supply Remains Tight Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1       Please see Global Investment Strategy, Special Report, “Stay Cyclically Overweight Global Equities, But Hedge Near-Term Downside Risks From An Escalation Of A Trade War,” dated May 10, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see, for example, Mary Amiti, Sebastian Heise, and Noah Kwicklis, “The Impact of Import Tariffs on U.S. Domestic Prices,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, dated 4 January 2019. Recommended Asset Allocation