Policy

Highlights Please note that country sections on Mexico and Colombia published below. The policy stimulus in China could produce a growth revival in the second half of 2019, but there are no signs of an imminent bottom in China’s growth over the next several months. The lack of policy support for real estate is the key difference between the current stimulus program and previous ones. Crucially, the property market holds the key to consumer and business sentiment and hence, their willingness to spend. Continue to overweight Mexico within EM currency, fixed-income and equity portfolios. Colombia warrants a neutral weighting. A new trade: bet on yield curve flattening. Feature China has been undertaking both fiscal and monetary stimulus since last summer. A key question among investors is: At what point will the cumulative effects of these efforts become sufficient to revive the mainland’s business cycle and produce a rally in China-related plays akin to 2016-’17? This report helps investors dissect China’s stimulus, and reviews the indicators that will likely help identify the turning point in the mainland’s business cycle, as well as in China-exposed financial markets. Chart I-1 conveys the main message: Our credit and fiscal spending impulse is still falling, indicating that the slump in the Chinese industrial sector will persist for now with negative ramifications for EM corporate profits and other segments of the global economy that are leveraged to China. Chart I-1 Looking forward, odds are reasonably high that the credit and fiscal spending impulse will bottom sometime in the first half of 2019. Yet, a bottom in China-plays in global financial markets is likely be several months away from now and potential downside could still be substantial. Monetary Stimulus On the monetary policy front, there has been multifaceted easing: Several cuts to banks’ reserve requirement ratios (RRRs) have been implemented; Lower interest rates for SME borrowers and a reduction in funding costs for the banks that originate these loans; The use of preferential liquidity provisions to encourage banks to purchase bonds issued by private companies. Monetary easing in of itself is not a sufficient condition to produce an economic revival. There are two variables standing between easing liquidity/lower borrowing costs, on the one hand, and the performance of the economy on the other: The first one is the money multiplier, which is calculated as a ratio of broad money supply (or banks assets) to excess reserves. It measures the willingness of banks to expand their balance sheets at a given level of excess reserves, assuming there is loan demand. Chart I-2 shows that China’s money multiplier has risen substantially since 2008 but has recently rolled over. A further drop in the money multiplier could offset the positive effect of monetary easing. Chart I-2China: Money Multiplier Is Falling China: Money Multiplier Is Falling China: Money Multiplier Is Falling In other words, the central bank is injecting more liquidity into the banking system and interbank rates are falling, but commercial banks may be unwilling or unable to originate more loans due to financial regulations, lack of loan demand or for other reasons. Notably, the growth rate of bank assets (including policy banks) remains lackluster, while non-bank (shadow) credit is decelerating (Chart I-3). Chart I-3China: Bank Credit And Non-Bank Credit China: Bank Credit And Non-Bank Credit China: Bank Credit And Non-Bank Credit The second variable is the willingness of companies and households to spend. This is captured by our proxies for marginal propensity to spend by companies and consumers. Chart I-4 denotes that both propensity measures are dropping, signifying a diminishing willingness to spend among these two sectors. Chart I-4China: Diminishing Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Companies China: Diminishing Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Companies China: Diminishing Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Companies If economic sentiment among businesses and households remains downbeat – which has been the case in China over the past six to nine months – their reduced expenditures could offset any positive impulse from increased credit origination. Economists think of nominal GDP (aggregate spending) as money supply times the velocity of money (Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money). New lending activity among banks increases money supply, while economic agents’ spending raises the velocity of money. If the velocity of money drops more than the rise in money supply, aggregate expenditure (nominal GDP growth) will decline. Chart I-5 illustrates that the velocity of money rose in 2017, supporting robust growth during this period, despite very lackluster money growth. The opposite phenomenon – a decline in the velocity of money offsetting faster money expansion – could be a risk to the positive view on Chinese growth in 2019. Chart I-5Velocity Of Money: Will It Resume Its Decline? Velocity Of Money: Will It Resume Its Decline? Velocity Of Money: Will It Resume Its Decline? Bottom Line: There is so far no clear evidence that the credit cycle has bottomed. Besides, a bottom in the credit impulse is not in and of itself sufficient to herald an economic recovery. Fiscal Stimulus Unlike in previous easing episodes, policymakers this time around have prioritized fiscal over monetary stimulus because of the already high leverage. In the past six months or so, the government has announced the following fiscal measures: A reduction in the personal income tax rate; Subtraction of certain household expenses from taxable personal income; A reduction in taxes and fees paid by small businesses; A potential VAT cut. These measures will certainly have a positive impact on small businesses and consumer spending. This is why we do not foresee a deepening slump in consumer spending. Nevertheless, the tax reductions and other policies benefiting small businesses and households are unlikely to boost industrial output and construction in China. The latter two are crucial for global investors because many countries are leveraged to China’s industrial and construction activity. For the industrial part of the economy, the most pertinent stimulus measure announced so far has been the issuance of local government special bonds. These bonds are used for infrastructure/public welfare projects. Chart I-6A shows the growth rates of aggregate fiscal spending and its components, which are expenditures by central and local governments as well as by government managed funds (GMFs). GMF spending – a form of quasi-government (off-balance sheet) spending – has surged in recent years and now accounts for 8.5% of GDP, which is more than twice larger than central government spending (Chart I-6B). Chart I-6AChina: Fiscal Spending Annual Growth... China: Fiscal Spending Annual Growth... China: Fiscal Spending Annual Growth... Chart I-6B…And As % Of Nominal GDP chart 6b ...And As % Of Nominal GDP ...And As % Of Nominal GDP Although the 2019 budget has not yet been released – it will be announced in March during the National People's Congress – there have been some announcements that we can use to gauge the potential fiscal spending impulse in 2019. On the positive side, Beijing has recently authorized local governments to begin issuing bonds in early 2019 before the overall budget is released in March. Local governments are sanctioned to issue RMB 810 trillion of special bonds, which is 60% of their 2018 quotas. This contrasts with the previous years' practice, when local governments only started to issue bonds in April after obtaining directives from Beijing. The earlier-than-usual quota authorization will allow local governments to issue bonds from the beginning of the year. There is no timeline as to when these bonds will be issued, but it is safe to assume that their issuance will occur in the first half of 2019. This, in turn, should boost infrastructure investments throughout 2019. On the negative side, government managed funds (GMFs) derive 85% of their revenues from land sales. Land sales are tumbling due to previous credit tightening and scarce access to financing among property developers. Chart I-7 demonstrates that land sales lag the credit cycle by nine months. As developers are no longer acquiring land, GMF revenues and spending are set to shrink over the next 12 months. This will, to a certain degree, offset the augmented special bonds issuance. Chart I-7China: Credit Leads Land Sales And Quasi-Fiscal Spending China: Credit Leads Land Sales And Quasi-Fiscal Spending China: Credit Leads Land Sales And Quasi-Fiscal Spending We performed a simulation on what would be the aggregate fiscal impulse in 2019 using the following assumptions: Central and local government spending growth rates are held constant at 2018 levels. Local government special bond issuance is RMB 1.62 trillion. This is twice the recently authorized quota. Hence, our simulation assumes a 20% increase in local government special bond issuance in 2019 over 2018, respectively. GMF land revenues drop by 25% – a comparable drop in land sales occurred in 2015. Table I-1 reveals that using these assumptions, the fiscal spending impulse in 2019 will be 0.1% of GDP down from 4% in 2018 (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-   Chart I-8China: Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse China: Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse China: Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse The next step is to combine this with our credit impulse forecast. We assume the 2019 year-end growth rate of credit to companies and households will be 9% in our pessimistic scenario, 10% in our baseline scenario and 11% in our optimistic scenario, compared with the December 2018 recorded rate of 10%. This entails no deleveraging at all. Under these assumptions, our forecasts for aggregate credit and fiscal impulses are 0.2% of GDP (pessimistic), 2.3% (baseline) and 4.4% (optimistic) (Table I-1). Presently, the credit and fiscal impulse is close to zero (Chart I-8). Bottom Line: China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse will bottom in the first half of 2019 (Chart I-8). However, this does not mean that EM/China plays have already bottomed and investors should chase the latest rebound in China-plays worldwide. We discuss the historical correlation between the credit and fiscal impulse and China-related financial markets below. What Is Different From Previous Stimulus Programs? The lack of stimulus targeting the real estate sector is the key difference between the current stimulus programs and those implemented in the past 10 years. The central government has so far abstained from stimulating the property market due to already existing speculative excesses there. This is very different from the policy easing that took place in 2008-‘09, 2012 and 2015-’16, when the authorities boosted property markets along with other sectors of the economy. Chart I-9 reveals that the 2015-‘17 residential property market revival and following boom was facilitated by the Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) program conducted by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) – which was de-facto the outright monetarization of real estate by the central bank.1 The authorities have so far been reluctant to use this PSL program again, and the odds are that housing sales and new construction will continue to decline (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Residential Property Market Is Deteriorating Residential Property Market Is Deteriorating Residential Property Market Is Deteriorating Chart I-10China: Construction Volumes Are Shrinking China: Construction Volumes Are Shrinking China: Construction Volumes Are Shrinking Importantly, the property market holds the key to consumer and business sentiment and, hence, their willingness to spend. The latter is crucial to the growth outlook. Overall, a deepening slump in real estate demand and prices could dent consumer and small business confidence as well as their spending. Meanwhile, shrinking construction volumes will dampen industrial sectors (Chart I-10). Investment Implications: A Replay Of 2016-‘17? How does the credit and fiscal impulse relate to financial markets globally that are leveraged to the Chinese economy? The top two panels of Chart I-11 show our money impulse as well as credit and fiscal spending impulse (CFI), while the bottom two panels contain EM share prices and industrial metals prices. There are a few observations to be made: Chart I-11China: Money And Credit/Fiscal Impulses, EM Stocks And Metals Prices China: Money And Credit/Fiscal Impulses, EM Stocks And Metals Prices China: Money And Credit/Fiscal Impulses, EM Stocks And Metals Prices First, the CFI has not yet bottomed – i.e., it has not confirmed the upturn in the money impulse. Second, as illustrated in this Chart, the bottoms in the money impulse as well as the CFI in July 2015 preceded the bottom in EM and commodities by six months, and their peaks led the top in financial markets - in January 2018 - by about 15 months. Besides, in 2012-‘13, the rise in both the money impulse and CFI did not do much to help EM stocks or industrial commodities prices. Third, the credit and fiscal impulse leads the global manufacturing PMI by several months as illustrated in Chart I-1 on page 1, as well as mainland’s capital goods imports (Chart I-12). Chart I-12China's Impact On Industrial Goods And Commodities China's Impact On Industrial Goods And Commodities China's Impact On Industrial Goods And Commodities On the whole, investors should consider buying China-related plays only after both the money impulse and the CFI bottom together which has not yet occurred. Besides, even if these indicators rise in tandem, the bottom in China-related financial market plays could be a few months later because these impulses have historically led markets. This is why we believe a final down leg in EM and China-related plays still lies ahead. Typically, the last/capitulation phase in bear markets is considerable and being early can be very painful. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend underweighting/playing EM and China-related risk assets on the short side. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Reiterating Our Overweight Stance Mexican financial markets have rebounded, outperforming their EM counterparts since mid-December. This outperformance has further upside because the AMLO administration is proving to be less populist and more pragmatic, especially relative to investors’ expectations. We are reiterating our recommendations to overweight Mexican markets, especially the currency, local fixed-income and sovereign credit, within respective EM portfolios due to the following considerations: The 2019 budget is a prime example of sensible rather than populist policies by the AMLO administration. The budget targets a primary surplus of 1% of GDP versus 0.8% of GDP in 2018 (Chart II-1). Notably, the 2019 budget envisages an absolute decline in nominal expenditures in 29 out of 56 categories. Chart II-1Fiscal Tightening In 2019 Fiscal Tightening In 2019 Fiscal Tightening In 2019 Such a restrained budget follows the conservative fiscal policy of the previous administration. In brief, the nation’s fiscal policy and public debt profile remain sound. Public spending will be increased mostly in the areas that are critical to boosting productivity. These include infrastructure spending, vocational training, promoting “financial deepening” and competition, eliminating graft and improving security. These efforts are critical to boosting business confidence, investment and ultimately productivity. On the revenue side, the budget has become much less reliant on oil revenues than before. The share of oil revenues in total government revenues historically hovered around 30%, but in 2018 it declined to 18%. The 2019 budget assumes an average oil price of $55 per barrel, a conservative projection. Investors have also been somewhat alarmed by the 16% hike in minimum wages, but this should be put into historical context. Chart II-2 illustrates that the minimum wage in real terms (deflated by consumer price inflation) dropped by 70% since its peak in 1976, before rising in the recent years. Chart II-2Historical Perspective On Minimum Wage Historical Perspective On Minimum Wage Historical Perspective On Minimum Wage Importantly, Mexico’s competitiveness problem does not stem from high wages but from a lack of productivity gains. Productivity has been stagnant, and wages in real terms have not risen in many years. Hence, the true test for the nation is to raise productivity, not curb wages. Remarkably, the Mexican peso is very cheap, as measured by the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs (Chart II-3). Hence, the minimum wage hike can be viewed as payback after decades of dramatic declines in the minimum wage in real terms. Chart II-3The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The central bank has overdone it with hiking interest rates: interest rates are currently among the highest of the mainstream EM economies, both in nominal and real terms (Chart II-4). Hence, local rates offer great value relative to other EMs (Chart II-4, bottom panel). Chart II-4High Real And Nominal Interest Rates High Real And Nominal Interest Rates High Real And Nominal Interest Rates Tight fiscal and monetary policies will curb domestic demand and promote disinflation. Money and credit growth remain very sluggish (Chart II-5). This is negative for consumer and business spending, but positive for investors in local currency bonds. Chart II-5Monetary Growth Is Weak Monetary Growth Is Weak Monetary Growth Is Weak The basis is that a retrenchment in domestic demand and thereby imports will help stabilize the trade balance amid low oil prices. Hence, this is on the margin a positive for the peso as well as for local currency bonds relative to their EM counterparts. Finally, Mexico will benefit from its ties to the U.S. economy, unlike many other EMs that are more exposed to China. Investment Recommendation We continue to recommend overweighting the peso and local currency bonds within an EM fixed-income portfolio. Currency traders should maintain our long MXN / short ZAR trade (Chart II-6, top two panels). Chart II-6Remain Overweight Mexican Currency And Fixed-Income Remain Overweight Mexican Currency And Fixed-Income Remain Overweight Mexican Currency And Fixed-Income Credit market investors should continue to overweight Mexican sovereign credit within an EM credit portfolio (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Finally, we are also reiterating our long Mexico position within an EM equity portfolio. While domestic demand growth and corporate profits will continue to disappoint, the declining risk premium on Mexican assets due to a re-assessment among investors of AMLO’s policies warrants a mild overweight in large caps and a sizable overweight in small caps relative to their EM peers. Colombia: Headed Into Another Downtrend The Colombian economy is set to undergo another phase of growth retrenchment: The government is planning to reduce the overall fiscal deficit from 4.5% to 2.4% of GDP by the end of 2019 (Chart III-1). Oil-related revenues make up under 10% of total government revenues, and they are shrinking as both oil production and prices have plunged. Chart III-1Fiscal Policy Will Tighten In 2019 Fiscal Policy Will Tighten In 2019 Fiscal Policy Will Tighten In 2019 As a result, the government should undertake major fiscal cutbacks and hike taxes to achieve the overall budget deficit target of 2.4%. Such substantial fiscal tightening will hurt domestic demand. Regarding the exchange rate, the central bank is pursuing a “hands-off” approach, which is likely to continue. Therefore, the currency is set to depreciate due to the large current account deficit and lack of sufficient foreign funding. Notably, the current account deficit excluding oil is -7% of GDP (Chart III-2, top panel), and the plunge in oil prices and weak domestic demand will cause FDI inflows to drop meaningfully (Chart III-2, bottom panel). Together, this points to further currency depreciation. Chart III-2BoP Dynamics Are Deteriorating BoP Dynamics Are Deteriorating BoP Dynamics Are Deteriorating Meanwhile, the central bank is not in a position to ease policy to offset the impact of fiscal tightening, as a weaker exchange rate historically leads to higher inflation (Chart III-3, top panel). In fact, given core inflation is at the upper end of the central bank’s target range (Chart III-3, bottom panel), a considerable currency depreciation could lead to rate hikes. Raising rates amid weakening growth is a recipe for considerable yield curve flattening. Chart III-3Weaker Currency = Higher Inflation Weaker Currency = Higher Inflation Weaker Currency = Higher Inflation Lending rates remain well above nominal GDP growth, and the banking system is still restructuring following years of a credit boom. Credit growth will remain weak, reinforcing weakness in domestic demand stemming from substantial fiscal tightening. Finally, consumer and business confidence seem to be faltering due to the negative attention surrounding Colombian President Iván Duque Márquez’s policies. The negative terms-of-trade shocks and the imminent fiscal tightening will reinforce worsening sentiment among economic agents. Profound cyclical headwinds to growth indicate that the economy is set to return to a growth recession – a very low but slightly positive growth rate. With respect to investment strategy, we recommend the following: First, we are downgrading this bourse from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. While overweighting Latin American stocks as a whole within an EM equity portfolio, we believe that Brazilian, Chilean and Mexican share prices offer a better risk-reward profile than Colombian ones (Chart III-4). Chart III-4Colombia Is Unlikely To Outperform LATAM Colombia Is Unlikely To Outperform LATAM Colombia Is Unlikely To Outperform LATAM Second, as to sovereign credit investors, we are reiterating an overweight stance because fiscal tightening and monetary policy orthodoxy as well as low government debt levels will help Colombian sovereign credit to outperform. Third, two opposing cross-currents will shape the domestic bond market. On the one hand, weak growth is positive for bonds. On the other hand, currency depreciation is negative. Net-net, investors in local currency government bonds should be slightly overweight or neutral this market within an EM local bond portfolio. For fixed-income investors, we recommend a new trade: position for yield curve flattening (Chart III-5). This is a bet on a considerable growth slowdown amid looming fiscal austerity. Chart III-5Colombia: Bet On Yield Curve Flattening Colombia: Bet On Yield Curve Flattening Colombia: Bet On Yield Curve Flattening Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?" dated April 6, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

The Fed’s near-term capitulation on its rates-normalization policy highlighted by our fixed-income desks will provide a tailwind for EM oil demand this year by weakening the USD. This will reduce refined-products’ costs in local-currency terms ex-U.S., as it buoys EM growth prospects.1 If, as we expect, Chinese policymakers also deploy modest stimulus, global oil demand still will remain on track to grow 1.4mm b/d this year, per our forecast. We are mindful of potential upside surprises on the demand side, particularly, if, as we noted in our last balances update, the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021 provokes policymakers to deploy large-scale stimulus in 2H19 or 2020.2 The odds of this occurring before 2H19 are low, and we are not yet raising our demand estimates. A partial defusing of the Sino – U.S. trade war is possible, as the 90-day negotiating window agreed at the December G20 meeting starts to close next month. This could trigger a short-term rally in commodities, but, absent durable agreements on the technology front, this potential thawing will be transitory. Highlights Energy: Overweight. China’s crude oil imports surged 30% y/y in December 2018, which helped lift total 2018 imports by 10% vs. 2017 levels. This partly was the result of independent refiners scrambling to use up 2018 import quotas at year-end, so that they could retain those levels this year, according to S&P Global’s Platts.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s copper ore and concentrate imports were down 11.5% y/y in December – the largest y/y decline since May 2017 – in line with slowing growth there. Precious Metals: Neutral. We expect gold to continue to rally over the next 3 – 6 months on the back of a weaker USD in 1H19, as the Fed likely pauses on its rate-hiking schedule. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains likely will get a short-term price lift as the Fed dials back its rates-normalization policy. Feature For the moment, the Fed’s apparent capitulation on its rates-normalization policy reduces the risk the U.S. central bank will err on the side of being overly aggressive, which would have thrown a spanner into EM growth prospects this year. An easier Fed monetary policy will buoy EM GDP and weaken the USD over the short term, which will, support oil prices via stronger demand (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekEM GDP Growth On Track, Keeping Oil Demand Growth On Track EM GDP Growth On Track, Keeping Oil Demand Growth On Track EM GDP Growth On Track, Keeping Oil Demand Growth On Track On the supply side, we remain convinced OPEC 2.0 is resolved to drain the global inventory overhang as quickly as possible. This unintended inventory accumulation resulted from OPEC 2.0’s production surge and the granting of waivers on U.S. export sanctions against Iran by the Trump administration in November (Chart 2). This conviction was strengthened earlier this week, following the announcement of a proposed earlier-than-expected meeting of the coalition’s market monitoring committee in Baku, Azerbaijan, in mid-March to assess global supply and demand conditions. This could be followed by a full OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna in mid-April, following up on their December meeting in Vienna, according to S&P Global Platts.4 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Is Resolved To Drain Inventory Overhang OPEC 2.0 Is Resolved To Drain Inventory Overhang OPEC 2.0 Is Resolved To Drain Inventory Overhang Pieces Of The Price Puzzle Falling Into Place The Fed is signaling it has put its rates normalization policy on hold, given indications global economic growth is slowing in a manner similar to what occurred in 2014 – 15. Then, the U.S. central bank was attempting to escape the zero lower bound of its monetary policy, following the end of its QE program. In the event, the Fed only raised rates once in December 2015, as the slowdown in growth stayed its hand. Our colleagues at BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy note, “the downturn in cyclical growth indicators like manufacturing purchasing managers indices (PMI) and the global leading economic indicator (LEI) … reached levels last seen after that 2014/15 episode” as 2019 unfolded (Chart 3).5 The slowdown in global growth could stabilize, as the LEI diffusion index suggests, but the Fed, at least for now, appears to be comfortable waiting for clear evidence this is the case. Chart 3Global Growth Slowdown Provokes Fed Restraint Global Growth Slowdown Provokes Fed Restraint Global Growth Slowdown Provokes Fed Restraint In and of itself, the Fed’s near-term capitulation to the market will not be sufficient to reverse the “darkening prospects” foreseen by the World Bank in its most recent forecast, but it will be supportive of oil prices.6 On the back of our expectation the Fed will take a break from its rate-normalization, we are expecting a weaker USD over the short term, which will support oil demand and EM GDP growth. All else equal, this will create a tailwind for oil prices, given EM is the main driver of demand growth (Chart 4). Chart 4USD Near-Term Trajectory Will Support Oil Prices USD Near-Term Trajectory Will Support Oil Prices USD Near-Term Trajectory Will Support Oil Prices The Chart of the Week introduces a new model we developed to understand the effect of EM GDP growth on oil prices. The level of EM demand is mean reverting to a linear trend, and anchors other variables – oil prices and FX rates, for example – that oscillate randomly with the arrival of new information to the market. Our modeling indicates Brent and WTI prices can be expected to increase (decrease) 94bp and 73bp for every 1 percent increase (decrease) in EM GDP, assuming the broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) for the USD remains unchanged. A 1 percent decrease (increase) in the USD TWIB (holding EM GDP constant) translates into an increase (decrease) in Brent and WTI prices of ~ 4.0% and 3.6%, respectively. We have found EM GDP levels to be as useful an explanatory variable for Brent and WTI prices as non-OECD oil consumption, our proxy for EM demand. Indeed, it is perhaps even cleaner, since using it directly in our models does not require us to estimate an income elasticity of demand for EM economies, in order to forecast prices.7 We are not raising our expectation for demand growth on the back of the Fed’s apparent moderation in its rates policy. We are keeping our 2019 demand growth estimate at 1.4mm b/d, with 1.0mm b/d of that coming from EM and the remainder from DM. Should the Fed signal a further pause in its rates-normalization policy – extending perhaps deep into 2H19 – we would be inclined to raise our demand-growth estimates. Additional Stimulus Coming From China? China is not the be-all and end-all of EM growth. All the same, next to the U.S., it is the second-largest consumer in the world, accounting for ~ 14% of the 103.75mm b/d of global demand we expect this year. Next in line is India, which accounts for ~ 5% of global demand. The news coming out of China at the moment is confusing. While the Xi administration prosecutes its “Three Tough Battles” – i.e., deleveraging, pollution and poverty – it also is pulling policy levers to counter the economic damage inflicted by its trade war with the U.S.8 Government policymakers are signaling fiscal and monetary stimulus will be forthcoming via tax cuts and bond issuance this year, to counter these headwinds.9 However, we do not expect a massive deployment of stimulus. More than likely, the big stimulative measures arrive in 2H19 or next year. The key target dates for policymakers are further in the future, and are focused on the upcoming 100th Anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021. By 2020, the Xi administration is targeting a doubling of real GDP vs. 2010 levels, and a doubling of rural and urban incomes (Chart 5). Chart 5China Keeping Powder Dry For 2021 "Centenary Goal" China Keeping Powder Dry For 2021 "Centenary Goal" China Keeping Powder Dry For 2021 "Centenary Goal" So the real stimulus out of China likely comes later this year or next year. As our Geopolitical Strategy service notes: “If China launches a large-scale stimulus now, peak output will occur in 2020 and the economy will be decelerating into 2021. This would be bad timing for the centenary. It would make more sense for China to save some dry powder for 2019 or 2020 to ensure a positive economic backdrop in 2021.” There is, as we noted in our last balances update, a low-probability chance stimulus could surprise to the upside if growth – particularly employment – falls precipitously. For now, we are comfortable with our House view that the more extensive fiscal and monetary stimulus will be saved for later this year or next in the run-up to the Communist Party’s anniversary.10 Bottom Line: The Fed appears to have capitulated to markets in the short term, and likely will hold off on another rate hike in 1H19. All else equal, this will weaken the USD and buoy EM GDP over the short term. Together, these effects will keep oil demand on track to growth 1.4mm b/d, per our forecast. Markets are reacting to news of fiscal and monetary stimulus coming out of China. We have been expecting modest stimulus to be deployed this year, most likely in 2H19. We continue to expect a larger package of fiscal and monetary stimulus later in the year and next year in the run-up to the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see “Enough With the Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis,” published January 15, 2019, by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy. It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. See also “Buy Corporate Credit,” published by BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy January 15, 2019. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see “Oil Volatility Will Persist; 2019 Brent Forecast Lowered to $80/bbl,” published January 3, 2019, by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “China’s 2018 crude oil imports rise 10% to 9.28 mil b/d,” published by S&P Global Platts January 14, 2019, online. 4      OPEC 2.0 ministerial meetings usually are held in May/June and again November/December. Please see “OPEC eyes mid-March monitoring committee meeting, mid-April full ministerial,” published by S&P Platts Global January 14, 2019. The cartel also will meet in early February to put the finishing touches on a charter formalizing the coalition. We will be delving deeper into the supply side next week, when we update our balances. 5      Please see footnote 1 above. 6      The World Bank’s most recent forecast can be found in its Global Economic Prospects, published January 8, 2019. The lead article is entitled “Darkening Skies.” 7      We use forecasts of EM GDP and GDP growth published by the World Bank and IMF in our modeling. This is useful for us for a number of reasons, particularly since it is calculated externally by well-regarded global institutions tasked with this function. Like other estimates and projections – e.g., the EIA’s, IEA’s and OPEC’s supply/demand estimates – we can take a view on these data relative to our House view or our own Commodity & Energy Strategy view. NB: Because these are cointegrated systems, regressions in levels is appropriate. 8      This campaign is discussed in depth in “China Sticks To The ‘Three Battles’,” published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy October 24, 2018. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9      Please see “China signals more stimulus as economic slowdown deepens,” published by uk.reuters.com January 15, 2019. 10     Please see footnote 2 above. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018 Image

Highlights So What? Our “Black Swan” risks for the year reveal several potential wars. Why? While we think it is premature to expect armed conflict over Taiwan, an outbreak of serious tensions is possible. Russia and Ukraine may have a shared incentive to go renew hostilities this year. Saudi Arabia has received a “blank cheque” from Donald Trump, so it may continue to be provocative. Everyone has forgotten about the Balkans … but tensions are building. A “Lame Duck” Trump could stage a military intervention in Venezuela. Feature Over the past three years, we have compiled a list of five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s list of “Ten Surprises for 2018,” we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.”1 Instead, we believe that the market is seriously underpricing these risks by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Furthermore, some of our events below are obscure enough that it is unclear how exactly to price them. But before we get to our list of the five things that keep us up at night,2 a quick note on the question for financial markets in 2019: Will the economic policy divergence between the U.S. and China continue? At the moment, momentum is building behind the narrative that both the U.S. and China have decided to reflate. In anticipation of this narrative switch, we closed our long DM / short EM equity trade on December 3, 2018 for a 15.70% return (originally opened on March 6, 2018). How sustainable is the EM outperformance relative to DM? Will the rest of the world “catch up” to U.S. growth momentum, thus hurting the U.S. dollar in the process? The global central bank – the Fed – is already expected to “back off,” even though members of the FOMC have simply pointed out that they remain data-dependent. Granting our BCA House View that the U.S. economy remains in decent health, U.S. economic data will continue to come in strong through the course of the year. This means that there is scope for a hawkish Fed surprise for the markets, given that the interest rate market already has dovish expectations, anticipating 4.33 basis points and 16.74 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months respectively (Chart 1). Chart 1 Meanwhile, the global demand engine – China – may disappoint in its reflationary efforts. We refer to China as the “global demand engine” because the combined imports and capex of China and other emerging markets dwarf that of the U.S. and EU (Chart 2 and Chart 3).3 Chinese imports alone make up $1.6 trillion, constituting 23% of the $7 trillion total of EM imports and about half of EM investment expenditures. Given that large swaths of EM are high-beta to the Chinese economy, the EM-plus-China slice of the global demand pie is leveraged to Beijing’s reflationary policies. Chart 2EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chart 3EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chinese policymakers have gestured toward greater support for the economy. The communiqué published following the Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) in December called for a broad stabilization of aggregate demand as a focus of macro policy over the course of 2019. The language was still not very expansionary, but Beijing has launched stimulus despite relatively muted communiqués in the past. The massive stimulus of early 2016, for instance, followed a mixed CEWC communiqué in December 2015. So everything depends on the forthcoming data. Broad money and credit growth improved marginally in December, while the State Council announced that local government bond issuance could begin at the start of the year rather than waiting until spring. Meanwhile, a coordinated announcement by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Finance, and the National Development and Reform Commission declares that a larger tax cut is forthcoming – that is, in addition to the roughly 1% of GDP household tax cuts that went into effect starting late last year. Monetary policy remains very lax with liquidity injections and additional RRR cuts. Before investors become overly bullish, however, we would note that Chinese policymakers are focusing their reflationary efforts on fiscal spending and supply-side reforms like tax cuts. The problem with the latter is that household tax cuts will not add much to global demand, given that consumer goods make up just 15% of China’s imports (Table 1). The vast majority of Chinese imports stem from the country’s capital spending. Table 1China’s Consumer-Oriented Stimulus Will Boost Different Imports Than Past Stimulus Five Black Swans In 2019 Five Black Swans In 2019 Fiscal spending, meanwhile, is as large as the overall credit origination in the Chinese economy (Chart 4). But without a revival in credit growth, more spending will mainly serve to stabilize the economy, not light it on fire. It is likely that part of the fiscal pump-priming will be greater issuance of local government bonds. However, even the recently announced 1.39 trillion RMB quota for new bonds this year is not impressive. And even a 2 trillion RMB increase would only be equivalent to a single month of large credit expansion (Chart 5). Chart 4China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending   Chart 5 As such, tactically nimble investors could profit from a reflationary narrative that sees both the global central bank – the Fed – and the global fiscal engine – China – turning more dovish and supportive of growth. However, we agree with BCA’s Emerging Markets Chief Strategist Arthur Budaghyan, who is on record saying that “Going Tactically Long EM Is Akin To Collecting Pennies In Front Of A Steamroller.” The bottom line for investors is that 2019 is the first year in a decade where the collective intention of policymakers – across the world – is to prepare for the next recession, rather than to prevent a deflationary relapse. This cognitive shift may be slight, but it is important. The Fed and Beijing are engaged in a macroeconomic game of chicken. Each camp is trying to avoid having to over-reflate at the end of the cycle. For the Fed, the goal is to have room to cut rates sufficiently when the recession finally hits. For China, the goal is to ensure that its leverage does not get out of hand. Into this uncertain macroeconomic context we now insert the five Black Swans for 2019. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months; Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk; Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of BCA’s geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events – such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe – do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: China Goes To War With Taiwan One could argue that a military conflict between China and Taiwan in 2019 should not technically qualify for our list, as there has been chatter in the media about such an outcome. Indeed, our recent travels across Asia revealed that clients are taking a much greater interest in our longstanding view – since January 2016 – that Taiwan is the premier geopolitical Black Swan. We established this view well before President Trump won the election and received a congratulatory call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, breaking diplomatic practice since 1979. Now, at the beginning of 2019, the exchange of barbs between the Chinese and Taiwanese presidents has raised tensions anew (Chart 6).4 Chart 6Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Nonetheless, Taiwan makes the cut here because we doubt that most of our global clients take the issue seriously. Furthermore, we are concerned that – with fair odds of a U.S.-China trade truce lasting through 2019 – cross-strait tensions could fall out of sight. The basis of our view is that there is a unique confluence of political developments in Beijing, Washington, and Taipei that is conducive toward a diplomatic or military incident that could escalate tensions: Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in addition to taking the presidency in 2016, won control of the legislature for the first time ever (Chart 7). This means that domestic political constraints on President Tsai Ing-wen’s administration are lower than usual. Tsai has angered Beijing by seeking stronger relations with the U.S. and refusing to endorse the 1992 Consensus, which holds that there is only “One China” albeit two interpretations. China’s General Secretary Xi Jinping has removed term limits and placed greater emphasis on the reunification of Taiwan. Xi has consolidated power domestically and has pursued a more aggressive foreign policy throughout his term, including in the South China Sea, where greater naval control would enable China to threaten Taiwan’s supply security. Xi’s blueprint for his “New Era” includes the reunification of China, and some have argued that there is a fixed timetable for reunification with Taiwan by 2050 or even 2035.5 Some recent military drills can be seen as warnings to Taiwan. U.S. President Trump called the One China Policy into question at the outset of his term in office (only later reaffirming it), and has presided over an increase in U.S. strategic pressure against China, such as the trade war and freedom of navigation operations, including in the Taiwan Strait. Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton and Assistant Defense Secretary Randall Schriver are seen as Taiwan hawks, while the just-concluded Republican Congress passed the Taiwan Travel Act and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA), which imply an upgrade to the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s democracy and security.6 Chart 7 These three factors suggest that, cyclically, there is larger room than usual for incidents to occur that initiate a vicious cycle of tensions. The odds of a full-fledged war are still very low – the U.S. has reaffirmed the One China Policy in its recent negotiations with Beijing, which seem to be progressing, while China has not changed its official position on Taiwan. Beijing’s reunification timetable still has a comfortable 30 years to go. The Chinese economy has not collapsed, so there is no immediate need for Beijing to dive headlong into a nationalist foreign policy adventure that could bring on World War III. However, the odds of diplomatic incidents, or military saber rattling, that then trigger a dangerous escalation and a multi-month period of extremely elevated tensions are much higher than the market recognizes. This is because the U.S. and China may still see strategic tensions flare even if they make progress on a trade deal, while a failure on the trade front could spark a spillover into strategic areas. Any cross-strait incident would be relevant to global investors – and not just Taiwanese assets, which would suffer the brunt of economic sanctions – because the slightest increase in the odds of a full-scale war would be extremely negative for global risk appetite. Over the next 12 months, we would mostly expect Beijing to eschew high-profile provocations. The reason is that President Tsai is unpopular and the recent local elections in Taiwan saw her DPP lose seats to the more China-friendly Kuomintang (Chart 8). An aggressive posture could revive the DPP ahead of the January 2020 presidential election, the opposite of what Beijing wants.7 Chart 8 On the other hand, Beijing could decide to ignore the 1996 precedent and choose outright military intimidation. Or it could attempt to meddle in Taiwan’s domestic politics, as it has been accused of doing in the recent local elections.8 Meanwhile, the U.S. and Taiwan are the more likely instigators of an incident over these 12 months, knowingly or not. Washington and Taipei have a window of opportunity to achieve a few concrete objectives while Presidents Tsai and Trump are still in office – which cannot be guaranteed after 2020. A similar window of opportunity caused a market-relevant spike in China-South Korea tensions back in 2015-17, when the United States, seeing that the right-wing Park Geun-hye administration was falling out of power, attempted to rush through the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea. As a result, China imposed economic sanctions on its neighbor (Chart 9). Chart 9China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD Something similar could transpire over the next year if the U.S. sends a high-level official – say, Bolton, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or even Vice President Mike Pence – to hold talks in Taiwan. Or if the U.S. stages a major show of force in the Taiwan Strait, as it threatened in October, or U.S. naval vessels call on Taiwanese ports. The U.S. could also announce bigger or better arms packages (Chart 10), such as submarine systems, which have been cleared by the Department of State. Given the elevated U.S.-China and China-Taiwan tensions overall, such an incident could cause a bigger escalation than the different participants expect – and even more so than the market currently expects. Chart 10U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing Bottom Line: Cyclically, the period between now and the inauguration of the next Taiwanese president in May 2020 brings heightened risk of a geopolitical incident. Depending on what happens in 2020, tensions could rise or fall for a time. Yet structurally, as Sino-American strategic distrust continues to build, Taiwan will continually find itself at the center of the storm. Black Swan 2: Russia And Ukraine Agree To Go To War Tensions are mounting between Russia and Ukraine in the run-up to the March 31 Ukrainian presidential election. Incumbent President, Petro Poroshenko, has been trailing in the polls for a year. His rival is the populist Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been leading both first-round and second-round polling. Both Poroshenko and Tymoshenko have, at various points in their careers, been accused of being pro-Russian. Poroshenko’s business interests, as with most successful Ukrainian businesspeople, include considerable holdings in Russia. Tymoshenko, on the other hand, was imprisoned from 2011 to 2014 for negotiating a gas imports contract with Russia that allegedly hurt Ukrainian interests. With the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine either cleaved off (Crimea) or in a state of lawlessness (Donetsk and Luhansk), the median voter in the country has become considerably more nationalist and anti-Russian. It therefore serves no purpose for any politician to campaign on a platform of normalizing relations with Moscow. In this context, the decision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople – the first-among-equals of the Christian Orthodox churches – to grant autocephaly (sovereignty) to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in January is part of the ongoing evolution of Ukraine into an independent entity from Russia. This process could create tensions, particularly as parts of the country continue to be engaged in military conflict (Map 1). From Moscow’s perspective, the autocephaly grants Ukraine religious – and therefore some semblance of cultural – independence from Russia. This solidifies the loss of a 43-million person crown jewel from the Russian sphere of influence. Chart Moscow is also not averse to stoking tensions. Although President Putin’s mandate will last until 2024, his popularity is nearly at the lowest level this decade. Orthodox monetary and fiscal policy, along with pension reforms, have sapped his political capital at home. In 2014, tensions over Ukraine spurred nationalist sentiment in Russia, rapidly increased popular support for both Putin and his government (Chart 11). Putin may calculate that another such recapitalization may be needed. Chart 11Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression The danger is therefore that domestic politics in both Ukraine and Russia may create a window of opportunity for a skirmish this quarter. Perhaps something akin to the naval tensions around the Kerch Strait that ultimately cost President Putin a summit with President Trump at the G20 meeting in December. While these incidents may benefit both sides domestically, and may even appear carefully orchestrated, they could also get out of hand in unpredictable ways. Bottom Line: While both Kiev and Russia may see a short-termed conflict as domestically beneficial, such an outcome could have unforeseen consequences. At the very least, it could sap already poor business confidence in neighboring Europe, as it did in 2014-2015. Black Swan 3: Saudi Arabia With A Blank Cheque One of the greatest geopolitical blunders of the twentieth century was Berlin’s decision to give its ally Austro-Hungary a “blank cheque.” Austro-Hungary was an anachronism at the turn of the century – a multiethnic empire held together by allegiance to a royal family. As such, the ideology of nationalism represented an existential threat, particularly given that 60% of the empire’s population was neither Austrian nor Hungarian. Following the assassination of its crown prince Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a pan-Slavist terrorist in Sarajevo, Vienna decided that a total destruction of Serbia was necessary for geopolitical and domestic political reasons. Today, Saudi Arabia is in many ways an anachronism itself. It is the world’s last feudal monarchy. Its leaders understand the risks and have begun an ambitious and multifaceted reform effort. Unlike Austro-Hungary, Saudi Arabia has learned to embrace nationalism. Riyadh is using the war in Yemen, as well as targeted actions against its own royal family and the religious establishment, to build a modern nation-state. The problem is that, much as nationalism was an ideological kryptonite for Vienna, democratic Islamism is an existential problem for Riyadh and its peers among the Gulf monarchies. Neighboring Qatar, a tiny peninsular kingdom enjoying an oversized geopolitical influence due to its natural gas wealth, has supported various groups across the Middle East that believe that democracy and conservative Islam are compatible. Turkey and Qatar have often cooperated in this effort, as the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey has served as a model for many such Islamist parties in the region. Why Qatar hitched its geopolitical wagon to democratic Islamism is not clear. Perhaps its leaders felt that it was the only option unclaimed by an energy-rich sponsor. Regardless, Qatar’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and other such groups has clearly irked Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, enough for them to kick Qatar out of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In 2017, with the pro-Saudi Trump administration ascendant in the White House, Riyadh felt emboldened enough to break off all diplomatic relations with Qatar and impose an economic blockade. Since 2014, another dynamic has emerged in the region that raises further concerns: a scramble for material resources brought on by the end of +$100 per barrel oil prices. Saudi public expenditures have been steadily rising since 2008, both due to population growth, social welfare spending in the wake of Arab Spring rebellions, and astronomical defense spending to counter the rising influence of Iran. And yet, 2014 saw oil prices plunge to decade lows in a matter of months. Saudi Arabia’s fiscal breakeven oil price has doubled, in a decade, from under $40 per barrel to $83 per barrel in 2018 (Chart 12). Meanwhile, Qatar’s GDP is a quarter of that of Saudi Arabia, even though its population is less than 2% of Saudi Arabia’s. Chart 12Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Rumors that the U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis prevented a Saudi invasion of Qatar in 2018 have largely been dismissed by the mainstream media. But should they be? If allegedly “rogue elements” of the Saudi intelligence establishment can dismember a journalist in a consulate, why couldn’t “rogue elements” of its military stage a coup – or an outright invasion – in neighboring Qatar? Such an outcome would truly be extraordinary, but so was the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Meanwhile, President Trump offered an extraordinary level of support for Riyadh by issuing what we can only refer to as a “blank cheque” following Khashoggi’s murder. In the November 20 statement, President Trump essentially created a new policy doctrine of standing with Saudi Arabia “no matter what.”9 Two weeks later, Riyadh “thanked” the U.S. President by slashing the OPEC oil output by 1.2 million barrels per day. From this dynamic, it appears that Washington has made a similar strategic blunder in 2018 that Berlin did in 1914. A weakened, stressed, and threatened ally has been given a “blank cheque” by its stronger ally. Such a sweeping offer of support may lead to unintended consequences as the weaker ally feels that its material and geopolitical constraints can be overcome. In Saudi Arabia’s case, that could mean a more aggressive policy towards Qatar, or perhaps Iran. Particularly now that the White House has seen several realist members of the Trump cabinet – such as Mattis and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – replaced by Iran hawks and Trump loyalists. Bottom Line: A combination of less independent-minded cabinet members in the White House and a clear “blank cheque” from President Trump to Saudi Arabia could cause geopolitical risk to re-emerge in the Middle East. In the near term, this could increase the geopolitical risk premium on oil prices – as measured by the residual in Chart 13. Chart 13 Black Swan 4: The Balkans Become A Powder Keg … Again Bismarck famously said in 1888 – 26 years before the outbreak of the Great War, that “one day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” The Balkans are far less geopolitically relevant today than in the early twentieth century. They are also exhausted following a decade-long Yugoslav rigor mortis in the 1990s which yielded at least three regional wars and now six (or seven, depending who is counting) independent states. The problem is that tensions have not disappeared. Two frozen conflicts remain. First, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sovereign country made up of two political entities, with the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska agitating for independence and aligning with Russia. Second, tensions between Serbia and Kosovo took a turn for the worse late last year as Kosovo imposed an economic embargo on trade with Serbia and called for the creation of a military. Has anything really changed over the course of the decade? We think there are three causes for alarm: Tensions between Russia and the West have become serious, with both camps looking to score tactical and strategic wins across the globe. With the Syrian Civil War all but over, a new battleground may emerge. While Republika Srpska is essentially an outright ally of Russia, Serbia continues to try to straddle the fine line between an EU enlargement candidate and geopolitical neutrality. However, this high-wire act is becoming untenable as… Enlargement fatigue sets in the EU. There is no doubt that the EU enlargement process froze Balkan conflicts. Countries like Serbia and Kosovo have an incentive to be on their best behavior so long as the prospect of eventual EU membership remains. But in the current environment of introspection, the EU may not have enough of a coherent geopolitical vision to deal with the Balkans without a crisis. The global economic cycle may be ending, leading to a global recession in the next 12-to-24 months. While our BCA House View remains that the next recession will be a mild one in the U.S., we think that EM and, by extension, frontier markets could be the eye of the storm in the next downturn. As investors abandon their “search for yield” in riskier geographies, they could exacerbate poor governance, political tensions, and geopolitical cleavages that have been frozen in place by the last economic cycle. Finally, U.S. policy towards the Balkans is unclear. In the past, the U.S. asked all countries in the region to accept the status quo and prepare for EU integration. But with the U.S. now adopting an antagonistic view towards the EU bloc, it is unclear what Washington’s message to the Balkans will be. After all, Trump has personally encouraged all other world leaders to don their own version of the “America First” slogan. The only problem in a place like the Balkans is that “Serbia first” – or Croatia and Kosovo first – is unlikely to go down smoothly in the neighborhood, given the last twenty – or even hundred – years. Bottom Line: The powder keg that is the Balkans has not been dried for decades. However, several tailwinds of stability are gone, replaced with macro headwinds. A renewed conflict on Europe’s doorstep could be the next great geopolitical crisis. If this were to occur, we would bank on greater European integration, especially in terms of military and foreign policy. However, it could also mark the first break in U.S.-EU foreign policy if the two decide to pick opposing sides in the region. Black Swan 5: Lame Duck Trump For our final Black Swan, we are sticking with one of our 2018 choices: a “Lame duck” presidency. “Lame duck” presidents – leaders whose popularity late in their terms have sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy – are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.10 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents can seek relevance abroad. President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains strong (Chart 14), his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 15). Now there is also a Democrat-led House of Representatives to stymie his domestic policy and launch independent investigations into both his administration’s conduct and his personal finances and dealings. Chart 14 Chart 15 We would also add the Senate to the list of problems for President Trump. The electoral math was friendly towards the Republicans in 2018, with Democrats defending 10 Senate seats in states that President Trump won in 2016. In 2020, however, two-thirds of the races will be for Republican-held seats. As such, many Republican senators may begin campaigning early by moving away from President Trump. What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2019? Last year, we identified “China-U.S. trade war,” “Iran jingoism,” and “North Korea” as potentials. In many ways, 2018 was the year when all three mattered. Going forward, however, we think that trade war and the Middle East might take a backseat. First, the bear market in equities has raised the odds of a recession. As such, the potential cost of pursuing the trade war further has been increased. So has an aggressive policy towards Iran that dramatically boosts oil prices. Furthermore, President Trump has signaled that he is willing to withdraw from the Middle East, calling for a full withdrawal from Syria and telegraphing one from Afghanistan. Instead, we see President Trump potentially following in the footsteps of previous U.S. administrations and finding relevance in Latin America. A military intervention in Venezuela, to ostensibly support a coup against the current regime, would find little opposition domestically. First, there is no doubt that Venezuela has become a genuine humanitarian disaster. Second, its oil output is on a downward spiral already, with only 1 million b/d of production at risk due to a potential military conflict (Chart 16). Third, the new Bolsonaro administration in Brazil may even support an intervention, as well as neighboring Colombia. This is a change from the last twenty years, in which Latin American countries largely stuck together, despite ideological differences, in opposition to U.S. interference in the continent’s domestic affairs. Chart 16On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral Finally, even the anti-Trump U.S. foreign policy establishment may support an intervention. Not only is there the issue of human suffering, but Russia and China have used Venezuela as an anchor to build out influence in America’s sphere of influence. Furthermore, the potential promise of Venezuela’s eventual energy production is another reason to consider an American intervention (Chart 17). Chart 17 Bottom Line: American presidents rarely decide to go softly into that good night. It is very difficult to see President Trump become irrelevant. With tensions with China carrying a high economic cost and military interventions in the Middle East remaining politically toxic in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan wars, perhaps President Trump will decide to go “retro,” in the sense of a throwback Latin America intervention.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see, Blackstone, “Byron Wien Announces Ten Surprises For 2018,” dated January 2, 2018, available at blackstone.com. 2 A shoutout to another doyen of the financial industry, Alastair Newton! 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Deciphering Global Trade Linkages,” dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Highlights of Xi’s speech at Taiwan message anniversary event,” China Daily, January 2, 2019, available at www.chinadaily.com.cn; and “President Tsai Issues Statement On China’s President Xi’s ‘Message To Compatriots In Taiwan,’” Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan), January 2, 2019, available at english.president.gov.tw. 5 Please see Xi Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” section 3.12, October 18, 2017, available at www.xinhuanet.com; and Deng Yuwen, “Is China Planning To Take Taiwan By Force In 2020?” South China Morning Post, July 20, 2018, available at beta.scmp.com. 6 Please see United States, H.R. 535, Taiwan Travel Act, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov and S. 2736, Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov. 7 This is precisely what occurred when China chose missile tests in 1995-96 and drove voters toward the very candidate, Lee Teng-hui, that Beijing least desired. The popular Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je may run for president in 2020, and Beijing may see him as preferable to President Tsai. He has spoken of China and Taiwan as being part of the same family and he has held city-to-city talks between Shanghai and Taipei despite the shutdown in direct talks between Beijing and Taipei. 8 Please see Andrew Sharp, “Beijing likely meddled in Taiwan elections, US cybersecurity firm says,” Nikkei Asian Review, November 28, 2018, available at asia.nikkei.com. 9 Please see “Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia,” The White House, dated November 20, 2018, available at whitehouse.org. 10 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him, while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the “surge” of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Corporates: The same indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are once again sending a positive signal. Investors should tactically increase exposure to corporate bonds at the expense of Treasuries. Duration: Treasury yields will rise in the coming months as credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has fallen too far, and it is now well below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. Feature We continue to view the 2015/16 episode as the appropriate comparable for current market behavior, and the same indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are once again sending a positive signal. As such, we recommend increasing portfolio allocations to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds at the expense of Treasury securities (see the Recommended Portfolio Specification Table on the last page of this report). Importantly, our cyclical view of the credit cycle has not changed. Elevated corporate debt balances and a relatively flat yield curve suggest that we are in the awkward middle phase of the cycle when excess returns from corporate credit tend to be positive, but low.1  However, recent spread widening has been excessive for this middle phase of the cycle, and we expect spreads to tighten from oversold levels during the next few months. Three Reasons To Upgrade Credit (& One Key Risk) Reason 1: Elevated Spreads The first reason to upgrade corporate credit is the attractive entry point (Chart 1). Outside of the Aaa space, 12-month breakeven spreads for every credit tier (encompassing both investment grade and junk) are above their respective historical medians. For example, the 12-month breakeven spread for the Baa credit tier is at 59%. This means that the spread has been tighter than its current level 59% of the time since 1988 and wider than its current level 41% of the time. Historically, spreads tend to hover within the tight-end of their historical range during this middle phase of the credit cycle, and only cheapen significantly when the yield curve inverts and the default rate moves higher. Chart 1Corporate Bonds: Attractive Entry Point Corporate Bonds: Attractive Entry Point Corporate Bonds: Attractive Entry Point Reason 2: Fed Capitulation The 2015/16 roadmap is applicable to the current market because in both cases credit spread widening was driven by the combination of weaker global growth and relatively hawkish Fed policy.2 With that in mind, an important pre-condition for spread tightening is a shift in the market’s expectations for Fed policy. Investor psyche must change from viewing monetary policy as restrictive to viewing it as accommodative. Chart 2 shows the three indicators we’ve been monitoring to signal when this shift occurs. All three called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads, and all are sending a strong buy signal at the moment. Chart 2Fed Capitulation Indicators Send A Strong Signal... Fed Capitulation Indicators Send A Strong Signal... Fed Capitulation Indicators Send A Strong Signal... Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter, the change in the fed funds rate that is priced into the overnight index swap curve for the next 12 months, has collapsed from an early-November peak of 66 bps all the way to -4 bps (Chart 2, top panel). The gold price has also rebounded smartly (Chart 2, panel 2). Gold tends to rally when the market perceives that monetary policy is becoming more accommodative because the increased risk of future inflation makes gold’s “store of value” characteristics more appealing.3 Finally, the trade-weighted dollar has started to depreciate (Chart 2, bottom panel). This signals that U.S. monetary policy is easing relative to the rest of the world, and is historically correlated with stronger global growth. Reason 3: Imminent Global Growth Rebound The high-frequency global growth indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are not sending as strong a signal as the monetary policy indicators, but there has been some positive movement (Chart 3). Chart 3...While There Is Positive Movement In Global Growth Indicators ...While There Is Positive Movement In Global Growth Indicators ...While There Is Positive Movement In Global Growth Indicators The CRB Raw Industrials index has only flattened-off in recent weeks (Chart 3, top panel), but the Market-Based China Growth Indicator created by our China Investment Strategy team has been rising quickly (Chart 3, panel 2).4  Finally, the price of global industrial mining stocks is no longer in free-fall. Rather, it is showing some signs of stabilization (Chart 3, bottom panel). Of the six indicators shown in Charts 2 and 3, four are sending strong buy signals and the other two are more or less neutral. In sum, we think this is enough of a signal to upgrade exposure to corporate bonds. One Key Risk The key risk to our tactical upgrade is that there is no follow-through from Fed easing to stronger global growth. In 2016, Fed capitulation coincided with a ramp-up in Chinese stimulus efforts. Chart 4 shows that our China Investment Strategy team’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator moved sharply higher in early 2016.5 Moreover, all six components of the indicator participated in the uptrend. At present, only some components of the Leading Index have rebounded and the overall index has merely leveled-off. Chart 4Chinese Growth Is The One Key Risk China Is The One Key Risk China Is The One Key Risk When it comes to Chinese growth, a trade deal with the U.S. would certainly help matters. However, the risk remains that Chinese policymakers continue to curb credit growth so much that the pass through from easier Fed policy to global growth is weaker than in 2016. Bottom Line: With Fed rate hikes priced out of the market and signs of stabilization in high-frequency global growth indicators, the toxic combination of tight Fed policy and weak global growth is disappearing. This should allow credit spreads to tighten from current oversold levels. The rapid shift in monetary policy expectations makes us think that spread tightening could occur over a relatively short timeframe. As such, we would recommend this upgrade only to tactical (3-6 month) investors. Those with longer investment horizons may be better served by waiting for spreads to tighten and then using that opportunity to reduce cyclical corporate bond exposure. A Note On Portfolio Duration As mentioned above, the market has completely priced out Fed rate hikes. At present, the overnight index swap curve discounts 4 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months and 17 bps of rate cuts over the next 24 months. This shift in market rate expectations is the main reason for our rosier outlook on corporate spreads, but it’s important to remember that the causation between credit spreads and policy expectations runs both ways (Chart 5). Chart 5 It is the recent spread widening and sharp tightening in financial conditions that caused the Fed to adopt a more accommodative policy stance in the first place (Chart 6). In the background, the U.S. economic data remain robust. The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast model projects above-trend real GDP growth of 2.5% in 2018 Q4 and 2.1% in 2019 Q1. The corollary is that once credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease, the Fed will have no further reason to stay on hold. Chart 6Financial Conditions Likely Going To Ease Going Forward Financial Conditions Likely Going To Ease Going Forward Financial Conditions Likely Going To Ease Going Forward If financial conditions ease during the next few months, as we expect, then it is very likely that the Fed will be ready to lift rates again at the June FOMC meeting. The fed funds futures curve currently discounts less than a 20% chance of that happening.  Bottom Line: The U.S. economic data are solid. The sharp fall in rate hike expectations and Treasury yields is purely a reaction to tighter financial conditions. Treasury yields will rise in the coming months as credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Inflation & TIPS The main reason why the Fed feels comfortable responding to tighter financial conditions by adopting a more dovish policy stance is that inflation remains well contained. Last week’s CPI report showed that core CPI grew by 2.2% in 2018, somewhat below levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target (Chart 7).6 Chart 7Inflation Remains Well Contained Inflation Remains Well Contained Inflation Remains Well Contained Looking at the monthly changes, we also see that core CPI has increased by roughly 0.2% in each of the past three months. This translates to an annualized rate of approximately 2.4%, in line with the Fed’s target (Chart 8). The monthly changes shown in Chart 8 also reveal that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will almost certainly decline next month when the strong 0.35% print from last January falls out of the trailing 12-month sample. Chart 8Muted Inflationary Pressures For Now Muted Inflationary Pressures For Now Muted Inflationary Pressures For Now However, after next month base effects start to turn supportive. Our Base Effects Indicator, an indicator that compares rates of change in core CPI ranging from 1 to 11 months, predicts that year-over-year core CPI inflation will be higher six months from now (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect Higher Inflation Six Months From Now Expect Higher Inflation Six Months From Now Expect Higher Inflation Six Months From Now The conclusion is that inflationary pressures appear muted right now, and will continue to appear muted through the end of February. However, we expect them to ramp up again as we head into March. Come June, it is quite likely that the Fed will be feeling the pressure to lift rates as inflation approaches target. Coincident with a renewed uptick in inflation, TIPS breakeven inflation rates are also biased higher during the next six months. Slowing global growth and falling oil prices drove long-maturity breakevens lower during the past few months, with the result that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is now 1.83%, 14 bps below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model (Chart 10).7  Chart 10Message From Our Adaptive Expectations Model Message From Our Adaptive Expectations Model Message From Our Adaptive Expectations Model Our Adaptive Expectations model contains three independent variables: The 10-year trailing rate of change in core CPI (Chart 10, panel 3) The 12-month trailing rate of change in headline CPI (Chart 10, panel 4) The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge (Chart 10, bottom panel) Of those three variables, the 10-year trailing rate of change in core CPI carries the largest weight. This long-run measure of core inflation is currently running at an annualized pace of 1.83%. This translates roughly to an average monthly increase of 0.15%. In other words, as long as monthly core inflation prints above the 0.15% level, the fair value from our Adaptive Expectations model will continue to rise. Bottom Line: Core inflation has been steady during the past few months, but base effects will turn positive after next month’s report. This means that we will probably see higher year-over-year core CPI inflation in six months. With the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate already well below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model, we expect TIPS will outperform nominal Treasuries during the next six months.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity?”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Signal From Gold?”, dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For further details on how this indicator is constructed please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 The Li Keqiang Leading Indicator is a composite indicator of money and credit growth measures designed to predict changes in the Li Keqiang Index (a coincident indicator of Chinese economic activity). For further details on how the Leading Index is constructed please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 The Fed targets 2% PCE inflation. CPI inflation tends to run about 0.4%-0.5% higher than PCE, which means the Fed’s target is roughly 2.4%-2.5% for CPI. 7 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Survey data are easing, but that should not come as a surprise: The economy should decelerate as fiscal thrust is dialed back. Just a little patience (yeah-eah): A chorus of Fed speakers have taken to the podiums to reassure the public that the FOMC is taking its concerns seriously. The labor force participation rate popped in December, but investors shouldn’t count on it to produce a Goldilocks dual-mandate outcome: The demographic obstacle to continued part-rate gains is formidable. It is too early to de-risk portfolios: We remain constructive on risk assets and the economy. Feature Walking past flat-screen TVs during the workday has become considerably more pleasant. CNBC has switched out its red-drenched Market Sell-Off backdrop for a bright-green backdrop framing cheerful messages like, “Stocks are on track to rise for the third day in four.” In the ten sessions following Christmas Eve, the S&P 500 gained a stout 10%. Even a sharply negative preannouncement from Apple, and the prospect that 8% of Amazon’s outstanding shares could eventually hit the market, failed to halt the upward march. Only the disappointing December ISM Manufacturing survey has managed to bother the equity market over the course of the snapback rally, but the disappointment was quickly forgotten upon the next morning’s release of the gangbusters December employment report. The down-2.5%-one-day-up-3.5%-the-next action highlighted the fragility of the investor psyche. Markets are deeply uncertain about the economy, and how the Fed’s rate-hiking campaign will impact it. This week, we consider the evidence from the ISM and NFIB surveys, the recent wave of comments from Jay Powell and the regional Fed presidents, and the labor market to reassess our outlook for financial markets and the economy. Survey Says Over the first two weeks of January, the ISM surveys, the NFIB small business survey and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) all indicated slowing in their subject areas. An investor could point to them as evidence that the expansion is on its last legs, but we interpreted them as mixed, and do not see them as an argument for de-risking portfolios. Recall that the economy grew so far above trend in 2018 because of a generous helping of fiscal stimulus; as the stimulus is throttled back, the economy will decelerate. Markets had already factored the survey results into their expectations and took them in stride (Chart 1). Chart 1Soft Data Are Not A Surprise Soft Data Are Not A Surprise Soft Data Are Not A Surprise The magnitude of the weakness in the manufacturing ISM survey did come as a surprise. Beneath the headline (Chart 2, top panel), the employment reading slipped (Chart 2, second panel) and prices paid plunged (Chart 2, third panel), suggesting that the economy may not be so robust after all, but at least stagflation is not yet a concern. New orders, the component with the best leading properties, fell a whopping eleven points to get uncomfortably close to the boom/bust line (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2Manufacturing May Be Wobbling, ... Manufacturing May Be Wobbling, ... Manufacturing May Be Wobbling, ... Manufacturing accounts for a modest share of U.S. employment and output, and we don’t dwell too much on it per se, but it may provide a window into global conditions. Trade tensions’ impact on global growth has been our foremost worry this year, and it is possible that the weakening manufacturing ISM points to weakness in the global economy. The U.S. is fairly inured from global weakness relative to other economies, but there is no such thing as decoupling. Weakness in the rest of the world will eventually make itself felt in the U.S., and we are watching the trade climate and global conditions carefully. The services ISM also declined more than expected, but a reading in the 57-58 range is strong, and points to an economy growing above trend. Employment (Chart 3, second panel) and new orders (Chart 3, bottom panel) both remain at or above a standard deviation above the mean. It is often true that markets care more about incremental changes than levels, but it is not an always-and-everywhere rule. In the context of an economy operating well above capacity, some slowing is both inevitable and desirable. We will watch the services ISM for signs of continued slowing, but we do not yet see any cause for concern. Chart 3... But Services Are Still Strong ... But Services Are Still Strong ... But Services Are Still Strong Small-business optimism continues to support a constructive take on the economy, despite the modest pullback in the NFIB survey and some of its key components. The headline index has come off of the all-time highs it set in 2018, but remains at very high levels relative to history (Chart 4, top panel). Job openings hit an all-time high in December (Chart 4, second panel), underscoring the message from the persistently strong payrolls data, and the share of small businesses deeming it a good time to expand (Chart 4, third panel) and that plan to expand headcount over the next three months (Chart 4, bottom panel) are well above one-standard-deviation levels. Surveys are soft data, but both the headline optimism index and the good-time-to-expand component have begun to slide well in advance of the last three recessions, suggesting they’re useful leading indicators. Chart 4Small-Businesses Are Still Bulled Up Small-Businesses Are Still Bulled Up Small-Businesses Are Still Bulled Up As strong as the employment picture has been, it is only a coincident indicator. The dot-com recession took employers (Chart 5, top panel) and job-hopping employees (Chart 5, bottom panel) by surprise, but there is nothing in the rate of job openings or quits in the JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data that should inspire concern about the state of the economy. The series are off their highs, but there’s nothing to worry about at their still-elevated levels. Chart 5Softer, But Hardly Soft Softer, But Hardly Soft Softer, But Hardly Soft Bottom Line: Survey data have weakened as fiscal stimulus has waned, just as investors should have expected. We are keeping a close eye on the new orders component of the ISM Manufacturing survey, but nothing in the services ISM, NFIB or JOLTS surveys merits too much concern. FOMC Members Speak (And Speak, And Speak) The New Year brought an avalanche of comments from FOMC members. Chairman Powell, Vice Chairman Clarida, and seven regional presidents gave speeches, made appearances, or sat for interviews in the first two weeks of January, and New York Fed president Williams gave a long interview to CNBC two days after the December meeting. Away from uber-dove Bullard (St. Louis), who warned in a Wall Street Journal interview that further rate hikes could tip the economy into a recession, the various officials stressed the Fed’s open-mindedness. (Bullard, who is an FOMC voter this year, has repeatedly urged caution about hiking too much.) The overall thrust of the remarks has been to accentuate the FOMC’s commitment to go where the data lead. Echoing the language in the December minutes, several speakers noted that the Fed can be “patient,” given that inflation shows no signs of breaking out. The impact has been to soothe markets, which seem to be acutely concerned that rate hikes might go too far. (Though the speakers did little to ease concerns about balance-sheet reduction, or “quantitative tightening,” the Treasury, corporate-bond, and equity markets retraced much of their risk-off moves anyway.) Jay Powell set the tone for the overall message in a public appearance on January 4th, when he said the Fed “was listening sensitively to the message the markets are sending.” He underlined the data-dependency theme in an appearance last week, in which he said that, “we can be patient and flexible and wait and see what does evolve, and I think for the meantime, we’re waiting and watching. You should anticipate that we’re going to be patient and watching, and waiting and seeing.” His FOMC colleagues took care to drive home the same talking points, noting that data dependency includes following sentiment surveys, talking with business contacts, and watching markets. The speakers and the minutes also highlighted the discrepancy between robust 2018 growth of at least 3% and the much gloomier outlook implied by financial markets’ dreadful fourth quarter. None of the sensitive listeners disregarded the markets’ concerns, though Boston president Rosengren suggested that the markets may have gotten carried away. “My own view is that the economic outlook is actually brighter than the outlook one might infer from recent financial market movements.” Although we think the Fed will hike several more times before reaching this cycle’s terminal fed funds rate, the uniformity of the FOMC member comments leads us to expect that it will take a break, perhaps until June. Bottom Line: Our terminal fed funds rate estimate remains considerably higher than the money market’s, but we expect the Fed will pause for a few meetings. A pause may soothe markets and unwind the tightening of financial conditions that occurred in the fourth quarter, clearing the way for the Fed to resume its tightening campaign. Labor-Market Goldilocks The December employment report pointed the way to an outcome that could satisfy financial markets and FOMC doves like Minneapolis president Kashkari. Despite the outsize expansion in nonfarm payrolls, the unemployment rate rose by two ticks because of a surge in labor force participation. Last week, Kashkari attributed his ongoing aversion to rate hikes to the possibility that there’s more slack in the labor market than the committee may realize. “There might be a lot more people out there that we just don’t know [about] that are uncounted. Let’s go figure that out, and if we see inflationary pressures building, we can always hike rates then.” If the participation rate rises at a pace that allows new labor supply to offset continuing demand for workers, expanding payrolls don’t have to exert any generalized upward pressure on wages. Absent upward wage pressure, inflation could easily remain well-behaved. One month doesn’t make a trend, but December’s 63.1% reading brought the part rate back to the top of the range that has been in place for five years (Chart 6). A breakout could point the way to a Goldilocks outcome of inflation-free employment gains, but demographics suggest that there’s a limit to how much the part rate can advance. Chart 6Back To The Top Of The Range Back To The Top Of The Range Back To The Top Of The Range The demographic drag on participation is largely a function of the baby boomers’ extended departure from the work force. AARP estimates that at least 10,000 of them turn 65 every day, and will continue to do so into the 2030s. Boomer employment was in its heyday in the late ‘90s, when potential participation exceeded 67% (Chart 7, top panel), and all of the baby boomers were in their prime working years.1 Now that they are exiting the labor force in a lengthy procession, labor force participation is swimming upstream, and it may not be able to do much more than hold the level it’s maintained since 2014. Chart 7How Much More Slack? How Much More Slack? How Much More Slack? The shrinking supply of discouraged workers (workers who would start a job tomorrow if they were offered one, but are no longer actively looking for work and are therefore not counted as unemployed), suggests that much of the slack in the labor market has already been consumed (Chart 7, bottom panel). The disability rolls could be a source of Kashkari’s “uncounted” potential workers, however. The share of idled workers receiving disability benefits rose after the crisis (Chart 8), accounting for some of the widening gap between the part rate and the demographically-adjusted part rate. It is possible that some people who weren’t truly disabled will be motivated to come back to work, and their return to the work force may account for some of the pickup in participation, but our best guess is that they represent no more than a marginal source of labor supply. Chart 8Disability Claimants Won't Save The Day Disability Claimants Won't Save The Day Disability Claimants Won't Save The Day Bottom Line: The available evidence suggests that the labor market is quite tight. We expect that upward wage pressures will become increasingly apparent across 2019. Investment Implications An increasingly conciliatory Fed offers additional support for our equity overweight. A Fed pause might relieve some upward pressure on interest rates, but we expect that relief will only be temporary. As financial markets heal, easier financial conditions will clear the way for the Fed to resume its rate-hiking campaign. The sharp decline in Treasury yields at longer maturities only increases our conviction in underweighting Treasuries and maintaining below-benchmark duration positioning in all bond portfolios. As we noted last week, we think the high-yield bond market overreacted last quarter. Against a benign default outlook for 2019, 200 basis points of spread-widening seems extreme. A spread-product upgrade would fit with our equity upgrade, but we will wait until our U.S. Bond Strategy colleagues complete their review of their own recommendation before we consider changing our call. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Workers between the ages of 25 and 54, inclusive, are considered to be in their prime working years. The boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, and they were all in their prime working years from 1989 (when the youngest cohort turned 25) to 2000 (when the oldest cohort turned 54). 2018 was the last year that any of the boomers were between 25 and 54.

Dear Client, This Wednesday January 9th 2019, we are publishing a joint report co-written with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team. There will be no report on Friday. Best Regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Highlights So What? U.S. President Donald Trump is not solely focusing on stock prices, but he does not want an entrenched bear market to develop under his watch. Why? Entrenched bear markets often herald recessions. A recession would seriously endanger Trump’s re-election chances. The Federal Reserve will not alter its course to please Trump, but it will pause in order to safeguard the economy. While at first the dollar will weaken in response to a Fed pause, economic fundamentals argue that the greenback will enjoy a last hurrah before a true bear market can begin. Feature Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s legendary concern for the stock market, the S&P 500 is nonetheless down 6.7% since his G-20 truce with Chinese President Xi Jinping. We mark that date as notable on Chart I-1 – not because we think it caused the markets to plunge, but because many investors thought it would buoy equities into a Santa Claus rally. Further, many investors predicted that the G-20 truce would come about specifically because Trump wanted stocks to do well. Chart I-1Santa Did Not Show Up After The Buenos Aires Meeting Santa Did Not Show Up After The Buenos Aires Meeting Santa Did Not Show Up After The Buenos Aires Meeting There are so many methodological problems with this train of thought that it could be the main thrust of a PhD dissertation. But, for starters, the assertion that Trump is obsessed with stocks embeds causality into a dependent variable. In simple terms, it posits that the stock market’s performance is an end in of itself for President Trump, and thus he will do whatever it takes to prolong the bull market. Here’s a hint for the collective investment community: If something sounds too good to be true, it is almost definitely not true. The idea that the President of the United States, no matter how unorthodox… …Exclusively cares about the stock market… … And has the extraordinary power… ... and mental acumen… …to keep the stock market perpetually rising, is indeed too good to be true. First, President Trump has clearly shown that he does not exclusively care about the stock market, by shutting down the government midway through a bear market. Now, it is not clear to us how a federal government shutdown directly impacts the earnings of U.S. companies, but it is clear that it does not instill confidence among investors that Trump and the incoming Democrat-held House will be able to play nice together, or at least nice enough, to avert a potentially recession-inducing 2020 stimulus cliff (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Can Trump And The Democrats Play Nice Enough To Dodge The Cliff? Can Trump And The Democrats Play Nice Enough To Dodge The Cliff? Can Trump And The Democrats Play Nice Enough To Dodge The Cliff? BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy noted the danger of the government shutdown by calling it “the one true midterm-related risk.” The reasoning was that, “A lame duck Congress, or worse a Democratic Congress, will give President Trump all the reason he needs to grind things to a halt over his wall, with a view to 2020.” Further to this point, Trump has not exactly been a boon to the stock market since passing his signature legislation – the tax reform bill – at the end of 2017. Throughout 2018, he has focused his policy on a trade war with China, and we would also argue with a view towards the 2020 election. Now admittedly, the stock market completely and utterly ignored all bad news on the trade front (Chart I-3) – ironically, until a truce was called! – but the fact remains that President Trump did not listen to the almost-certain advice from his “globalist” advisors that a trade war could, at some point, hurt the S&P 500. Chart I-3The Market's Schizophrenic Relationship With The Trade War The Market's Schizophrenic Relationship With The Trade War The Market's Schizophrenic Relationship With The Trade War Second, the President of the United States of America is not a medieval king. He is not even the president of China nor even the prime minister of Canada (both policymakers with far more power inside their own political systems than the American president).1 The president is massively constrained in terms of economic policy by the Congress, a branch of government he only nominally has influence over. Further, his regulatory policy can be impeded by the bureaucracy and the courts. In addition, steering an economy as massive and multifaceted as that of the U.S. is not a one-man job. It is not a “job” at all. The best a president can do is set the conditions in place – through regulation, tax policy, and rhetoric – which stokes animal spirits in a positive direction. For much of 2017 and early 2018, President Trump did this. But the stock market, and the economy by extension, always wants more. More pro-business regulation and more reassuring rhetoric. President Trump generally gets an A on the former, but an F on the latter. Not only is the trade war a concern to investors, but so are a slew of other confidence-deflating comments by the president on FAANG regulation, the government shutdown, the White House staffing, the Fed’s independence, and foreign policy writ large. As for the question of mental acumen, President Trump may be a “stable genius,” but no single policymaker is able to influence equities. As an aside, we are shocked by how much the investment community has changed in the past eight years. When we began taking politics seriously in our investment strategy, back in 2011, it took a lot of convincing that systemic political analysis had a role to play with respect to one’s asset allocation. Now, investors are willing to bet their shirt on the actions of one politician. It is as if the investment community is trying to overcorrect for decades of ignoring politics as a valuable input in one single presidential term. So, what does this mean for U.S. equities from here on out? We agree with our clients that the one thing President Trump wanted to avoid was a bear market. We staunchly disagreed that equities could not correct significantly under his watch, and we shorted the S&P 500 outright in September, but we begrudgingly agreed that President Trump, as with all other presidents before him, would rather not deal with a bear market. Those tend to foreshadow a recession, and recessions tend to end re-election bids (Chart I-4). Chart I-4 For much of 2019, we expect that President Trump will focus on ensuring that a recession does not occur ahead of his 2020 election bid. This is likely to become a defining motivating factor in all policy, whether domestic, foreign or trade. Can he be successful? It is not up to the U.S. President to determine when a recession hits, but the point is that he is likely to put his re-election bid above all other considerations. As such, we would expect that: The government shutdown will be resolved in January. A compromise will emerge to end the shutdown that falls short of president Trump’s demands. Ultimately, Trump needs Democrats to play ball with the White House and the Republican Senate in order to avert the stimulus cliff in 2020. Trade negotiations may produce a truce. There is a combined, subjective, probability of 70-75% that the ongoing trade negotiations produce either an outright deal (45-50%) or an extension of the talks with no further tariffs (25%). Trump is likely to back off from further trade antagonism, at least until the run-up to the 2020 election. There will be a parallel process where a China-U.S. tech war continues. Attacks on the Fed will cease. At least until the 2020 election, or until the recession actually hits. But with the Fed itself already signalling that it won’t be dogmatic, the reasons to go after the central bank will recede. Bottom Line: President Trump does not care about stock prices any more than other presidents have in the past. What matters to him is to avoid a protracted bear market in equity prices, as it would severely raise the probability of an upcoming recession, endangering his chances of re-election. This means the government shutdown will likely end this month, that the trade negotiations have a solid chance of producing a protracted truce, and that attacks on the Fed will ebb. Can The Dollar Rally Further? Is a U.S. president focused on avoiding a recession in order to get re-elected a good thing or a bad thing for the dollar? While stronger U.S. growth is inherently a positive for the dollar, the current juncture muddies the waters. To begin with, the risk of a correction in the U.S. dollar has risen considerably in recent weeks. The dollar is historically a momentum currency, implying that as much as strength begets further strength, weakness begets additional weakness.2 As a result, the fall in the DXY from 97.5 in December to 96 raises a red flag. This red flag is even more worrisome when looking at the dollar’s technical picture (Chart I-5). The 13-month rate-of-change has been forming a bearish divergence with prices, and both sentiment and net speculative positioning are holding at lofty levels. Not only does this confirm that on a tactical basis, the dollar is losing momentum, but it also highlights that if momentum deteriorates further, a large pool of potential sellers exist. Chart I-5Tactical Risks For The Greenback Tactical Risks For The Greenback Tactical Risks For The Greenback Policy too constitutes a risk. President Trump could relent on his attacks on the Fed, but as we mentioned, the Fed seems to also be relenting on its own hard-nosed approach to monetary policy. Last Friday, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell highlighted that policy was not on autopilot, and that monetary policy is ultimately data dependent. In fact, the Federal Open Market Committee is not antagonistic to a pause in its hiking campaign, nor to tweaking its balance-sheet policy if economic and financial conditions deteriorate further. The Fed moving away from hiking once every quarter should provide ammunition to sellers of the greenback. However, the interest rate market already has very muted expectations for the Fed, anticipating 6 basis points and 17 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months, respectively (Chart I-6). Thus, to be a durable headwind to the dollar, the Fed needs to be more dovish than what is already priced in. We doubt this will be the case: Chart I-6Scope For A Hawkish Fed Surprise In 2019 Scope For A Hawkish Fed Surprise In 2019 Scope For A Hawkish Fed Surprise In 2019 The ISM may have been weak, but the U.S. continues to generate a healthy level of job growth, and wages continue to accelerate (Chart I-7). Down the road, this will be inflationary. Consumption, or 68% of GDP, remains healthy. Real retail sales excluding motor vehicle and part dealers are still growing at a 4.3% pace. Robust job and wage growth will continue to support the ultimate driver of household spending: disposable income. Moreover, the household savings rate stands at 6% of disposable income, debt-servicing costs at 9.9%, and overall household debt has fallen to 100%, a level not seen since the turn of the century. The financial health of households insulates them against the negative impact of the tightening in financial conditions recorded this past fall.  Despite the recent deterioration in the ISM and the rise in credit costs, commercial and industrial loan growth continues to accelerate, with both the annual and the quarterly-annualized growth rates of this series rising the most in more than two years (Chart I-8). Chart I-7U.S. Wages Are Still Accelerating U.S. Wages Are Still Accelerating U.S. Wages Are Still Accelerating Chart I-8Positive Developments On The U.S. Credit Front Positive Developments On The U.S. Credit Front Positive Developments On The U.S. Credit Front Based on this combination, we would anticipate the Fed pausing in its hiking campaign for one to two quarters. This would nonetheless represent a more hawkish outcome than the one expected by the market, and thus would not be a dollar-bearish configuration. In our view, the biggest domestic risk for the Fed remains the housing market, which for most of this cycle has been the principal vehicle through which monetary policy has been transmitted to the economy. Housing has indubitably slowed, but the recent pick-up in the purchases component of the Mortgage Bankers Association index gives hope that this sector is making a trough as we write. What about tighter financial conditions: could they also threaten the dollar? After all, the tightening in FCI in the second half of 2018 is acting as a break on growth, diminishing the need for Fed hikes. If stocks and high-yield bonds sell off further, the Fed will likely hike less than we anticipate. However, a Fed pause and the more attractive valuations created by the recent selloff suggest that FCI should not deteriorate much more. Indeed, the 64-basis-point contraction in high-yield spreads since January 3rd shows that financial conditions have begun to ease. Our Global Investment Strategy team thinks that stocks are a buy, a view also consistent with an easing in U.S. FCI.3 As a result, we do not believe that U.S. financial conditions will force the Fed to cut rates, and thus will not create a handicap for the dollar. Finally, the most important factor for the dollar remains global growth. The dollar historically performs best when both global growth and inflation are decelerating (Chart I-9). Because the U.S. economy has a low exposure to both manufacturing and exports, it is a low-beta economy, relatively insulated from the global industrial cycle. Hence, when global growth decelerates, the U.S. suffers less than the rest. As a result, the U.S. syphons funds from the rest of the world, lifting the dollar in the process. Chart I-9 Currently, the outlook for global growth remains poor. At the epicenter of it all lies China. Chinese manufacturing PMIs have fallen below 50. There are plenty of reasons to worry that the slowdown will not end here. Chinese consumers too are feeling the pinch, despite having been the recipient of much governmental support, including tax cuts (Chart I-10). Moreover, the fall in the combined fiscal and credit impulse also suggests that Chinese imports could suffer more in the coming months, creating a greater drag on the trading nations of the world (Chart I-11). Finally, China’s rising marginal propensity to save confirms these insights, pointing to slowing Chinese industrial activity and imports as well as deteriorating global export growth and industrial activity (Chart I-12).4 Chart I-10The Chinese Consumer Is Also Hungover The Chinese Consumer Is Also Hungover The Chinese Consumer Is Also Hungover   Chart I-11Chinese Credit Trends Point To Weaker Imports... Chinese Credit Trends Point To Weaker Imports... Chinese Credit Trends Point To Weaker Imports...   Chart I-12...And China's Rising Marginal Propensity To Save Corroborates This Risk ...And China's Rising Marginal Propensity To Save Corroborates This Risk ...And China's Rising Marginal Propensity To Save Corroborates This Risk Ultimately, these developments suggest that China needs to ease policy a lot more before growth can be revived. The reserve-requirement-ratio cuts announced last week are not enough to do the trick and may in fact only alleviate the traditional liquidity crunch associated with the Chinese New Year celebration – nothing more. Instead, we expect Chinese interest rates to continue to lag behind U.S. rates, a development historically associated with a strong dollar (Chart I-13). A tangible symptom that China’s reflation is positively affecting the global growth outlook will be when Chinese rates rise relative to U.S. ones. This is what is needed for the dollar to peak this cycle. We are not there yet. Continued weakness in the global PMI and German factory orders only gives more weight to this view. Chart I-13Rising U.S.-China Spreads Point To A Stronger Dollar Rising U.S.-China Spreads Point To A Stronger Dollar Rising U.S.-China Spreads Point To A Stronger Dollar Practically, we think a move in DXY to 94 or EUR/USD to 1.17 is likely in the coming weeks. However, the combined realization that the U.S. economy will not go into recession – and that therefore the Fed will not pause for the whole of 2019 – and that global growth has yet to bottom, means at those levels the dollar will be a buy. The yen is likely to suffer most in this context. If the markets begin pricing in a stronger U.S. economy than what is currently anticipated, U.S. 10-year yields will rise and the U.S. yield curve will steepen, hurting the JPY in the process. EUR/JPY is an attractive buy right now (Chart I-14). Chart I-14EUR/JPY Set To Rebound EUR/JPY Set To Rebound EUR/JPY Set To Rebound Bottom Line: As the market begins digesting the reality of a Fed pause, the dollar could experience some short-term vulnerability, pushing DXY toward 94 and EUR/USD toward 1.17. However, we would anticipate the dollar’s weakness to end at those levels. Interest rate markets are already pricing in Fed rate cuts, something we believe is not warranted. Moreover, financial conditions are set to ease, which will give comfort to the Fed that it can resume hiking. Finally, Chinese growth has more downside, which normally leads to a dollar-bullish environment.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com ​​ Footnotes 1 The comparison may not entirely be apt since not even the President of China was able to avert the stock market collapse in China in 2015. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies in Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, titled “Market Alert: The Correction Cometh, The Correction Came: Upgrade Global Equities To Overweight”, dated December 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Fade The Green Shoots”, dated December 14, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Are Markets Too Pessimistic On U.S. Growth & Inflation? What Is China’s Economic Pain Threshold To Trigger A Policy Response? Have Central Banks Become Less Concerned About Financial Markets? Feature Happy New Year! 2019 has started much like 2018 ended, with elevated global market volatility. The combination of more evidence of slowing global growth – fueled by spillovers from U.S.-China trade tensions – and central banks perceived to be overly hawkish has crushed investor sentiment. Money has flooded out of risk assets like equities and corporate debt and shifted into the traditional safe haven assets – government bonds, surplus currencies like the Japanese yen and even gold. U.S. equities and credit, which had been a refuge from the global market weakness for much of last year, have underperformed sharply as markets have moved to price in the global economic softness reaching U.S. shores. These market trends obviously run counter to our recommended positioning for overall portfolio duration (below benchmark) and credit exposure (neutral overall, favoring the U.S. over Europe and Emerging Markets). Yet we advise staying the course with our recommendations, as market pricing has become too pessimistic relative to likely global growth and inflation outcomes. The bulk of the recent decline in global bond yields has come from falling inflation expectations, which have been linked to the sharp fall in oil prices seen in the final months of 2018 (Chart of the Week). This is shown in Table 1, which presents the breakdown of the decline in the 10-year benchmark government bond yields for the major developed markets since the peak in U.S. Treasury yields back on November 8. Real yields have fallen by a more modest amount than inflation expectations in most countries, even with the pullback in cyclical indicators like the global PMI. Expected 2019 rate hikes are now fully priced out of money market curves, most notably in the U.S. Chart of the WeekSlowing Growth Is Not Why Yields Have Plunged Slowing Growth Is Not Why Yields Have Plunged Slowing Growth Is Not Why Yields Have Plunged   Table 1Decomposing 10-Year Yield Changes Since The November 2018 Peak Three Big Questions To Start Off 2019 Three Big Questions To Start Off 2019 In our view, there are three vital questions regarding the recent market turbulence that must be answered before determining the appropriate global fixed income investment strategy over the next 6-12 months. The answers lead us to maintain our current recommendations on duration, country allocation and credit exposure, even with the recent market turbulence. 1) Are Markets Too Pessimistic On U.S. Growth & Inflation? The December reading for the U.S. ISM Manufacturing purchasing managers’ index (PMI) released last week showed the largest single month deceleration since 2008 (Chart 2). All the main subcomponents of the ISM index fell, including the New Orders and Export indices which are now close to falling below the 50 threshold (Chart 3). Coming on the heels of China’s PMI dipping below 50, markets became more worried that the mighty U.S. economy was being dragged down to the weaker pace of growth seen outside the U.S. Chart 2Decomposing 10-Year Yield Changes Since The November 2018 Peak Decomposing 10-Year Yield Changes Since The November 2018 Peak Decomposing 10-Year Yield Changes Since The November 2018 Peak   Chart 3U.S. ISM Overstating U.S. Economic Weakness U.S. ISM Overstating U.S. Economic Weakness U.S. ISM Overstating U.S. Economic Weakness Yet when looking a broader array of U.S. indicators, the domestic economy still appears to be in good shape, albeit with some lost growth momentum. Consumer confidence remains solid, employment growth is accelerating, household incomes are growing at a faster pace and the personal savings rate remains elevated – all of which provide support for a faster pace of consumer spending (third panel). At the same time, the U.S. Conference Board leading economic indicator is still pointing to a healthy above-trend pace of GDP growth in 2019. U.S. Treasury yields have fallen to levels consistent with the drift lower in the ISM index (top panel), with the market now discounting one full 25bp rate cut to occur within the next twelve months. That will not happen given the tightness of the U.S. labor market and persistence of underlying domestic inflation pressures. The robust December gain reported in last Friday’s U.S. Payrolls report (+312k) may have surprised the markets, but our U.S. Employment Growth model had been signaling a faster pace of job growth for the past several months (Chart 4). The year-over-year growth in Average Hourly Earnings rose to 3.2%, the highest level in nearly a decade. With the overall unemployment still at a historically low 3.9% as labor demand is increasing, wages are likely to remain under upward pressure in the next 6-12 months. Chart 4U.S. Employment & Wages Are Accelerating U.S. Employment & Wages Are Accelerating U.S. Employment & Wages Are Accelerating Given this backdrop of economic growth that is likely to remain above-trend throughout 2019, it will be difficult to generate a sustained downturn in U.S. inflation this year, even given the lagged impact of the strong U.S. dollar and lower oil prices. While some decline in headline inflation measures is inevitable in the coming months given the rapid pace and magnitude of the 2018 oil plunge, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy team continues to see a positive demand/supply balance helping push oil prices back towards the $80/bbl level in 2019.1 That would ensure that any decline in headline U.S. inflation would be short in duration, and of far less magnitude than the move that occurred after the 2014/15 oil plunge given the more robust domestic inflation backdrop (Chart 5). Chart 5This Is NOT A Repeat Of the 2015/16 Deflation Scare This Is NOT A Repeat Of the 2015/16 Deflation Scare This Is NOT A Repeat Of the 2015/16 Deflation Scare A sober assessment of the U.S. economic and inflation data leads us to conclude that U.S. interest rate markets have swung too far to the dovish side. The inflation expectations component of U.S. Treasury yields is now too low, and the Fed rate cut that is now discounted in money markets will not materialize. Rate hikes are the more likely outcome, the repricing of which will put renewed upward pressure on Treasury yields. 2) What Is China’s Economic Pain Threshold To Trigger A Policy Response? Of the potential catalysts that could turn the current investor pessimism into optimism, signs of improving Chinese growth would likely top the list. China’s economy has lost considerable momentum, with year-over-year real GDP growth slowing to 6.5% in the third quarter of last year and higher frequency data showing a further deceleration in the fourth quarter. The profit warning issued by Apple last week, prompted by an unexpectedly sharp slowing of Chinese mobile phone demand, is a sign that Chinese consumer spending may be faltering. There are several causes for the growth slump, both domestic and foreign. Chinese authorities have been clamping down on domestic leverage given elevated private debt levels, while also taking action to reduce domestic pollution levels – policies that all have helped dampen industrial activity. More recently, and more importantly, the U.S.-China tariff war has started to have a real economic impact on the economy through slowing trade activity and diminished business confidence. Given the Chinese government’s perpetual interest in maintaining domestic stability by limiting any cyclical increases in unemployment, the incentive is there for policymakers to provide renewed stimulus to put a floor under economic growth. The last such boost came in 2015/16, when the Chinese government implemented an aggressive expansion of fiscal spending alongside monetary policy measures such as interest rate cuts, reductions in reserve requirement ratios and currency depreciation. That package was enough to cause a sharp reacceleration of the Chinese economy, but only after nominal GDP growth had fallen to an 16-year low of 6.4% at the end of 2015 (Chart 6). Chart 6Nominal China Growth Less Than 7.5% Should Trigger More Stimulus … Nominal China Growth < 7.5% Should Trigger More Stimulus... Nominal China Growth < 7.5% Should Trigger More Stimulus... Policymakers will likely be forced into action again in 2019 if nominal GDP growth, which hit 9.6% in the third quarter of 2018, falls back below 7.5%. Forward-looking economic measures like our Li Keqiang leading indicator and the export orders component of China’s manufacturing PMI suggest that weaker growth outcome could occur by mid-2019. China’s policymakers are likely to announce some form of stimulus in the first half of the year help counteract the growth slump, which could help boost global investor confidence (especially if it is accompanied by a new trade agreement with the U.S.). While Chinese policymakers are now under more pressure to provide stimulus measures, the tools available to them are more limited than was the case in 2015/16 (Chart 7). Interest rate cuts could happen if growth continues to fall more rapidly than expected, but that would create a burst in private sector leverage that policymakers would seek to avoid. The currency could also be weakened further, but the USD/CNY exchange rate is already back to near the 7.0 level reached in the 2016 devaluation. Chart 7...Atlhough Policy Options Are More Limited Than 2016 ...Atlhough Policy Options Are More Limited Than 2016 ...Atlhough Policy Options Are More Limited Than 2016 That leaves additional cuts in the reserve requirement ratio and increases in fiscal spending as the two most likely means for China to stimulate its economy in the coming months. Yet even the fiscal channel has limits, given the much higher starting point for the budget deficit today (3.7% of GDP) than in 2015 (2%). So while the trigger for a China policy stimulus will likely be reached by mid-2019, the magnitude of the stimulus will be nowhere near as large as the 2015/16 measures. This will help stabilize global growth expectations, but likely not by enough to provide a major boost to global commodity prices or export demand from emerging market countries that are heavily dependent on China. This leads us to remain cautious on emerging market credit exposure, as we prefer to own U.S. corporate debt instead where the growth/profit outlook is better. 3) Have Central Banks Become Less Concerned About Financial Markets? A popular market narrative of late has been that the Fed “made a mistake” with its last rate hike in December. A similar argument was made for the ECB choosing the end its Asset Purchase Program last month with inflation still well short of its target and European growth decelerating. The idea that central banks had fallen “out of tune” with financial markets has spooked investors who fear that policymakers are carrying out a pre-conceived plan to normalize monetary policy without any regard to financial markets. We find this to be a highly dubious conclusion. Central bankers still care about financial markets – or, more accurately, financial conditions – but the hurdle for policymakers to respond to falling asset prices is higher now than in previous years because of a lack of spare economic capacity. Simply put, any tightening of financial conditions must be large enough to trigger a slowing of growth to a below-potential pace, resulting in rising unemployment and weaker inflation pressures. That has not been the case – yet – in the major developed economies. Financial conditions indices (FCIs) – which measure the combined impact of equity prices, credit spreads and currencies – typically lead economic growth by 2-3 quarters. The latest selloffs in equity and credit markets in the U.S. and Europe, while significant, have not been large enough to push FCIs for those regions to levels that would be consistent with below-trend growth, using the 2015/16 episode as a reference point (Chart 8). Chart 8Tightening Financial Conditions Not Signaling Below-Trend Growth...Yet Tightening Financial Conditions Not Signaling Below-Trend Growth...Yet Tightening Financial Conditions Not Signaling Below-Trend Growth...Yet Financial conditions in the U.S. are much closer to that 2015/16 reference point than in Europe, where bond yields remain very depressed and the euro is still an undervalued currency. Yet the domestic U.S. economy is in a much better state than was the case in 2015/16, as discussed earlier in this report. It is highly likely that the level of the U.S. FCI that would trigger a move to below-trend U.S. growth is much different today than in 2015/16. In other words, it would take a bigger widening of U.S. corporate credit spreads, or a sharper selloff in U.S. equity values, to generate the same type of drag on U.S. growth relative to 2015/16. Yet U.S. interest rate markets have already responded as if there was no such change in the amount of FCI tightening that would result in a more dovish Fed policy. The U.S. money markets have gone from pricing three rate hikes in 2019 to one rate cut, while bond investors have largely neutralized their bearish Treasury duration positioning (Chart 9). Chart 9USTs Now Discounting Too Much Fed Dovishness USTs Now Discounting Too Much Fed Dovishness USTs Now Discounting Too Much Fed Dovishness That swing in sentiment on the Fed’s next move flies in the face of the underlying health of the U.S. economic data, as well as our Fed Monitor which continues to signal the need for more Fed rate hikes (Chart 10). Our other Central Bank Monitors tell a similar story (outside of Australia), with the Monitors signaling no need for easier monetary policy but with money markets pricing out any probability of a rate hike over the next year. This leaves global government bond yields exposed to any sign that global growth momentum is stabilizing, particularly with the inflation expectations component of bond yields also vulnerable to a rebound in oil prices (Chart 11). Chart 10Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Repricing Of Rate Hikes Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Repricing Of Rate Hikes Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Repricing Of Rate Hikes   Chart 11Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Rebound In Oil Prices Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Rebound In Oil Prices Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Rebound In Oil Prices Our conclusion is that financial conditions in the major economies have not yet tightened by enough to end the process of normalizing global monetary policy from the extraordinarily accommodative settings seen in recent years. In other words, bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Volatility Will Persist: 2019 Brent Forecast Lowered to $80/bbl”, dated January 3rd 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Three Big Questions To Start Off 2019 Three Big Questions To Start Off 2019 Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns