Policy

Highlights Even if higher tariffs are imposed tonight, there is a good chance that China and the U.S. will reach a temporary trade truce over the coming weeks. Contrary to President Trump’s assertion, U.S. companies and consumers have borne all of the costs of the tariffs. With the next U.S. presidential campaign less than one year away, the self-described “master negotiator” will actually need to prove that he can negotiate a trade deal. If trade talks do collapse, the Chinese will ramp up credit/fiscal stimulus “MMT style,” thus providing a cushion under global growth and risk assets. In fact, there is a very high probability that the Chinese will overreact to the risks to growth, much like they did in 2009 and 2016. Investors should remain overweight global equities for the next 12 months, while positioning for a modestly weaker U.S. dollar and somewhat higher global bond yields. Feature Tariff Man Strikes Again Hopes for a quick end to the trade war were dashed last Sunday. President Trump threatened to hike tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods and begin proceedings to tax the remaining $325 billion of imports currently not subject to tariffs. Although details remain sketchy, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer apparently informed the president that the Chinese were backtracking on prior commitments to change laws dealing with issues such as market access, forced technology transfers, and IP theft.1 This infuriated Trump. Trump’s announcement came just as Vice Premier Liu He and a 100-person Chinese trade delegation were set to depart for Washington. As BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken has noted, the relationship between the two sides was deteriorating even before Trump fired his latest salvo.2 The Chinese government was incensed by the U.S. request that Canada detain and extradite a senior official at Huawei, a top Chinese telecom firm. For its part, the Trump Administration was irked by China’s questionable enforcement of Iranian oil imports, the escalation of Chinese military drills around Taiwan, and the perception that China had not done enough to keep North Korea in check following the failed summit with Kim Jong-Un in Hanoi. It would be naïve to expect these ongoing geopolitical issues to fade anytime soon. The world is shifting from a unipolar to a multipolar one (Chart 1). In an environment where there are overlapping spheres of influence, geopolitical tensions will rise. Chart 1The Era Of Unipolarity Is Over The Era Of Unipolarity Is Over The Era Of Unipolarity Is Over That said, stocks still managed to advance during the first four decades of the post-war era even though the U.S. and the Soviet Union were at each other’s throats. What investors need today is some reassurance that the current trade spat will not degenerate into a full-out trade war that undermines global commerce. Ultimately, we think they will get this reassurance for the same reason that the Soviets and Americans never ended up lobbing missiles at each other: It would have been a lose-lose proposition to do so. Yet, the path from here to there will be a bumpy one. Investors should expect heightened volatility over the coming weeks. As It Turns Out, Trade Wars Are Neither Good Nor Easy To Win There was never any doubt that Wall Street would suffer from a trade war. What was less clear at the outset was the impact that higher tariffs would have on Main Street. Despite President Trump’s claim that the tariffs paid to the U.S. Treasury were “mostly borne by China,” the evidence suggests that close to 100% of the tariffs were, in fact, borne by U.S. companies and consumers. What investors need today is some reassurance that the current trade spat will not degenerate into a full-out trade war that undermines global commerce. A recent NBER paper compared the prices of Chinese imports that were subject to tariffs and similar goods that were not.3 Had Chinese producers been forced to bear the cost of the tariffs, one would have expected pre-tariff import prices to decline. In fact, they didn’t. The tariffs were simply absorbed by U.S. importers in the form of lower profit margins and by U.S. consumers in the form of higher selling prices. This does not mean that Chinese producers escaped unscathed. The paper showed that imports of tariffed goods dropped sharply as U.S. demand shifted away from China and towards domestically-produced goods and imports from other countries. Chart 2Support For Protectionism Rises When Unemployment Is High Support For Protectionism Rises When Unemployment Is High Support For Protectionism Rises When Unemployment Is High One might think that the decision to divert spending from Chinese goods to, say, Korean goods would be irrelevant for U.S. welfare. However, a simple thought experiment reveals that this is not the case. Suppose that a 10% tariff raises the price of an imported good from $100 to $110. If the consumer buys this good from China, the consumer will lose $10 while the U.S. government will gain $10, implying no loss in welfare. However, suppose the consumer buys the same good, tariff-free, from Korea for $105. Then the consumer loses $5 while the government gets no additional revenue, implying a net loss in national welfare of $5. Things get trickier when we consider the case where the consumer buys an identical domestically-produced good for say, $107, in order to avoid the tariff. If the economy is suffering from high unemployment, the additional demand will boost GDP by $107. The consumer who bought the domestically-produced good will be worse off by $7, but wages and profits will rise by $107, leaving a net gain of $100 for the economy. When unemployment is high, beggar-thy-neighbor policies make more sense. This is a key reason why support for protectionism tends to rise when unemployment increases (Chart 2). Today, however, the U.S. unemployment rate is at a 49-year low. To the extent that tariffs shift demand towards locally sourced goods, this is likely to require that workers and capital be diverted from other uses. When this occurs, there is no change in overall GDP. Within the context of the example above, all that would happen is that consumers would lose $7, reducing national welfare by the same amount. In fact, it is even worse than that. The example above does not include the impact on welfare from any resources that would need to be squandered from having to shift workers and capital equipment from sectors of the economy that lose from higher tariffs to those that gain from them. Nor does the example include the adverse impact on national welfare from any retaliatory policies. Ironically, while the evidence suggests that U.S. tariffs did not have much effect on Chinese import prices, it does appear that Chinese tariffs had an effect on U.S. export prices. Agricultural prices are highly sensitive to market conditions. Chart 3 shows that grain and soybean prices fell noticeably in 2018 on days when trade tensions intensified. This pattern has continued into the present. It is not surprising that Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, along with other senior Iowa politicians, penned a letter to President Trump imploring him to reach a trade deal in order to help the state’s farming communities.4 Chart 3 China’s Secret Weapon: MMT To be fair, the arguments above do not account for the strategic possibility that the threat of punitive tariffs forces the Chinese to open their markets and refrain from corporate espionage and IP theft. If Trump is able to wrangle these concessions from the Chinese, then he could remove the tariffs, creating an environment more favorable to American corporate interests. The problem is that China will resist conceding so much ground. True, a trade war would hurt Chinese exporters much more than it would hurt U.S. firms. However, China is no longer as dependent on trade as it once was. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for only 3.6% of GDP, down from 7.3% of GDP in 2006 (Chart 4). China also has plenty of tools to support the economy in the event of a trade war. Chief among these is credit/fiscal stimulus. As we discussed three weeks ago, investors are underestimating China’s ability to ramp up credit growth in order to support spending throughout the economy.5 High levels of household savings have kept interest rates below the growth rate of the economy (Chart 5). When GDP growth exceeds the interest rate at which the government can borrow, even a persistently large budget deficit will produce a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in the long run. Chart 4China Is No Longer As Dependent On Trade With The U.S. As It Once Was China Is No Longer As Dependent On Trade With The U.S. As It Once Was China Is No Longer As Dependent On Trade With The U.S. As It Once Was Chart 5China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy   The standard counterargument is that governments cannot control the interest rate at which they borrow. This means that they run the risk of experiencing a vicious circle where high debt levels cause bond yields to rise, making it more difficult for the government to service its debt. This could lead to even higher bond yields and, eventually, default. However, this argument applies only to countries that do not issue their own currencies. Since a sovereign government can always print cash to pay for the goods and services, it can never run out of money. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for only 3.6% of GDP, down from 7.3% of GDP in 2006. The main reason a sovereign central bank would wish to raise rates is to prevent the economy from overheating. If a rising fiscal deficit is the consequence of a decline in private-sector spending (which is something that would likely happen during a trade war), there is no risk of overheating, and hence, there is no need to raise interest rates. We are not big fans of Modern Monetary Theory, but at least on this point, the MMT crowd is right while most analysts are wrong. Investment Conclusions It is impossible to say with any confidence what the next few days will bring on the trade front. If the Trump Administration’s allegation that the Chinese backtracked on prior commitments turns out to be true, it is possible that some of them will be reinstated, thus allowing the negotiations to resume. This could prompt Trump to offer a “grace period” to the Chinese of one or two weeks later tonight before scheduled tariff hikes are set to occur. If tariffs do go up, what should investors do? The answer depends on how much stocks fall in response to the news. If global equities were to decline by more than five percent, our inclination would be to get more bullish. There are two reasons for this. First, the failure to reach a deal this week does not mean that the talks will irrevocably break down. The point of Trump’s tariffs was never to raise revenue. It was to force the Chinese into a trade agreement that served America’s interests. With less than a year to go before the presidential campaign kicks into high gear, the self-described “master negotiator” needs to prove to the American public that he can actually negotiate a trade deal. This means some sort of an agreement is more likely than not. Second, as noted above, China will respond aggressively with fresh stimulus if the U.S. slaps tariffs on its exports. This will help cushion global growth and risk assets. Infrastructure spending tends to be more commodity intensive than manufacturing production. Thus, even if the Chinese government exactly offsets the loss of manufacturing exports with additional infrastructure spending, the net effect on global growth will probably be positive. China will respond aggressively with fresh stimulus if the U.S. slaps tariffs on its exports. In reality, there is a very high probability that the Chinese will do more than that. As the 2009 and 2016 episodes illustrate, when faced with a clear downside shock to growth, the government calibrates the policy response based on the worst-case scenario. Not only would a bout of hyperstimulus provide downside protection to the Chinese economy against a growth shock, it would also give the government more negotiating leverage with Trump. After all, it is much easier to brush away threats of punitive tariffs if you have an economy that is humming along. Investors should remain overweight global equities for the next 12 months, while positioning for a modestly weaker U.S. dollar and somewhat higher global bond yields. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      David Lawder, Jeff Mason, and Michael Martina, “Exclusive: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources,” Reuters, May 8, 2019. 2      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “U.S. And China Get Cold Feet,” dated May 6, 2019. 3      Mary Amiti, Stephen J. Redding, and David E. Weinstein, “The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare,” NBER Working Paper No. 25672, (March 2019). 4      “Young, Ernst Lead Iowa Delegation in Letter Urging President Not to Impose Tariffs,” Joni Ernst United States Senator For Iowa, March 7, 2018. 5      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Chart 6 Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Coming up on the deadline for President Trump’s China – U.S. tariff ultimatum, tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports could go to 25% from 10% on Friday – the outlook for base metals remains complicated, particularly for aluminum and copper.1 Of course, the U.S. and China could have a meeting of the minds and agree to resolve the outstanding issues in the trade negotiations. This would be supportive of continued global supply-chain expansion, EM income growth and base metals prices generally. On the downside, an escalation of the Sino – U.S. trade war could retard investment in global supply chains, as firms hunker down for an extended and contentious contraction in global trade.2 This would be bearish for EM income growth, which would translate directly into lower base metals demand and, all else equal, depress prices. Still, a breakdown in trade talks could be bullish for base metals, as China likely would increase its fiscal, monetary and credit stimulus, in an attempt to offset the income-suppressing effects of reduced global trade and investment. As we said, it’s complicated. Two of the three outcomes above are supportive of base metals prices – i.e., a deal is agreed, and increased Chinese stimulus in the event of a breakdown in negotiations. Against this backdrop, we are closing our long tactical trading recommendations in copper and aluminum at tonight’s close, and replacing them with a call spread on July CME COMEX copper, in which we will get long $3.00/lb calls vs. short $3.30/lb calls. The call spreads are a low-risk way of positioning in a volatile market for a likely price-supportive outcome in these talks – the max loss on this position is the net premium paid to get long the spread. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Supply-side fundamentals continue to dominate oil price formation. An unplanned outage in Russia that took ~ 1mm b/d of oil off the market this week, following the contamination of exports with organic chloride left in shipments via Transneft’s European pipeline system. Russia’s Energy Ministry is guiding markets to expect the contamination will be cleared up toward the end of this month.3 Base Metals: Neutral. We are closing our tactical aluminum and copper trade recommendations at tonight’s close. We do see the potential for higher base metals prices – particularly copper – if China expands fiscal and monetary stimulus in the wake of a breakdown in trade talks with the U.S., or both sides can resolve their differences. We expect copper will benefit most from such outcomes. However, we believe a call spread – long July $3.00/lb CME COMEX calls vs. short $3.30/lb calls expiring in July – is a lower-risk way of expressing this view. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold could rally in the wake of an expanded trade war, if the Fed and the PBOC – along with other systemically important central banks – adopt more accommodative monetary policies in anticipation of a widening trade conflict. Greater fiscal, credit and monetary stimulus by China in response to a breakdown in trade talks also could boost safe-haven demand for gold. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The risk of a wider Sino – U.S. trade war – particularly the likely retaliation by China if U.S. tariffs are raised to 25% on already-targeted exports of $200 billion – would be especially bearish for soybeans and grain exports from the U.S. We remain underweight. Feature In the wake of President Donald Trump’s ultimatum to China to resolve trade talks by tomorrow, BCA Research’s geopolitical strategists give 50% odds to a successful trade deal being concluded by end-June. The odds of an extension of trade talks are 10%; and the odds of no deal on trade, 40% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities (May 2019) Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals Of these possible outcomes, the no-deal scenario – i.e., an escalation in the trade war including raising tariffs on imports from China to 25% on the $200 billion of goods now carrying a 10% duty – would be the most volatile, and likely would push base metals’ prices lower in the short-term. A trade deal would set markets to estimating the extent of supply-chain investment and trade-flow revival, as the drawn-out uncertainty around the outcome of the Sino – U.S. trade war fades. Given the slim wedge our geopolitical strategists see between the deal and no-deal outcomes to these trade talks, we believe the implications of the latter need to be sorted. An agreement to extend trade talks likely would be welcomed with the same aplomb shown by markets prior to this current level of high drama. In this scenario, markets likely would price in an economically rational outcome to the U.S. – China trade negotiations, which resolves the uncertainty around tariffs and other investment-retarding policies. Given the slim wedge our geopolitical strategists see between the deal and no-deal outcomes to these trade talks, we believe the implications of the latter need to be sorted. In the short term – i.e., following a breakdown in the talks – market sentiment likely would become more negative, as traders priced in the implications for reduced global supply-chain investment and trade flows, particularly re China and EM exporters. In addition, base metals markets would discount the income hit to EM these effects would feed into, raising the likelihood commodity demand growth would slow. News flow would then dictate price action for the metals over the short term. As markets discount these expectations, we believe Chinese policymakers would act to increase the levels of fiscal, credit and monetary stimulus domestically, to counter the hit to domestic income. The lagged effects of this stimulus will have a strong influence on base metals’ price formation, and, depending on the level of stimulus, could be bullish for metals prices. China’s Influence on Base Metals Higher Post-GFC In previous research, we found copper, and to lesser extent aluminum and the LMEX index, which is heavily weighted to both, benefit most from monetary, credit and fiscal stimulus in China.4 Other metals also experience a lift when the level of these Chinese policy variables rises; however, their relationship with EM and China’s industrial production cycle is weaker and time varying (Chart of the Week). Chart 1 In Table 2, we show how different policy and macro factors affect various base metal prices and the LMEX; these models generate the output for the curves in the Chart of the Week. The table show the coefficients of determination for single-variable regressions for each metal on the EM- or China-focused factor shown in the columns for the period 2000 to now, and 2010 to now. Within the base metals complex, copper, the LMEX index and aluminum exhibit the strongest and most reliable relationships with the explanatory variables shown at the top of each column. Table 2Coefficients Of Determination: Base Metals Prices (yoy) Vs. Key Factors Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals The biggest takeaway from this analysis is that, for each individual metal, Chinese economic activity in particular, and EM income dynamics generally dominate price determination. The importance of these factors increased considerably post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC). As was the case with our correlation analysis, this is best captured by our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) Index (Chart 2, panel 1). This is clearly seen in the co-movement of our GIA index and copper prices (Chart 2, panel 2), and EM GDP.5 Chart 3 shows the GIA index disaggregated in its four main components. Chart 2BCA's GIA Index Vs. EM GDP, Copper Prices BCA's GIA Index Vs. EM GDP, Copper Prices BCA's GIA Index Vs. EM GDP, Copper Prices Chart 3BCA GIA Index Components' Performance BCA GIA Index Components' Performance BCA GIA Index Components' Performance Our analytical framework for base metals in China holds the nonferrous “pillar industries” behave as vertically integrated conglomerates. The influence of China’s economy on base metals prices is not unexpected: As China’s relative share of base metals supply and demand versus the rest of the world has grown, the marginal impact of its fiscal, credit, monetary and trade policies increased (Chart 4). The principal effect would be visible in China’s demand-side effects, to which the supply side would respond. That is to say, China’s monetary, credit and fiscal policies post-GFC lifted domestic incomes, which lifted demand domestically. In addition, aggressive export-oriented trade policy contributed to income growth, as well. This prompted increased base metals and bulk (e.g., steel) output on the supply side. Chart 4 A large part of this dynamic likely is explained by the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in the base-metals markets in China. It is important to note these SOEs are strategic government holdings, responding to and directing government policy, as was recently noted in a University of Alberta study on SOEs:      … the government maintains control over a number of economically significant industries, such as the automobile, equipment manufacturing, information technology, construction, iron and steel, and nonferrous metals sectors, which are all considered to be ‘pillar industries’ of the Chinese economy. The government, as a matter of official policy, intends to maintain sole ownership or apply absolute control over only what it considers to be strategic industries, but also maintains relatively strong control over the pillar industries.6 Our analytical framework for base metals in China holds the nonferrous “pillar industries” behave as vertically integrated conglomerates – ranging from firms refining of raw ore to those producing finished products used in infrastructure, construction, etc. In this framework, nonferrous metals in China are not commodity markets per se, but vertically integrated policy-driven industries responding to directives from the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Politburo through to the State Council and the various ministries directing production and consumption.7 At the heart of this is the CCP’s efforts to direct economic growth. Investment Implications The implication of our policy-focused research is investors should focus on metals for which a large share of the variance in y/y prices can be explained by movements in Chinese economic activity. The no-deal outcome could be positive for base metals prices. To get a handle on this, we looked at the variance decomposition of each metal’s price in response to exogenous shocks originating from (1) Chinese economic activity, (2) EM (ex-China) and Complex Economies industrial activity, (3) U.S. industrial activity, and (4) the U.S. trade weighted dollar (Table 3).8 Using this approach, we found that: Copper, aluminum and the LMEX’s variances are mostly explained by China’s economic activity (~ 25%); specifically, shocks to the state’s industrial activity and credit cycle. This corroborates our earlier research, in which we focused on correlations between base metals and these factors. Idiosyncratic factors seem to account for a large part of nickel, lead and zinc’s price formation. This is seen by the large proportion of their variances that is unexplained by our selected explanatory variables. Given the opacity of fundamental data in these markets, we tend to avoid positioning in them. On average, EM ex-China and U.S. industrial activity account for a similar proportion of the variance in metal’s prices (~ 8%). While the U.S. dollar appears to be the second most important variable (~ 14%). Table 3China’s Economic Activity Drives Metals’ Return Variability Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals Our analysis indicates that, as a group, base metals will be supported by the ongoing credit stimulus in China. Each metal is positively correlated with China’s credit cycle and industrial activity. Nonetheless, from our correlation, regression and variance-decomposition analysis, we believe copper and aluminum provide a better and more reliable exposure, as does exposure to the LMEX index, because of its high aluminum and copper weightings. Bottom Line: Approaching the ultimatum set by U.S. President Trump for a resolution to the Sino – U.S. trade war, markets are understandably taut. The odds of a deal vs. no-deal outcome by end-June are close, while the odds trade talks are extended account for the difference. In our estimation, the no-deal outcome could be positive for base metals prices, given our expectation Chinese policymakers will lift the amount of stimulus to the domestic economy to offset the negative effects of an expanded trade war. A deal would remove a lot of the uncertainty currently holding back global supply-chain capex and trade flows, which also would be bullish for base metals.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For further discussion, please see “U.S. And China Get Cold Feet,” a Special Alert published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy May 6, 2019. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Our geopolitical strategists give the odds of a successful trade deal being concluded by end-June 50%; that trade talks continue, 10%; and the odds of no deal on trade, 40%. 2      Please see “Global market structures and the high price of protectionism,” delivered at the Jackson Hole central bank conference August 25, 2018, by Agustín Carstens, General Manager, Bank for International Settlements. 3      Please see “Russia sees oil quality normalizing in late May after contamination, output drops,” published May 7, 2019, by reuters.com. 4      Please see our Weekly Report of April 25, 2019, entitled “Copper Will Benefit Most From Chinese Stimulus.” It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5      BCA’s GIA index is heavily weighted toward EM industrial-commodity demand. Please see “Oil, Copper Demand Worries Are Overdone,” where we introduce and discuss the GIA index, published February 14, 2019, in BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see “State-Owned Enterprises in the Chinese Economy Today: Role, Reform, and Evolution,” China Institute, University of Alberta, May 2018. 7      Something approximating a pure commodity market is crude oil – the supply and demand curves of many globally distributed sellers and buyers meet and clear the market. As such, a reasonable explanatory model for the evolution of prices can be generated using fundamental inputs (i.e., supply, demand and inventories). Fitting such models to base metals has proved difficult. We have better success explaining base metals prices using macro economic policy variables we believe are important to CCP policymakers – trade, credit, domestic GDP, etc. This is a new avenue of research, which we hope to use to hone in on a good explanatory model to account for ~ 50% of global base metal demand, and, in some instances (e.g., copper and steel, respectively) close to 40% - 50% of supply, as seen in Chart 4. Our current base metals research is focused on trying to disprove the hypothesis these are policy-directed markets within China. This aligns with Karl Popper’s falsifiability condition, which states a theory must be subject to independent, disinterested testing capable of refuting it, to be considered scientific. Please see “Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery,” (reprinted 2008), Routledge Classics, particularly Chapter 4. 8      Complex economies are countries ranking at the top of MIT’s Economic Complexity Index (ECI), and which export industrial goods to EM and China. The EM (ex-China) and Complex Economies variable is the first principal component extracted from a group of ~60 series related to industrial production in these countries. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights U.S.: The Fed remains decidedly neutral, despite market expectations (and White House pressure) for lower U.S. interest rates. Treasury yields are mispriced and should grind higher over the next 6-12 months, led first by inflation expectations and later by a more hawkish Fed. Canada: The Bank of Canada’s latest reports and commentary indicate that monetary policy will stay on hold over at least the balance of 2019. Bond markets are already priced for that outcome. Maintain a neutral stance on Canadian government bonds in global hedged fixed income portfolios. Sweden: The Riksbank’s recent dovish turn, calling for a flatter trajectory for interest rates and extending asset purchases, will keep Swedish bond yields lower for longer. Thus, we are closing our recommended tactical trades in Sweden that were positioned for rate hikes. Feature Global bond yields remain stuck in a range, seeking a new directional narrative. The downside is limited by green shoots of improving global growth (mostly from China stimulus), some commodity price reflation through higher oil prices and robust returns in most risk asset markets (i.e. an easing of financial conditions). At the same time, the upside for yields is capped by dovish forward guidance from data-dependent central banks who see below-trend economic growth and below-target inflation in the rearview mirror. Chart of the WeekForward MIS-guidance Forward MIS-guidance Forward MIS-guidance We expect these opposing forces to be resolved through faster global growth and higher realized inflation over the next 6-12 months. Major central banks will not need to turn even more dovish and begin a monetary policy easing cycle to boost growth, despite current market pricing suggesting otherwise. Global bond yields will grind upward, first through higher inflation expectations and, later, from a shift away from discounting rate cuts and, in some countries, pricing in rate hikes. The pressure for higher yields will be strongest in the U.S., where the Treasury market now discounts that the current 2.5% fed funds rate will be the cyclical peak, below the median FOMC projection, even as inflation expectations have been moving higher (Chart of the Week).  We continue to recommend pro-growth, pro-risk allocations in global fixed income markets: below-benchmark overall duration exposure, favoring global corporates over government bonds, focusing government bond exposure to countries where policymakers will be relatively less hawkish (Japan, U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand), and positioning for faster inflation expectations and bearish steepening of yield curves (most notably in the U.S. and core Europe). May FOMC Meeting: Sorry, Mr. President The Fed kept rates unchanged at last week’s FOMC meeting, dashing market hopes of a potential shift in language toward a future rate cut. The official statement acknowledged that U.S. inflation was running below the 2% target, but Fed Chair Jerome Powell later described that inflation shortfall as “transitory” and expected to reverse. Treasury yields got whipsawed by the mixed messaging, with the 2-year yield falling -6bps after the statement but then climbing +11bps during Powell’s press conference. Powell standing his ground so firmly was a sharp rebuke to U.S. money markets, which remain priced for rate cuts over the next year. It was also a strong sign of the Fed maintaining its political independence in the face of U.S. President Trump calling for aggressive rate cuts. From a growth perspective, the Fed is right to not panic. The employment backdrop remains solid, with the U.S. unemployment rate hitting a 50-year low in April of 3.6%. While cyclical growth indicators like the ISM Manufacturing index have trended lower, the headline index remains above the expansionary 50 level (Chart 2). The rally in U.S. equity and credit markets seen so far in 2019 has eased financial conditions, signaling an imminent rebound in the U.S. leading economic indicator (second panel). Furthermore, core measures of retail sales and capital goods orders have begun to reaccelerate after the Q1 slump impacted by the U.S. government shutdown. From a growth perspective, the Fed is right to not panic. On the inflation side, the story is more nuanced. Higher oil prices will boost headline inflation measures over the next six months. At the same time, the lagged impact of the surprising pickup in U.S. productivity growth (+2.4% year-over-year in Q1) will help dampen core inflation rates (Chart 3) via lower unit labor costs (flat year-over-year in Q1). Further complicating the issue for the Fed is the impact of lower inflation in the components that Fed Chair Powell deemed “transitory”, such as airfares, apparel and, most interestingly, the cost of financial services. Chart 2A Blossoming U.S. ##br##Rebound A Blossoming U.S. Rebound A Blossoming U.S. Rebound Chart 3Blame Equities For The Cooling Of ##br##U.S. Core Inflation Blame Equities For The Cooling Of U.S. Core Inflation Blame Equities For The Cooling Of U.S. Core Inflation The broad Financial Services and Inflation grouping, which includes market-related costs such as wealth management fees, now represents 9% of the overall U.S. core PCE deflator. The inflation rate of the Financial Services index is highly correlated to the performance of U.S. equity markets (Chart 4). This makes sense, as the costs of professional portfolio management are often tied to the size of assets under management. At a minimum, the market should be priced for the same neutral (unchanged) stance that the Fed is currently signaling, which is appropriate given signs of U.S. growth perking up. Chart 4Faster Productivity Means The Fed Can Be Patient Faster Productivity Means The Fed Can Be Patient Faster Productivity Means The Fed Can Be Patient In 2018, prior to the year-end correction in U.S. equity markets, the contribution to core PCE inflation from the Financial Services category was a steady 0.5-0.6 percentage points. After the market rout, that contribution has fallen to 0.2 percentage points, accounting for nearly all of the 40bp decline in core PCE inflation since U.S. equities peaked last September. With equity markets having now regained all the late-2018 losses, Financial Services inflation should boost core PCE inflation by at least 20-30bps by year-end – and perhaps more if stocks continue to appreciate, per the BCA House View. With our Fed Monitor now sitting just above the zero line, indicating no pressure on the Fed to hike rates, the -30bps of rate cuts now discounted over the next year is too aggressive (Chart 5). At a minimum, the market should be priced for the same neutral (unchanged) stance that the Fed is currently signaling, which is appropriate given signs of U.S. growth perking up. The Fed will remain cautious on returning to a more hawkish stance until actual U.S. inflation turns higher, which will take some time given the competing forces of falling unit labor costs and fading “transitory” disinflationary effects. Chart 5Stay Underweight USTs & Below-Benchmark UST Duration Stay Underweight USTs & Below-Benchmark UST Duration Stay Underweight USTs & Below-Benchmark UST Duration We think the 2017 experience will be useful to think about in the coming months. Then, the Fed paused its rate hiking cycle for a few months, primarily due to softer inflation readings related to unusual forces temporarily dampening core inflation (most notably, a one-time collapse in wireless phone prices related to a change in how those costs were measured). Once those “transitory” forces faded out of the data, the Fed resumed lifting the funds rate. It will likely take longer in 2019 before the Fed would feel confident enough to begin raising rates again, especially with the funds rate now much closer to neutral than two years ago. Nonetheless, we expect a similar story of rebounding inflation driving Treasury yields higher to unfold over the latter half of this year. A moderate below-benchmark U.S. duration stance, favoring shorter maturities, combined with a long position in inflation-protected TIPS over nominal Treasuries, remains appropriate. Bottom Line: The Fed remains decidedly neutral, despite market expectations (and White House pressure) for lower U.S. interest rates. Treasury yields are mispriced and should grind higher over the next 6-12 months, led first by inflation expectations and later by a more hawkish Fed. Canada Update: Stay Neutral Back in March, we upgraded our recommended Canadian government bond exposure to neutral after spending a long time at underweight.1 The rationale for our move was that the stunning loss of momentum in the Canadian economy at the end of 2018 would force the Bank of Canada (BoC) to not only stop raising rates, but stay on hold for longer than expected. After our upgrade, we noted that we would consider additional changes to our Canadian allocation after the releases of the latest BoC Business Outlook Survey (BoS) and the updated economic projections at the April 24 monetary policy meeting. None of those events makes us want to move away from the current neutral recommendation. The problem for the BoC is that its policy rate of 1.75% remains well below its own estimated neutral range, which is now 2.25%-3.25% (Chart 6). A similar message comes when looking at the neutral real rate (“r-star”) estimate for Canada produced by the New York Fed, with an r-star of 1.5% versus a current real policy rate around 0%.2 This suggests that Canadian monetary policy remains accommodative and that the BoC should be looking for opportunities to continue moving interest rates toward “neutral” when the economy is accelerating. Yet our own BoC Monitor suggests that an unchanged policy stance is currently appropriate, while -11bps of rate cuts are now discounted in the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. In other words, the BoC is torn between a fundamental interest rate framework that says the hiking cycle is not done yet, and a sluggish economy that demands a dovish bias. The BoC is torn between a fundamental interest rate framework that says the hiking cycle is not done yet, and a sluggish economy that demands a dovish bias. In the press conference following the April 24 BoC policy meeting, BoC Governor Steve Poloz noted that any reference to the need for interest rates to return to the BoC’s neutral range was deliberately omitted from the official policy statement. This is a clear signal that the central bank has shifted its focus from “normalizing” rates to preventing a deeper downturn in Canadian growth. The latest BoS showed that business confidence, expected sales and future investment intentions all fell sharply in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart 7). There was a huge drop in the number of firms reporting capacity pressures and labor shortages, with more firms now expecting their prices to fall than rise over the next year. The main headwinds to the diminished outlook for future sales were related to “a more uncertain outlook in the Western Canadian energy sector, continued weakness in housing-related activity in some regions, and tangible impacts from global trade tensions”.3 Chart 6A Long Way From BoC ##br##Rate Cuts A Long Way From BoC Rate Cuts A Long Way From BoC Rate Cuts Chart 7Negative Messages From The BoC Business Outlook Survey Negative Messages From The BoC Business Outlook Survey Negative Messages From The BoC Business Outlook Survey   The BoC places a lot of weight on the BoS in determining its economic forecasts, and in setting monetary policy. Thus, it is no surprise that in the official statement following the April 24 monetary policy meeting, the BoC Governing Council noted that they were “monitoring developments in household spending, oil markets and global trade policy to gauge the extent to which the factors weighing on growth and the inflation outlook were dissipating”.4 Those were the same three concerns of businesses highlighted in the BoS, assuming that “weakness in the Canadian housing market” is related to “developments in household spending” – a logical link given the high level of Canadian household and mortgage debt. Looking at those three factors, there is nothing suggesting that the BoC needs to adjust policy anytime soon (Chart 8). Oil prices are rising, but household spending remains weak and global trade uncertainties have not completely diminished and Canadian export growth has stagnated. Given the mixed picture from the economic data, the BoC will likely remain on hold until there is a clear signal from the data. From a bond investment strategy perspective, staying at neutral also makes sense. A move to overweight Canadian bonds would require an even deeper economic downturn into recessionary territory that would push Canadian unemployment higher (Chart 9). Downgrading back to underweight, however, would require signs of a sustainable rebound in Canadian domestic demand and stronger global growth that would boost Canadian exports – an outcome that would not be visible in the data until at least the third quarter of 2019. Chart 8Watch What The BoC ##br##Is Watching Watch What The BoC Is Watching Watch What The BoC Is Watching Chart 9A Neutral Weight On Canada Is Still Justified A Neutral Weight On Canada Is Still Justified A Neutral Weight On Canada Is Still Justified   One final point on staying neutral on Canada comes from looking at cross-country spread levels between government bonds in Canada and other major developed economies. The spread levels look historically wide versus sovereign debt from Germany, the U.K., and Australia; wide versus recent history in Japan; but very narrow versus the U.S. (Chart 9). Those spreads are shown without hedging out the currency risk of going long Canadian bonds – and, by association, the Canadian dollar. Once the currency risk is hedged out of those cross-country spreads using 3-month currency forwards, the spread differentials are all far less interesting both in absolute terms and relative to history (Chart 10 & 11). Chart 10Big Differences In Canadian Bond Spreads Vs Other Major DM... Big Differences In Canadian Bond Spreads Vs Other Major DM... Big Differences In Canadian Bond Spreads Vs Other Major DM... Chart 11… But Those Spreads Disappear Once The C$ Exposure Is Hedged ...But Those Spreads Disappear Once The C$ Exposure Is Hedged ...But Those Spreads Disappear Once The C$ Exposure Is Hedged So even on an individual country basis, there is no compelling case to be anything but neutral Canadian government bonds versus global currency-hedged benchmarks – which is how we present all our fixed income recommendations in Global Fixed Income Strategy. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada’s latest reports and commentary indicate that monetary policy will stay on hold over at least the balance of 2019. Bond markets are already priced for that outcome. Maintain a neutral stance on Canadian government bonds in global hedged fixed income portfolios. Sweden Trade Update – Time To Retreat & Regroup Exactly one year ago (May 8, 2018), we initiated trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio to position for tighter monetary policy, and higher bond yields, in Sweden.5 Specifically, we have been recommending shorting 2-year Swedish government bonds versus German equivalents (hedging the currency exposure back into krona), while also selling 2-year Swedish bonds and buying 10-year Swedish debt in a yield curve flattening trade. The positions were chosen to benefit from an expected bearish repricing of the short-end of the Swedish curve. At this time last year, the positive upward momentum of Swedish growth and inflation had reached a point where the Riksbank was clearly – and credibly – signaling that the long process of normalizing its highly accommodative crisis-era monetary policies would begin. That meant lifting policy rates away from negative territory, as well as shutting down the bond-buying quantitative easing (QE) program. One year later, the economic backdrop has done a 180-degree turn against our original thesis (Chart 12): Swedish growth has slowed, with both the manufacturing PMI and leading economic indicator at the lowest levels since 2013. Unemployment has increased and nominal wage growth has rolled over. Headline CPIF inflation has fallen back below the Riksbank 2% target, while core CPIF inflation remains stuck near 1.5%. The Riksbank changed its forward guidance at last month’s monetary policy meeting, signaling that the benchmark interest rate will remain at -0.25% for “somewhat longer” than was indicated as recently as February (when a rate hike around the end of 2019 or in early 2020 was signaled). The Riksbank also pledged to maintain the size of its QE bond purchases from July 2019 to December 2020, a dovish surprise. Swedish money markets are still discounting 13bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months. Yet our Riksbank Monitor, on the other hand, is now indicating a need for rate cuts, driven by both softer inflation and weaker growth. The minutes from last month’s policy meeting revealed that the forward guidance was adjusted simply because headline inflation had temporarily dipped back below the 2% Riksbank target. The implication is that a return to 2% inflation would prompt the Riksbank to hike. Swedish money markets are still discounting 13bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months. Yet our Riksbank Monitor, on the other hand, is now indicating a need for rate cuts, driven by both softer inflation and weaker growth. A useful rule for investment risk management is: when the underlying rationale for a position is clearly not unfolding as expected, the best thing to do is simply close that position and look for new opportunities better aligned to the current reality. Chart 12No More Pressure On Riksbank ##br##To Hike No More Pressure On Riksbank To Hike No More Pressure On Riksbank To Hike Chart 13Time To Exit Our Recommended "Hawkish" Trades In Sweden Time To Exit Our Recommended "Hawkish" Trades In Sweden Time To Exit Our Recommended "Hawkish" Trades In Sweden With that in mind, we are choosing to close our tactical trades in Sweden (Chart 13). The 2-year Sweden-Germany spread trade generated a loss of -52bps (including the return from hedging the euro exposure in Germany back into Swedish krona). We were more fortunate with the curve flattening trade, which generated a return of +61bps as the Swedish curve bullishly flattened through falling 10-year yields rather than bearishly flattening through rising 2-year yields (our original expectation). Thus, we are closing out our Sweden trades at a small net gain of +9bps. We will do a deeper analysis on Sweden in an upcoming Global Fixed Income Strategy report to search for new potential trade ideas. Bottom Line: The Riksbank’s recent dovish turn, calling for a flatter trajectory for interest rates and extending asset purchases, will keep Swedish bond yields lower for longer. Thus, we are closing our recommended tactical trades in Sweden that were positioned for a faster path of rate hikes.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “March Calmness”, dated March 19, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The NY Fed’s estimates for non-U.S. r-star rates for the euro area, Canada, and the U.K. can be found on the NY Fed website. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/rstar 3https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/04/business-outlook-survey-spring-2019/ 4https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/04/fad-press-release-2019-04-24/ 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Sweden: The Riksbank Cannot Kick The Can Down The Road Anymore”, dated May 8, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Reconcilable Differences Reconcilable Differences Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Feature In lieu of our regular Weekly Report this week, tomorrow we will be publishing a joint Special Report on the Chinese housing market with our Emerging Markets Strategy service, authored by my colleague Ellen JingYuan He. Ellen’s previous housing report was extremely well received,1 and clients should look forward to tomorrow’s update. Chart 1A Full Trade War: Clear Near-Term Risk, But An Uncertain Cyclical Outlook A Full Trade War: Clear Near-Term Risk, But An Uncertain Cyclical Outlook A Full Trade War: Clear Near-Term Risk, But An Uncertain Cyclical Outlook Turning to the financial markets, investors have been squarely focused this week on the sudden escalation in tension between the U.S. and China, caused by President Trump’s renewed threat on May 5 to heighten tariffs on Chinese imports at the end of this week. Specifically, President Trump has claimed that he would increase the current 10% tariff rate on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports to 25%, a move that was originally due on March 1, but was delayed to extend the talks and seek a better agreement. Trump also threatened to raise tariffs on the remaining $325 billion of Chinese imports that are so far untouched. This is the most significant escalation in rhetoric since before the tariff truce agreed on December 1 between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires. The financial market reaction was swift: Chinese A shares fell nearly 6% on Monday, and USD-CNY surged nearly half a percent (Chart 1). Chinese stocks fared better on Tuesday, but may come under pressure again later in the week as China’s trade delegation returns to the U.S. for talks on Thursday & Friday. Despite this week’s volatility, we would not yet recommend any portfolio strategy changes to investors who are positioned in favor of Chinese stocks or China-related assets more generally. First, we still see the combined odds of a deal or a further extension in talks as being as high as 60%, and investors would view an agreement to extend the negotiations in a positive light after this week’s selloff. At a minimum, investors are likely to get a better chance to sell in such a scenario. Second, over that past year we have steadfastly maintained that China’s economy and its earnings cycle are driven by monetary conditions, money, and credit growth, and two of these three drivers are clearly now pointing to improving economic activity over the coming year. Certainly, the imposition of a 25% import tariff on all Chinese goods would represent a new, negative shock to the Chinese economy, but in this scenario Chinese policymakers would also substantially dial up their reflationary response. As such, while the near-term response in the equity market is likely to be very negative if President Trump follows through with his threat, the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month outlook) for Chinese relative equity performance is not yet clear. This is only true in local currency (i.e. hedged) terms, however, as we agree that there is meaningful downside potential for the RMB in a full tariff scenario. So while we are likely to advise investors to wait and assess the likely reflationary response if a 25% “second round” tariff rate is imposed this week before changing their equity stance, we would recommend a long USD-CNY/CNH position in the interim as a hedge against a potentially substantial decline in the RMB. Stay tuned.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?,” published September 13, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com.   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations