Economy

Highlights Equities & Bonds: The accelerating upward momentum of global equities – the ultimate “leading economic indicator” – suggests that the current rise in global bond yields can continue. Maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure, while staying overweight global corporate credit versus government bonds. U.S. Agency MBS: U.S. agency MBS spreads are now attractive relative to high-quality U.S. corporate bonds, both in absolute terms and on a risk-adjusted basis. Increase allocations to agency MBS, while reducing exposure to Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated U.S. corporates. Feature The U.S. Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) are both set to ease monetary policy this week. The Fed is almost certain to deliver a third consecutive 25bp rate cut at tomorrow’s FOMC meeting, while the ECB will restart its bond buying program on Friday. Yet government bond yields around the world continue to drift higher, as markets reduce expectations of incremental rate cuts moving forward. Equity prices are an excellent leading indicator of global growth, while bond yields typically reflect current economic conditions. Thus, equity prices should be considered a leading indicator of bond yields. Chart of the WeekMore Upside For Global Bond Yields Yields are finally responding to the evidence that global growth is troughing - a dynamic that we have been telegraphing in recent weeks. Global equity markets are rallying, with the U.S. S&P 500 hitting a new all-time high yesterday. The year-over-year increase in global equities, using the MSCI World Index, is now at +10%, the fastest pace of upward acceleration seen since January 2017. Some of that rally in U.S. stock markets can be chalked up to 3rd quarter earnings beating depressed expectations. Yet there is also a forward-looking component of the rally that bond markets are starting to notice. Equity prices are an excellent leading indicator of global growth, while bond yields typically reflect current economic conditions. Thus, equity prices should be considered a leading indicator of bond yields. We see no reason to discount the positive message on growth from rallying equity markets, especially when confirmed by an improvement in our global leading economic indicator (LEI), led by the more cyclical emerging market (EM) countries (Chart of the Week). Falling stock prices in 2018 accurately heralded the global growth slowdown of 2019 which triggered the huge decline in bond yields. Why should rising stock prices not be interpreted in the same light, predicting better global growth – and higher bond yields – over the next 6-12 months? Multiple Signals Point To Higher Bond Yields The more optimistic message on growth is not only confined to developed market (DM) stock prices. EM equities and currencies have begun to perk up, with EM corporate credit spreads remaining stable, as well, mimicking the moves seen in U.S. credit markets. Bond volatility measures like the U.S. MOVE index of Treasury options are retreating to the lower levels implied by equity volatility indices like the U.S. VIX index, which is now just above the 2019 low (Chart 2). Markets are clearly pricing out some of the more negative tail-risk outcomes that prevailed through much of 2019. Some of that reduction in volatility can be attributed to the recent de-escalation of U.S.-China trade tensions and U.K. Brexit risks, both important developments that can help lift depressed global business confidence. A reduction in trade/political uncertainty should help fortify the transmission mechanism between easing global financial conditions and economic activity – an outcome that could extend the rise in yields given stretched bond-bullish duration positioning (Chart 3). Chart 2A More Pro-Risk Global Market Backdrop Chart 3Less Uncertainty = Higher Yields The improving global growth story remains the bigger factor pushing bond yields higher, though. While the manufacturing PMI data within the DM world remain weak, the downward momentum is starting to bottom out on a rate-of-change basis (Chart 4). The EM aggregate PMI index is showing even more improvement, sitting at 51 and above the year-ago level, helping confirm the pickup in EM equity market momentum (bottom panel). Importantly, if this is indeed the trough in the EM PMI, the index would have bottomed above the 2015 trough of 48.5. Given the improvement seen in “Big Mo” for global equities and global LEIs and PMIs, we remain comfortable with our current below-benchmark stance on global interest rate duration exposure.  Given the improvement seen in “Big Mo” for global equities and global LEIs and PMIs, we remain comfortable with our current below-benchmark stance on global interest rate duration exposure. How high could yields rise in the near term? Looking at yields on a country-by-country level, a reasonable initial target for yields would be a return to the medium-term trend as defined by the 200-day moving average (MA). For benchmark 10-year DM government yields, those targets are: U.S. Treasuries: the 200-day MA is 2.18%, +23bps above the current level German Bunds: the 200-day MA is -0.22%, +11bps above the current level U.K. Gilts: the 200-day MA is 0.89%, +17bps above the current level Japanese government bonds (JGBs): the 200-day MA is -0.10%, +2bps above the current level Canadian government bonds: the 200-day MA is 1.59%, -2bps below the current level Australian government bonds: the 200-day MA is 1.53%, +43bps above the current level Among those markets, the U.S. is likely to reach the level implied by the 200-day MA, led by the market pricing out the -53bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months discounted in the U.S. Overnight Index Swap curve (Chart 5) – a number that includes the likely -25bp cut tomorrow. A move beyond that 200-day MA may take longer to develop, as it would require markets to begin pricing in some reversal of the Fed’s “mid-cycle cuts” of 2019. That outcome would first require a pickup in TIPS breakevens. The Fed would not feel justified in risking a tightening of financial conditions by signaling rate hikes without the catalyst of higher inflation expectations. Chart 4EM Growth Leading The Way? Chart 5UST Yields Have More Upside German Bund yields are even closer to that 200-day MA than Treasuries but, as in the U.S., a sustained move beyond that level would require an increase in bombed-out inflation expectations, with the 10-year EUR CPI swap rate now sitting at only 1.05% (Chart 6). As for other markets, the likelihood of reaching, or breaching, the 200-day MA is more varied (Chart 7). Chart 6Bund Yield Upside Limited By Inflation The move in the Canadian 10-year yield to just above its 200-day MA fits with Canada’s status as a “high-beta” bond market, as we discussed in last week’s report.1 Chart 7Which Yields Will Test The 200-day MA? The Bank of Canada also meets this week and, while no change in policy is expected, the central bank will be publishing a new Monetary Policy Report that will update their current line of thinking about the Canadian economy and inflation. U.K. Gilts should easily blow through the 200-day MA if and when a final Brexit deal is signed, as the Bank of England remains highly reluctant to consider any policy easing even as political uncertainty weighs on economic growth. With the European Union now agreeing to an extension of the Brexit deadline to January 31, and with U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson now pursuing an early election in December, the political risk premium in Gilts will persist. Thus, Gilt yields will likely lag the move higher seen in higher-beta markets like the U.S. and Canada. JGBs remain the ultimate low-beta bond market with the Bank of Japan continuing to anchor the 10-yield around 0%, making Japan a good overweight candidate in an environment of rising global bond yields. Australian bond yields have the largest distance to the 200-day MA, but the Reserve Bank of Australia is giving little indication that it is ready to shift away from its dovish bias anytime soon, while inflation remains subdued. We do not expect a rapid jump in yields back towards the medium-term trend in the near term, and Australian yields will continue to lag the pace of the uptrend in the higher-beta global bond markets. Net-net, a climb in yields over the next 3-6 months to (or beyond) the 200-day MA is most likely in the U.S. and Canada, and least likely in Japan, Germany and Australia (and the U.K. until the Brexit uncertainty is finally sorted out). Bottom Line: The accelerating momentum of global equities – the ultimate “leading economic indicator” – is suggesting that the current rise in global bond yields can continue. Maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure, while staying overweight global corporate credit versus government bonds. Raise Allocations To U.S. Agency MBS Out Of Higher Quality Corporate Credit Chart 8U.S. MBS More Attractive Than High-Rated U.S. Corporates Our colleagues at our sister service, BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy, recently initiated a recommendation to favor U.S. agency MBS versus high-rated (Aaa, Aa, A) U.S. corporate bonds.2 This week, we are adding this position to the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy recommended model bond portfolio. There are three factors supporting this recommendation: 1) The absolute level of MBS spreads is competitive The average option-adjusted spread (OAS) for conventional 30-year U.S. agency MBS – rated Aaa and with the backing of U.S. government housing agencies - is currently 57bps. That is only 3bps below the spread on Aa-rated corporates and 26bps below that of A-rated credit. (Chart 8). 2) Risk-adjusted MBS spreads look very attractive Agency MBS exhibit negative convexity, with an interest rate duration that declines when yields fall. The opposite is true for positively convex investment grade corporate bonds, where the duration rises as yields decrease. This makes agency MBS look attractive on a risk-adjusted basis after the kind of big decline in bond yields seen in 2019. The average duration of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. agency MBS index is now only 3.4 compared to 7.9 for an A-rated corporate bond. Both of those durations were around similar levels at the 2018 peak in U.S. bond yields, but now the gap between them is large. With those new durations, it would take a 17bp widening of the agency MBS spread for an investor to see losses versus duration-matched U.S. Treasuries, compared to only an 11bp widening of the A-rated corporate spread (bottom panel). This is a big change in the relative risk profile of agency MBS versus high-rated U.S. corporates compared to a year ago, making the former look relatively more attractive. That was not the case the last time agency MBS duration fell so sharply in 2015/16, since corporate bond spreads were widening (getting cheaper) at that time. Today, corporate bond spreads have been stable as corporate duration has increased and agency MBS duration has plunged, making risk-adjusted MBS spreads more attractive. Given our view that U.S. Treasury yields will continue to grind higher, favoring lower duration assets like agency MBS over higher duration investment grade corporates makes sense. Given our view that U.S. Treasury yields will continue to grind higher, favoring lower duration assets like agency MBS over higher duration investment grade corporates makes sense. 3) Macro risks are reduced Mortgage refinancing activity remains the biggest macro driver of MBS spreads, particularly in an environment when mortgage rates are falling and prepayments are accelerating. There was a pickup in refinancing activity over the past year as mortgage rates fell, but the increase has been small relative to similar-sized rate declines in the past (Chart 9). We interpret this as an indication that, after the sustained period of low mortgage rates seen in the decade since the Great Financial Crisis, most homeowners have already had an opportunity to refinance. In other words, the so-called “refi burnout“ is now quite high. Chart 9Muted Refi Activity Keeping Nominal U.S. MBS Spreads Low Beyond refinancing, the other macro risks for agency MBS are subdued. The credit quality of outstanding U.S. mortgages remains solid. The median credit (FICO) score for newly-issued mortgages remains high and stable near the post-2008 crisis highs, while mortgage lending standards have mostly been easing over that same period according to the Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officers Survey. In addition, U.S. housing activity remains solid, with the most reliable indicators like single-family new home sales and the National Association of Home Builders activity surveys all up solidly following this year’s sharp drop in mortgage rates (Chart 10). This makes MBS less risky for two reasons: a) stronger housing activity typically leads to higher mortgage rates, which limits future refi activity; and b) more robust housing demand will boost home prices, the value of the underlying collateral for MBS securities. Chart 10U.S. Housing Activity Hooking Up Chart 11Relative Value Favoring U.S. MBS Over U.S. Corporates Given the improved risk-reward balance of agency MBS versus higher-quality U.S. corporates, we recommend that dedicated fixed income investors make this shift within bond portfolios, reducing allocations to Aaa-rated, Aa-rated and A-rated corporates while increasing exposure to agency MBS. Agency MBS is part of the investment universe of our model bond portfolio. Thus, we are increasing the recommended weighting of agency MBS while reducing the exposure to U.S. investment grade corporates in the portfolio. The changes can be seen in the table on Page 11. We do not split out the investment grade exposure by credit tier in the portfolio, as we prefer to allocate by broad sector groupings (Financials, Industrials, Utilities). So we cannot implement the precise “MBS for high-rated corporates” switch in the model portfolio. There is still a case for reducing overall investment grade exposure and adding to MBS weightings, however. The relative option-adjusted spread of agency MBS and investment grade corporates typically leads the relative excess returns (over duration-matched U.S. Treasuries) between the two by around one year (Chart 11). Thus, the compression of the spread differential between MBS and corporates over the past year is signaling that agency MBS should be expected to outperform the broad U.S. investment grade universe over the next twelve months. Bottom Line: U.S. agency MBS spreads are now attractive relative to high-quality U.S. corporate bonds, both in absolute terms and on a risk-adjusted basis. Increase allocations to agency MBS, while reducing exposure to Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated U.S. corporates. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Cracks Are Forming In The Bond-Bullish Narrative”, dated October 23, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresarch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The upturn in bond yields is not yet confirmed by our preferred global growth indicators. We anticipate that a reduction in trade uncertainty during the next few months will cause our indicators to rebound. But until then, investors should view the bond sell-off as tenuous. Yield Curve: Expect modest 2/10 steepening during the next few months, as the Fed keeps rates low even as economic growth improves. Steepening will show up in real yields, not in the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. The 2/10 slope will stay in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps for the next 6-12 months. Yield Curve Strategy: The 5-year Treasury note looks expensive compared to the rest of the yield curve, and historical correlations suggest it will rise the most if the Fed delivers fewer rate cuts than are currently expected. We recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Await Confirmation Bond yields look like they might be bottoming. The 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields are up 10 bps and 31 bps, respectively, since the 2/10 slope briefly inverted in late August (Chart 1). We are cautiously optimistic that the growth revival getting priced into Treasury yields will materialize. However, it’s vital to note that the yield rebound is not yet confirmed by the economic data. Even timely global growth indicators like the CRB Raw Industrials index remain downbeat (Chart 1, bottom panel). If global growth measures don’t bottom soon, then Treasury yields are certain to fall back. Chart 1Yields Are Ahead Of The Data We do expect the economic data to follow bond yields higher. We noted in last week’s report that the weakness in US economic data is concentrated in survey measures (aka “soft” data), while measures of actual economic activity (aka “hard data”) are holding up well.1    For example: The ISM Manufacturing survey is below its 2016 trough, but the year-over-year growth rate in industrial production is well above 2016 levels (Chart 2, top panel). Capacity utilization also remains elevated (Chart 2, bottom panel). New orders for core capital goods are holding firm, even with CEO confidence at its lowest since 2009 (Chart 2, panel 2). Employment growth remains strong, despite the employment component of the ISM Non-Manufacturing survey being just above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panel 3). Chart 2Will "Soft" Data Rebound? Our interpretation of the divergence is that uncertainty about the US/China trade war is weighing on sentiment and holding survey measures down. If that uncertainty is removed, survey measures will quickly rebound and converge with the “hard” data. On that front, we think it’s very likely that trade uncertainty diminishes during the next few months. The US and China have already agreed to an informal “phase one deal” that will require China to buy $40-$50 billion of US agricultural goods while the US delays the October 15 tariff hike. Odds are that President Trump will also delay the planned December 15 tariff hike and probably roll back some existing tariffs.2 The reason is that while Trump’s overall approval rating has been consistently low; until recently, he had been receiving high marks for his handling of the economy (Chart 3). But his economic approval rating took a tumble this summer and, as we head toward the 2020 election, he desperately needs an economic boost and/or policy victory to push up his numbers. We already see some tentative signs of a rebound in the regional Fed manufacturing surveys. A tactical retreat on trade should improve sentiment and cause survey data to move higher, alongside bond yields. And in fact, we already see some tentative signs of a rebound in the regional Fed manufacturing surveys (Chart 4). October figures are out for the New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, Kansas City and Dallas surveys, and they have all diverged positively from the national ISM. Chart 3It's Trump's Economy Chart 4Some Optimism From Regional Surveys Bottom Line: The upturn in bond yields is not yet confirmed by our preferred global growth indicators. We anticipate that a reduction in trade uncertainty during the next few months will cause our indicators to rebound. But until then, investors should view the bond sell-off as tenuous. Yield Curve: Macro Drivers We noted in the first section that the 2/10 Treasury slope has steepened sharply since it briefly broke below zero in late August. In this section, we consider whether this 2/10 steepening might continue. To do this we run through the main macro drivers of the yield curve. The Fed Funds Rate Traditionally, there is a very tight correlation between the fed funds rate and the slope of the curve (Chart 5). Fed tightening puts upward pressure on the curve’s front-end relative to the back-end, leading to a bear-flattening. Conversely, Fed easing drags the front-end down relative to the long-end, leading to bull-steepening. Chart 5The Fed's Yield Curve Control The traditional pattern broke down between 2009 and 2015 when the fed funds rate was pinned at zero. This period saw many episodes of bear-steepening and bull-flattening. But since the funds rate has been off zero, the traditional correlation has begun to re-assert itself. Our base case outlook calls for one more 25 bps rate cut tomorrow, followed by an extended on-hold period. This scenario might be expected to impart some mild steepening pressure to the curve, except for the fact that the front-end is already priced for 53 bps of easing during the next 12 months, significantly more than we expect. Our base case outlook calls for one more 25 bps rate cut tomorrow, followed by an extended on-hold period. If our base case scenario is incorrect, and growth continues to deteriorate, forcing the Fed to cut rates all the way back to zero. Then we would expect some initial bull-steepening, followed by bull-flattening as the funds rate approaches the zero bound. Wage Growth Wage growth is another excellent yield curve indicator, mainly because it helps determine the direction of the fed funds rate. Stronger wage growth causes the Fed to tighten and the curve to flatten. On the flipside, wage growth is a less effective indicator during Fed easing cycles, when it tends to lag changes in the funds rate (Chart 6). In fact, while wage growth is tightly correlated with the 2/10 slope, it lags changes in the slope by about 12 months (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 6Wages Lead Tightening, But Lag Easing The upshot is that if the economy heads toward recession, then wage growth will not be a timely indicator of Fed rate cuts. However, if recession is avoided and wages continue to accelerate (Chart 6, bottom 2 panels), strong wage growth will limit how accommodative the Fed can be as it seeks to re-anchor inflation expectations. As such, persistently strong wage growth will limit the amount of curve steepening that can occur. Inflation Expectations The Fed’s need to re-anchor inflation expectations in a range consistent with its target is the main reason to forecast curve steepening. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is a mere 1.66%, well below the 2.3%-2.5% range that the Fed would consider “well anchored”. One might conclude that if the Fed succeeds in driving this rate higher, it will impart significant steepening pressure to the curve. However, we must also note that the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is even lower than the 10-year rate (Chart 7). Given our view that long-dated inflation expectations adapt only slowly to the actual inflation data, we would expect both the 2-year and 10-year breakevens to rise in tandem, exerting some modest flattening pressure on the curve.3 Chart 7Any Steepening Will Come From Real Yields Ironically, if the Fed is successful in re-anchoring long-dated inflation expectations, we expect it will cause the yield curve to steepen, but through its impact on real yields. At present, the 2-year and 10-year real yields are 0.37% and 0.14%, respectively. The act of holding rates steady for long enough to re-anchor inflation expectations will exert downward pressure on the 2-year real yield, while the 10-year real yield will rise in response to an improved growth outlook. The Fed’s goal of re-anchoring inflation expectations will likely lead to some curve steepening, but through the real component of yields, not the inflation component. The Neutral Rate The neutral rate – the fed funds rate that is neither inflationary nor deflationary – is a major wild card when it comes to the yield curve. Right now, the median Fed estimate calls for a neutral rate of 2.5%, while the market is pricing-in an even lower rate of 2%, at least according to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield (Chart 8). Neutral rate estimates have been revised lower during the past few years, exerting significant flattening pressure on the yield curve. In theory, if we reach an inflection point where neutral rate estimates are revised higher, it would lead to substantial curve steepening. One thing to watch to help predict movement in neutral rate estimates is the gold price.4 Gold performs well when the market perceives monetary policy as increasingly accommodative, either because the Fed is cutting rates or because the assumed neutral rate is rising. The 2013 drop in gold foreshadowed downward revisions to the Fed’s neutral rate estimate (Chart 8, bottom panel). A further increase in gold, especially once the Fed stops cutting rates, would send a strong signal that current neutral rate estimates are too low. Monetary policy arguably exerts its greatest economic impact through the housing market. Investors can also watch the housing market for clues about the neutral rate. Monetary policy arguably exerts its greatest economic impact through the housing market. If housing activity starts to wane, it can be a strong signal that interest rates are too high. Last year, housing activity started to flag once the mortgage rate moved above 4% (Chart 9). If 4% proves to be the ceiling on mortgage rates, it would mean that the Fed’s current neutral rate estimate is roughly correct. However, home prices have moderated since last year, and new construction has started to focus more on the low-end of the market, where supply remains scarce.5 This shift in focus from homebuilders has caused the price of new homes to fall considerably (Chart 9, bottom panel), a supply side re-adjustment that could make the housing market more resilient in the face of higher rates. Chart 8Tracking The Neutral Rate: Gold Chart 9Tracking The Neutral Rate: Housing An upward re-assessment of the neutral rate would impart steepening pressure to the yield curve, but only if it occurs quickly, before the Fed has time to deliver offsetting rate hikes. However, we think it’s more likely that any increase in neutral rate estimates will occur gradually, alongside Fed tightening. In that case, a roughly parallel upward shift in the yield curve would be the most likely outcome. Verdict Considering all of the above factors, we would look for some modest 2/10 curve steepening during the next few months. The steepening will be driven by the Fed’s desire to re-anchor long-dated inflation expectations, a desire that will result in them keeping rates steady (apart from one more cut tomorrow), even as economic growth improves. As noted above, this steepening will show up in real yields, not in the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. That being said, strong wage growth and overly dovish market rate cut expectations will ensure that any steepening is well contained. We expect the 2/10 slope to stay in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps for the next 6-12 months. Yield Curve Strategy Chart 10Treasury Yield Curve When thinking about how to position a Treasury portfolio for our expected yield curve outcome, we first look at the value proposition offered by different Treasury maturities. Chart 10 shows the Treasury yield curve, and also each maturity’s 12-month rolling yield. The rolling yield is simply the combination of each maturity’s 12-month yield income and the price impact of rolling down the curve. It can be thought of as the return you would earn holding each bond for 12 months in an unchanged yield curve environment. The first thing that sticks out in Chart 10 is that the 5-year note offers poor value. We also note that the curve steepens sharply beyond the 5-year maturity point, so maturities greater than 5 years benefit a lot from rolldown. The simple intuition from Chart 10 is confirmed by our butterfly spread models.6  Chart 11shows that the 5-year bullet looks very expensive relative to a duration-matched barbell portfolio consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. In fact, with only a few exceptions, bullets are expensive relative to barbells across the entire Treasury curve (see Appendix). Chart 11Bullets Are Very Expensive All else equal, bullets tend to outperform barbells when the yield curve steepens. However, given current valuations, it would take a lot of steepening for bullets to outperform barbells during the next few months. Chart 12Yield Curve Correlations Further, Chart 12 shows that the front-end of the yield curve – out to about the 5-year/7-year point – tends to steepen when our 12-month discounter rises, while the long-end of the curve – beyond the 7-year point – tends to flatten. Given that our 12-month discounter is currently -53 bps, meaning that the market is priced for 53 bps of rate cuts during the next year, we expect it will rise during the next few months. This should exert the most upward pressure on the 5-year/7-year part of the curve. We have been recommending that investors play the curve by going long a 2/30 barbell and shorting the 7-year bullet. But given the significant rolldown advantage in the 7-year compared to the 5-year, we amend that recommendation this week. We now recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 30-year maturities. Bottom Line: The 5-year Treasury note looks expensive compared to the rest of the yield curve, and historical correlations suggest it will rise the most if the Fed delivers fewer rate cuts than are currently expected. We recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Appendix Table 1Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of October 25, 2019) Table 2Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of October 25, 2019) Ryan Swift U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Crisis Of Confidence”, dated October 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on BCA’s outlook for US/China trade negotiations please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much To Buy An American President?”, dated October 25, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on how inflation expectations adapt to the actual inflation data please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Signal From Gold?”, dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Long Awkward Middle Phase”, dated July 2, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For details on our butterfly spread models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The banks got the current earnings season off to a good start, … : Lending growth may be running in place, and net interest margins are under pressure, but positive operating leverage helped the banks beat expectations, and they are returning gobs of cash to their shareholders. … are quite constructive about the economy, … : The big banks’ CFOs and CEOs were uniformly bullish about the U.S. economy based on their perceptions of household and corporate health. … expect stellar credit performance to continue for the foreseeable future, … : Net charge-off and non-performing loan ratios are near all-time lows and the banks don’t see them rising any time soon. … and appear to be willing to extend loans in all categories except commercial real estate: Every bank sees unattractive competition in commercial real estate lending and plans to continue shrinking its CRE loan book. Nothing To See Here Two-fifths of the companies in the S&P 500 have now reported their quarterly earnings, and after this week the share will be two-thirds. At the aggregate level, it appears as if investors’ worst fears will not be realized, just as they weren’t in the first two quarters of the year. 2018’s greater than 20% year-on-year growth, powered by the sharp cut in the top corporate income tax rate, has rolled off, but earnings have yet to contract. They were projected to fall by a little over 3% at the beginning of this reporting season, but repeated practice has allowed corporate managements to hone their underpromise-and-overdeliver skills to a fine point, and we won’t be surprised if they avert an outright contraction. Chart 1Profit Margins Are Being Squeezed, ... Chart 2... But Neither Growing Compensation, ... Earnings growth has been stagnant this year (Chart 1, bottom panel), though revenues have grown a little faster than nominal GDP (Chart 1, top panel), with which they should converge over time. Profit margins have finally come under pressure, though it’s not exactly clear why. Employee compensation is businesses’ biggest expense by far, and while it has risen from its lows, its growth decelerated last quarter (Chart 2). Dollar strength is a headwind for U.S.-based multinationals, but the dollar only really moved last quarter, after ending the first half where it started the year (Chart 3). Dollar gains weigh on revenues just as surely as they do on profits, though we would not be at all surprised if the share of non-dollar expenses is a good bit smaller than the widely quoted 33-40% estimate of S&P 500 constituents’ foreign sales. Chart 3... Nor A Stronger Dollar Is A Clear-Cut Culprit Rate cuts have sparked a wave of mortgage refinancings, shifting wealth from mortgage investors to homeowners, who are more likely to spend it. Easier monetary conditions should help grease the skids for future earnings growth, both in the U.S. and abroad, and we expect the Fed will cut the fed funds rate by another 25 basis points when it meets this week. We have sympathy for the argument that since interest rates were not a meaningful constraint on growth, cutting them is not likely to provide much of a catalyst. Falling rates have provoked a wave of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4), however, so even if they don’t drive a big lending increase, they are already on their way to putting more money in the pockets of homeowners. Lower rates also reduce the risk of default by lowering debt-service costs for adjustable-rate borrowers, and by encouraging investors who need income to venture further out the risk curve, providing ample capital for borrowers seeking to extend their maturing obligations. Chart 4Putting More Money In Homeowners' Pockets Follow The Money Chart 5Bank Stocks Are Probing Resistance For two years, beginning in 2014, we reviewed the biggest banks’ earnings calls every quarter. The goal was to observe the give and take between bank management and sell-side analysts to gain some insight into the lending market and where it might be headed. We specifically sought information about banks’ willingness to lend, consumers’ and businesses’ appetite for credit, borrower performance, and the banks’ bottom-up perspective on the economy. We were also trying to glean insight into mortgage lending and what it might imply for residential investment. Studying the banks is a natural pursuit for a firm that was founded upon the insight that following money flows through the banking system would provide us with a window into the future direction of the economy and financial markets, and we return to it today. Our analysis is not meant to evaluate the banks’ own investment potential, though we note that they are testing resistance once again (Chart 5), and our Global Investment Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy services both recommend overweighting them. This round of calls found bank management teams eager to ramp up their distributions to shareholders and optimistic about their ability to deploy technology to drive further efficiency gains. Big Banks Beige Book As a group, the banks were constructive on the economy. Despite widespread recession concerns, they do not see evidence of a looming slowdown from their interactions with consumers and businesses. Overall loan growth has remained around 5% over the last year and a half (Chart 6), while corporate and industrial (C&I) loan growth has ground to zero over the last thirteen weeks (Chart 7). The CEOs and CFOs do not see the C&I slump as the beginning of a worrisome trend, though, and global corporate bond issuance hit an all-time high in September, led by sizable issues from mega-cap U.S. companies. Businesses seeking credit are having no trouble getting it, though all the banks expressed an intention to continue cutting back their exposure to commercial real estate (CRE) loans. Chart 6Bank Lending Is Supporting Activity Without Risking Overheating Chart 7Lending Momentum Has Slowed, But It's Okay Another commercial real estate issue emerged across the calls: several of the biggest banks are consolidating their branch footprints. Prompted by questioning from one analyst, they touted branch closures as a way to enhance efficiency. We do not know if a reduction in bank demand for branch space would have an observable effect on demand for retail space across the country, but it certainly would in Manhattan. It seems possible that branch closures could pressure some retail lessors’ profitability, and thereby act as a drag on CRE whole-loan and CMBS performance at the margin. The Economy [C]onsumer spend and … confidence continue to be strong. I think business activity continues to be strong. I think it’s moderated somewhat because of … trade policy, but generally, I think the economy is solid. (Dolan, USB CFO) I think it’s fair to say that perhaps marginal investment is being impacted by trade fatigue in terms of the uncertainty, but … [there’s] still growth. … [T]he consumer is incredibly strong, … spending is strong, sentiment is strong, … credit is good. [I]t is true that [the recent ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys] were disappointing[,] so [there are] cautionary signs, but credit remains very good and there is still very healthy business activity. (Piepszak, JPM CFO) In general, our commercial customers continue to see moderate demand and no widespread issues related to trade uncertainty and interest rate changes. … [W]hile our customers are cautious, the most common concern they identify is their ability to hire enough qualified workers. (Shrewsberry, WFC CFO) Consumer payments up 6% year-to-date … [and 6% year-over-year 3Q growth in both our small business segment and total commercial loans] are tangible examples that the U.S. economy is still in solid shape, despite the worries and concerns about trade wars, capital investment slowdowns or other global macro conditions. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) Borrower Performance [W]e’ve had growth in the United States for the better part of 10 years [a]nd … credit is extraordinarily good. … [C]onsumer credit, commercial credit, wholesale is extraordinarily good, it can only get worse if you have a [turn in the] cycle. [Our guidance relates to expected performance across a full cycle.] We’re at the over-earning part of the cycle [beating the through-the-cycle expectation] in credit today, and [at] one point we’ll be at the under-earning part [pulling the full result down to our expectation]. (Dimon, JPM CEO) Our net charge-off rate remains near historic lows at 27 basis points (Chart 8). (Shrewsberry, WFC) Chart 8C&I Charge-Off Rates Are Near Their Historic Lows Credit quality remains stable, and we are not seeing any early indicators in our portfolio that cause us concern. (Cecere, USB CEO) Banks see no broad credit warning signs, but they're perfectly happy to let non-bank lenders take some commercial real estate share at this point of the cycle. We closely monitor our commercial portfolio for signs of weakness and credit quality indicators remain strong. (Shrewsberry, WFC) Lender Willingness [W]e are mindful that at some point, the industry will experience a credit downturn, and we remain disciplined in terms of origination quality and our long-term strategy of remaining within our defined credit box regardless of the competitive environment. (Cecere, USB) [Commercial] real estate banking [declined] as we remain selective, given where we are in the cycle. (Piepszak, JPM) [Commercial real estate lending] is one market where there’s late cycle behavior, there’s lots of non-bank competitors, … more than bank competitors. And so we really have to pick our spots in order to maintain our risk/reward, credit and pricing in loan terms quality. … I wouldn’t look for it to grow meaningfully until the cycle turns and our best customers have really interesting opportunities to put their own capital to work. (Shrewsberry, WFC) [Our declining commercial real estate lending is] really a function of [competition] that we’re not comfortable with. (Cecere, USB) Banks’ Real Estate Demand [C]ustomer behaviors are changing. The amount of transaction activity that’s happening in the branches is significantly less[.] In fact, … roughly 70, 80% of it goes through the digital channel today. So that gives us the opportunity to really reconfigure the branch network, both in terms of size and numbers[.] I think those trends are going to continue … , and … we may accelerate or increase some of [our right-sizing] activity[.] (Dolan, USB) Teller and ATM transactions declined 6% from a year ago, reflecting continued customer migration to digital channels. We’ve consolidated 130 branches in the first nine months of this year, including 52 branches in the third quarter. (Shrewsberry, WFC) [D]o we continue to work on real estate configurations that were down 50 million square feet from the start of 2010[?] [C]an we push [the occupancy rate] up, can we densify the space[?] (Moynihan, BAC) Investment Implications While rereading the April 2014 U.S. Investment Strategy that reviewed the big banks’ 1Q14 earnings calls, we were struck by how similar the picture is today. Back then, we described the central challenge for investors as choosing between mushy fundamentals and generous monetary policy that might be expected to inspire a valuation overshoot. As we do now, we anticipated that activity would soon pick up, providing markets with a fundamental boost, but we also had the sense that “policy settings are such that no much more than the status quo may be required to keep the party going.” We reiterated our equity overweight and our preference for spread product over Treasuries. Between inflection points, investing is an exercise in trend following, and there's no reason to believe that the monetary policy trend is about to change without clear advance notice. Although we are congenitally optimistic about our species and our country, we are not perma-bulls. We simply recognize that, between inflection points, investing is an exercise in trend following, no matter how uncomfortable it may make an investor to leave the portfolio dials alone for a while. As long as the monetary policy backdrop remains extremely accommodative across all of the major developed economies, and central banks are set to add even more accommodation before they start removing it, the bullish trend will remain in place. The prospective real returns of cash and highly-rated sovereign bonds are likely to remain negative for a while against that backdrop, encouraging investors to direct their marginal investment dollar to risk assets as long as a fundamental reversal is not imminent. We think a fundamental inflection is at least two years away, and therefore continue to believe that it is too early to de-risk investment portfolios. We reiterate our recommendation that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios, and at least equal weight spread product within their fixed-income allocations. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights No, it’s not: We expect negative rates to remain the exception rather than the rule. A growing body of evidence suggests that negative rates may be doing more harm than good. Stronger global growth is likely to lift inflation over the next few years, thus making the debate around negative rates increasingly irrelevant. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is scant evidence that structural forces related to globalization, automation, weak trade unions, and demographics are holding back inflation. Asset allocators should overweight global equities during the next 12-to-24 months, while maintaining a short duration bias in fixed-income portfolios.  A more defensive stance towards equities may be necessary starting in 2022. Just A Matter Of Time? Chart 1A Spike In Negative-Yielding Debt There is nearly $14 trillion of negative-yielding debt outstanding today (Chart 1). While most of this debt has been issued in the euro area and Japan, many investment professionals believe that negative yields will eventually become the norm in the U.S. and other developed economies. The rationale for this belief is easy to understand: The current expansion, like all past expansions, will inevitably end (in many investors’ minds, it already has). Once a recession is afoot, central banks will try to ease monetary policy even more than they already have. The Fed has cut rates by more than five percentage points on average during past recessions (Chart 2). Even a mild recession could see U.S. rates fall to zero. Once rates reach zero, pushing them into negative territory could become the logical next step. Chart 2Will The U.S. Join The Negative Rate Club After The Next Recession? It is a compelling argument. However, it rests on two assumptions. The first is that negative rates are an effective tool against an economic downturn. That is far from clear. Second, the argument presupposes that the forces which have pushed some countries to adopt negative rates will endure until the next recession. To those who see the current expansion as very “late stage” and regard the persistence of low interest rates as largely structural in nature, this is a perfectly plausible assumption. However, as we discuss later on, it is probably flawed. The Merits (Or Lack Thereof) Of Negative Rates In theory, negative rates could incentivize banks to loan out excess funds in order to avoid paying interest on reserves. It could also boost demand for credit. In practice, banks have been reluctant to force depositors to pay interest on their savings. Instead, they have absorbed the cost of negative rates through lower net interest margins. At a time when some banks are still struggling to shore up their balance sheets, the introduction of negative rates may have perversely resulted in less lending. Labor market slack has diminished significantly around the world. Some policymakers have slowly come around to the conclusion that negative rates may be doing more harm than good. Most senior Fed officials have rejected negative rates as an effective policy tool. Japanese and European officials have been more supportive of negative rates. The ECB even cut rates further into negative territory in September. However, ECB officials have acknowledged the harm done to the banking system by introducing a tiering system that shields a portion of excess bank reserves from negative deposit rates. The Swedish Riksbank, an early pioneer of negative rates, has even gone as far as to warn that “if negative nominal interest rates are perceived as a more permanent state, the behavior of agents may change and negative effects may arise.” Groundhog Day Judging by today’s low level of bond yields, it is easy to conclude that deflationary forces are just as powerful as they were a decade ago. There are, however, at least two important differences between now and then. First, the deleveraging cycle has ended in most developed economies. As a share of GDP, U.S. nonfinancial private-sector debt has risen over the past four years. Even in Japan, private debt levels have moved off their lows. The ratio of private debt-to-GDP has been broadly flat in the euro area, with rising debt levels in France offsetting falling leverage in Italy and Spain (Chart 3). Second, labor market slack has diminished significantly around the world. The unemployment rate in the G7 has fallen from a peak of 8.4% in 2009 to 4.2%. It is currently a full percentage point below its pre-recession low of 5.2% set in 2007 (Chart 4). Chart 3Deleveraging Has Ended In Most Developed Markets Chart 4Falling Unemployment Rate Across Developed Markets Some have argued that disguised joblessness is distorting the official unemployment statistics. While this was a major problem earlier in the recovery, it is much less of a concern today. In the U.S., the share of the working-age population that wants a job, but is not actively looking for one, is smaller than in 2007 (Chart 5). Whither The Phillips Curve? Falling unemployment has pushed up wage growth. Indeed, for all the talk about how the Phillips curve is dead, the “wage version” of the curve – which is how William Phillips originally formulated the concept – is very much alive and well (Chart 6). Chart 5U.S. Labor Market Slack Has Diminished Chart 6Falling Unemployment Has Pushed Up Wage Growth Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening What is true is that the “price version” of the Phillips curve – the one that compares unemployment with price inflation – still looks very flat in most countries. This is another way of saying that rising nominal wages have mainly translated into higher real wages, with an accompanying increase in labor’s share of income (Chart 7). Workers tend to spend more of their incomes than companies. If the share of national income flowing to workers continues to rise, aggregate demand will increase. Unless supply expands in tandem, shortages of goods and services will arise, leading to higher inflation. Getting Close To The Kink There is considerable theoretical and econometric evidence suggesting that the Phillips curve is kinked.1  When slack is plentiful, modest declines in spare capacity have little effect on inflation. When slack disappears altogether, however, inflation can surge. This was certainly what happened during the 1960s. Chart 8 shows that U.S. core inflation was remarkably stable at around 1.5% in the first half of the decade. It was only in 1966 that inflation took off, rising to nearly 4% in less than two years. Core inflation proceeded to make its way to over 6% in 1970, a full three years before the first oil shock. The U.S. unemployment rate was two percentage points below NAIRU in 1966. By most estimates, the unemployment rate today is still a bit less than a point below its full employment level. Thus, an inflationary breakout is not imminent. This is confirmed by a wide variety of leading indicators for inflation (Chart 9). Chart 8Inflation Took Off In The 1960s Amid An Overheated Economy Chart 9An Inflation Breakout Is Not Imminent... Nevertheless, U.S. inflation has begun to firm at the margin (Chart 10). Trimmed mean inflation, which according to one Fed study does a better job of tracking underlying inflationary trends than more conventional measures, has been running at over 2% for much of the past 12 months.2  The median item in the CPI basket is rising by about 3%. Inflation has been slower to accelerate outside the U.S., partly because there is still more slack abroad. Nonetheless, embryonic signs of inflation are emerging. The deflationary pressures which plagued countries such as Spain have receded (Chart 11). Prices in Japan have been rising since 2014, albeit at a slower pace than the Bank of Japan is targeting (Chart 12). Chart 10... But Inflation Is Firming At The Margin Chart 11Deflationary Pressures Have Receded in Spain Chart 12Prices In Japan Have Been Rising Since 2014... Albeit At A Slower Pace Than The BoJ's Target The Myth Of Structurally Low Inflation Will structural forces contain the extent to which inflation rises even if unemployment continues to decline? Perhaps, but we would not bet on it. While globalization, automation, weak trade unions, and demographics are often cited as structural deflationary forces, the importance of these factors is greatly exaggerated. Globalization Conceptually, the disinflationary force stemming from globalization should be a function of the degree to which globalization is increasing. Yet, as Chart 13 illustrates, the ratio of global trade-to-GDP has been flat for over a decade. Correspondingly, the share of U.S. imports from emerging markets has stabilized at below 25%. Chart 13AGlobalization Has Peaked Chart 13BGlobalization Has Peaked A variety of studies have concluded that slack abroad has only a minimal effect on U.S. inflation.3 This is not surprising. The lion’s share of GDP consists of services, which are not easily tradeable. Imports account for only 14.8% of U.S. GDP. Many imported goods also have U.S. substitutes, which means that a large appreciation in the dollar is often necessary to induce Americans to shift purchases abroad.  Automation The belief that faster productivity growth is necessarily deflationary involves a fallacy of composition. Yes, above-average productivity gains in one sector of the economy will cause prices in that sector to decline relative to other prices. But falling prices will also boost real incomes, leading to more spending. Rising spending will lift prices elsewhere in the economy. Chart 14Globally, Productivity Growth Has Been Falling For Over A Decade Chart 15Steadier Prices For Computer Hardware And Software In Recent Years In any case, the whole narrative about how faster productivity growth is deflationary seems rather antiquated considering that productivity growth has been quite weak in most of the world for over a decade (Chart 14). Consistent with this, the price deflator for electronic goods has been falling a lot less rapidly in recent years than it has in the past (Chart 15). Chart 16Retail Sector Profit Margins Are Strong What about the so-called Amazon effect? The problem with the claim that online shopping is undermining corporate pricing power is that outside of department stores, profit margins in the retail sector remain quite high (Chart 16). In fact, recent productivity growth in the U.S. distribution sector has actually been slower than in the 1990s, a decade which produced large productivity gains stemming from the displacement of “mom and pop” stores with “big box” retailers such as Walmart and Costco. Trade Unions The declining influence of trade unions is often cited as a reason for why inflation will remain subdued. There are a number of problems with this argument. First, unionization rates in the U.S. peaked in the mid-1950s, more than a decade before inflation began to accelerate. Second, while the unionization rate continued to decline in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s, it remained elevated in Canada. Yet, this did not prevent Canadian inflation from falling as rapidly as it did in the United States (Chart 17). Chart 17Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate Chart 18Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around The widespread use of inflation-linked wage contracts in the 1970s also appears to have been a consequence of rising inflation rather than the cause of it (Chart 18).   Demographics Demographics has undoubtedly been a deflationary force for most of the past 40 years. Slower population growth reduced spending on everything from houses to refrigerators, thus sapping demand from the economy. The influx of women into the labor force also boosted the available supply of goods and services, while the increase in the share of the population in their prime earning years – ages 30-to-50 – raised savings. Chart 19The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Now that baby boomers are starting to retire, however, they are transitioning from being savers to dissavers. Chart 19 shows that the ratio of workers-to-consumers has begun to decline globally as the post-war generation leaves the labor force. As more people stop working, aggregate savings will fall. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in the neutral rate, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up. It Shouldn’t Be Hard There are many hard problems in the world. Finding a cure for cancer is hard. Reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics is hard. In contrast, getting people to spend money should not be hard. People like to consume! Just give them money and they will spend it. If they don’t spend enough of the money that they receive, just give them some more. So why has raising demand proven to be so difficult in many countries? The answer is that central banks have been asked to do too much. Fiscal policy should have been a lot more stimulative. If there is one potential benefit of negative rates, it is that they could incentivize governments to loosen fiscal policy by cutting taxes and/or raising spending. After all, if you can get paid to issue debt, why not do it? In an age of brewing political populism, the temptation to run larger budget deficits will grow. Central banks will indulge governments by keeping rates low. The path to higher rates is lined with lower rates. As economies eventually overheat, inflation will rise, thus allowing central banks to finally move away from negative rates. Real rates will stay low, but nominal rates will increase in line with higher inflation. Of course, if inflation eventually gets too high, central banks will be forced to step on the brakes. We do not see that happening in the next two years, but it could occur later on. Thus, asset allocators should overweight equities during the next 12-to-24 months, while maintaining a short duration bias in fixed-income portfolios. A more defensive stance towards equities may be necessary starting in 2022.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Jeremy Nalewaik, “Non-Linear Phillips Curves with Inflation Regime-Switching,” Federal Reserve Board (Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs) (August 2016); and Anil Kumar and Pia Orrenius, “A Closer Look at the Phillips Curve Using State Level Data,” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Working paper No. 1409 (May 2015). 2 Jim Dolmas and Evan F. Koenig, “Two Measures Of Core Inflation: A Comparison,” Federal Reserve Bank Of Dallas, Working Paper No. 1903 (February 25, 2019). 3 Please Jane Ihrig, Steven B. Kamin, Deborah Lindner, and Jaime Marquez, “Some Simple Tests of the Globalization and Inflation Hypothesis,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (International Finance Discussion Papers No. 891) (April 2007); Janet. L. Yellen, 'Panel discussion of William R. White “Globalisation and the Determinants of Domestic Inflation”,' Presentation to the Banque de France International Symposium on Globalisation, Inflation and Monetary Policy (March 2008); and Fabio Milani, “Global Slack And Domestic Inflation Rates: A Structural Investigation For G-7 Countries,”Journal of Macroeconomics, (32:4) (2010). Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights China’s trade strategy toward the U.S. is not greatly affected by the early U.S. Democratic Party primary election. The sea change in American policy toward China began before Donald Trump and is grounded in U.S. grand strategy. Yet Trump is staging a tactical retreat in his trade war and China is reciprocating, suggesting that Beijing would rather avoid a “lame duck” Trump on the warpath. Beijing will not implement structural changes that would vindicate Trump’s negotiating strategy and set a precedent that is harmful to China’s national interests in the long run. Feature A U.S.-China trade ceasefire is in the works, based on the outcome of the latest high-level talks in Washington. President Trump, paying a surprise visit to the top Chinese negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He, agreed to pause the October 15 tariff hike in exchange for assurances that China would buy $40-$50 billion worth of agricultural goods to ease the economic pressure on Trump’s political base. Trump is now confirmed to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile on November 16-17, where he hopes to cement this “phase one deal” with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Chart 1Global Policy Uncertainty To Fall Our market-based GeoRisk Indicator for Taiwan island – which calculates Taiwanese political risk based on any excessive deviation of the Taiwanese dollar from economic fundamentals – is a good proxy for Sino-American trade tensions due to Taiwan’s high level of exposure to China and the United States. At the moment it is signaling a sharp drop in tensions. We expect global uncertainty to follow over the coming month as Trump and Xi agree to some kind of ceasefire (Chart 1). Our Taiwan risk measure tracks closely with the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, which measures risk via the word count of key terms in influential global newspapers, because Taiwan is highly exposed to the world economy and trade. Taiwan is also uniquely vulnerable to the biggest source of global policy uncertainty today: the Sino-American trade war. Not only are U.S.-China relations slightly thawing, but also the risk of the U.K. leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement has collapsed. This will reinforce Europe’s underlying political stability despite the manufacturing recession and help create a drop in global uncertainty (Chart 2). Chart 2American Policy Uncertainty To Buck The Trend Uncertainty will remain elevated beyond the fourth quarter, however, for two main reasons. First, U.S. uncertainty will rise, not fall, as a result of the impending 2020 election. Second, the trade ceasefire is highly unlikely to resolve the slate of disagreements and underlying strategic distrust plaguing U.S.-China relations. This will cap the rebound we expect in global business sentiment. How can we be so sure that the U.S. and China will not strike a historic deal? We answer this question in this report, with particular reference to an important corollary question that has emerged in numerous client meetings: wouldn’t China rather deal with the “transactional” Trump than an “ideological” President Elizabeth Warren?   Trump Is Not A “Lame Duck” Yet, Hence The Ceasefire President Trump is a uniquely commercial president. He did not become president through experience in military or government, but because he was a bold businessman who claimed he could negotiate better deals for the United States, including on immigration and trade. So he is even more vulnerable to an economic downturn than the average U.S. president. Industrial production, manufacturing, and core capital goods new orders are contracting, and sentiment is souring among both business leaders and average consumers (Chart 3). Trump faces a distinct risk that the manufacturing slowdown and psychological effects will morph into a general slowdown. Even if not outrightly recessionary, a generalized slowdown in the U.S. economy could easily lead to rising unemployment during the election year, which would all but ensure Trump’s loss of the White House. The degree of correlation between presidential approval and the unemployment rate fluctuates over time, but our survey of post-World War II presidents shows that the unemployment rate is the best indicator of the direction the approval rating will ultimately go by the end of the term in office. While Trump’s approval is highly correlated with unemployment, it is also very low – resembling President Obama’s at this point in his first term. Yet that was in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and Trump’s approval is declining as a result of the impeachment inquiry into his alleged attempt to convince Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election in his favor. And his approval is low despite an incredibly low rate of unemployment, at 3.5%, that can hardly get better (Chart 4). Chart 3Trump Needs A Sentiment Boost For 2020 Chart 4Rising Unemployment Would Doom Trump 2020 In short, Trump has very little wiggle room. To be reelected he must not only keep unemployment from rising much, but also achieve some other policy wins in order to draw closer to the average approval rate among post-World War II presidents (top panel, Chart 5). Even the Republican-friendly pollster Rasmussen shows that Trump’s general approval is dangerously eroding (bottom panel, Chart 5). One way Trump can achieve a political and economic victory would be to agree to a trade deal with China. One clear way to achieve a policy victory and a boost to the economy would be to agree to a trade deal with China. Passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement through Congress is out of his control. Policy toward China, by contrast, is entirely within his control. Just as he raised the tariffs unilaterally, so he can roll them back unilaterally to encourage the financial markets and CEO confidence – as long as talks are making progress. The downside of this argument is that if Trump becomes a “lame duck,” with a falling economy and/or approval rating virtually ensuring that he cannot get reelected, he is no longer constrained by financial markets or the economy. He would have an incentive to initiate “Cold War 2.0” with China right here and now – or some other foreign conflict – and encourage Americans to rally around the flag amid a historic confrontation with a foreign enemy. This is a huge risk to the 2020 outlook, but it runs afoul of the economic constraint, so we expect Trump to try the “Art of the Deal” one last time.     What about impeachment? When the House of Representatives brings formal impeachment articles against Trump, the Senate will hold the trial. Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, requiring 20 to defect against the president to generate the 67 votes needed to make him the first president in U.S. history to be removed from office in this way. A total of 16 senators hail from states that Trump won by less than 10% in the 2016 election – so 20 defectors is a strong political constraint. Unless, of course, grassroots Republican support for Trump collapses. Right now it is falling but in line with the average (top panel, Chart 6). Republicans are not warming to the idea of impeachment and removal from office (middle panel, Chart 6). We will reassess the risk of removal if Trump’s intra-party approval heads further south and begins to look like Richard Nixon’s (bottom panel, Chart 6). Bear in mind that the election is one year away – it is easier for Republicans to kick the decision over to voters than to remove one of their own from the Oval Office. A scandal big enough to prompt an exodus of Republican support will doom any chances of Republicans retaining the White House through Vice President Mike Pence or other candidates. Bottom Line: Trump’s approval rating is in dangerously low territory but he is not yet a “lame duck” freed from the shackles of political and economic constraints. He still has a shot at extending the business cycle and saving his election campaign. This is driving him to retreat from tariffs and pursue a trade ceasefire with China. The result should be a decline in global policy uncertainty in Q4. However, this decline will not last long, as American uncertainty will skyrocket during the election year and U.S.-China tensions will reemerge once the economic constraint has been reduced. China Will Accept A Ceasefire In a special report in these pages in August, we raised a critical question: if Trump is forced to retreat from his trade war, will President Xi Jinping reciprocate? Or will he refuse to bargain, leaving Trump overextended to suffer the negative economic repercussions of the trade war without the political benefit of striking a new deal? We now have our answer, at least for the near term. China resumed negotiations in October and has confirmed that progress was made. Beijing is continuing to offer some accommodation of U.S. demands in both domestic and foreign policy (e.g. financial sector opening, enforcement of sanctions on Iran). In Hong Kong SAR, not only has Beijing avoided a violent intervention and suppression of civilian protesters, but there are rumors that Chief Executive Carrie Lam is on the way out by March (which we find highly plausible). There are still plenty of risks across the broad range of U.S.-China disputes, but from the past month’s developments we can infer that President Xi is not going on the offensive in order to destroy Trump’s latest “deal-making” bid. How far will Xi go to accommodate Trump? Not so far as to implement major structural concessions. And this will limit the positive impact of the deal. Xi does not face an electoral constraint, or the loss of office (having removed term limits), nor does he face a domestic political constraint on a 12-month time frame (the twentieth national party congress is not until 2022). Economically China is much more vulnerable – this is a valid constraint. But tariffs do not force Beijing to make major structural concessions and implement them rapidly, certainly not on Trump’s time frame. The economy is slowing but not plummeting (Chart 7). China does not face conditions like 2015-16 and policymakers have decided it is best to save ammunition in case they need to use “bazooka” stimulus later. Chart 7China's Economy Holding Up Chart 8China Not Reflating Property Bubble (Yet) The fact that Beijing has maintained restrictions on the property sector and not allowed reflation to fuel the property bubble (Chart 8) underscores the current policy disposition: some parts of the economy need to be shored up but there is no need to panic. When it comes to tariffs, China ultimately has the option of depreciating the currency to offset the impact. The fact that the CNY-USD exchange rate has not fallen as far as the headline tariff numbers suggest it should fall indicates that Beijing is still maintaining a negotiation rather than letting the currency absorb the full impact (Chart 9). Chart 9China Can Depreciate To Offset Tariffs Since China is still capable of “irrigation-style” fiscal stimulus, the economic constraint can be mitigated further. Beijing can continue to fight if Trump returns to the offensive. Hence we do not expect major new trade concessions beyond what is already on the table – and many of the current offerings consist of promises more so than concrete actions (Table 1). Chart 10Beijing Throws Trump A Bone We do expect China to try to avoid the worst-case scenario, since it would be destabilizing for China’s medium and long-term economy and single-party rule. Stimulus will increase as necessary to ensure that growth rebounds as Beijing seeks to improve the job market and manufacturing sector. And this also supports the logic for agreeing to a ceasefire with Trump. That China is reciprocating is apparent from the U.S.’s rebounding market share in China’s agricultural imports (Chart 10). The relevant constraint for China is that Trump could be rendered a “lame duck” and go ballistic on China, activating the full slate of threats – from high-tech export controls, to banking sanctions, to capital controls. The U.S. is still the more powerful nation in absolute terms, with enormous financial, economic, military, and technological leverage over China. Beijing also sees the danger in deliberately thwarting Trump only to have him somehow win reelection. He would then have a renewed passion for punitive measures, yet he would lack the first term’s electoral constraints. Hence there is a clear basis for President Xi to accept Trump’s tactical trade retreat. Bottom Line: President Xi does not face an imminent domestic political constraint, which gives him greater leverage than President Trump. Nevertheless he does face short term economic pressures, and enough of a geopolitical and economic constraint from a full-blown escalation of tensions to accept Trump’s offer of a ceasefire. Wouldn’t China Rather Deal With Trump Than Warren? What about the upside risk? What are the chances that Xi offers additional concessions – structural concessions – in order to achieve a groundbreaking deal with the American president? A grand compromise will not occur. Republicans and Communist Party leaders have a history of such deals, which pave the way for a new multi-year stint of deepening bilateral economic engagement. We have a high conviction view that such a grand compromise will not occur. But could the U.S. 2020 election change China’s calculus? In particular, wouldn’t China prefer to deal with Trump than Senator Elizabeth Warren? More and more investors are asking this last question as the early U.S. Democratic Party primary election heats up. Warren is a democratic progressive who aims to revolutionize U.S. trade policy to promote human rights, organized labor, and strict environmental standards. She is seen as more “ideological,” whereas Trump is more “transactional” – i.e. willing to make business tradeoffs while staying away from sensitive issues affecting China’s internal affairs. Moreover Trump is a known quantity, whereas Warren would represent an unknown – a progressive populist as president and another revolution in U.S. policy, reducing predictability for Beijing.  Our assessment is that the U.S. election process is too early and too uncertain to serve as a driver of Beijing’s trade negotiating strategy over the fourth quarter. Moreover there is not a clear basis for China to favor Trump to Warren. Chart 11Trade Dispute Precedes Trump There are three major trends to bear in mind: The sea change in U.S. policy toward China began under the Obama administration. President Obama entered office by slapping tire tariffs on Beijing. He endorsed Congress’s “Buy American” provisions in the fiscal stimulus package to fight the Great Recession. Under his administration, the U.S. effectively capped steel imports from China (Chart 11). The Obama administration orchestrated the “Pivot to Asia,” a diplomatic and military initiative to rebalance U.S. strategic commitment to focus on China and the western Pacific more than the Middle East. This included the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an advanced trade deal that deliberately excluded China. It eventually also included a robust reassertion of U.S. maritime supremacy via bulked up Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea, a critical global sea lane where Beijing had become increasingly assertive (Diagram 1). Chart 12U.S.-China THAAD Dispute Under Obama The Obama administration’s attempt to install the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in South Korea caused a strategic showdown with China, emblematized by Chinese sanctions against the Korean economy (Chart 12). Obama’s one major policy handover to President Trump was to focus attention on North Korea’s advancing nuclear weaponization and missile capabilities – another source of friction with China. There can be little doubt that if the Democrats win the 2020 election, they will return to some or all of these policies. But this says more about U.S. national policy than it does about which political party China should favor in 2020, because … 2. The Trump administration is unpredictable and disruptive to both the global status quo and China’s economy. President Trump’s significance is that he shifted the Republican Party from its traditional pro-corporate, pro-free trade, pro-China orientation to a more populist, protectionist, and China-bashing approach. He stole the thunder of protectionist Democrats in the manufacturing heartland. He continued the pivot to Asia, albeit by another name (a “free and open Indo-Pacific”). This approach emphasized coercive unilateral “hard power” rather than multilateral “soft power” and resulted in a negative impact on China’s economy. This change, while it has pros and cons, demonstrates that a harder line on China has policy consensus across administrations. Few doubt that this is the new bipartisan consensus in Washington. Trump has executed this policy shift in a way that is fundamentally unsettling and unpredictable for China: sweeping unilateral tariffs against China on national security grounds (Chart 13); sanctions on tech companies critical for China’s economic future (Chart 14); and tightening relations with Taiwan. This policy eschews traditional diplomacy, which is where China thrives, and it unsettles global supply chains, where China once enjoyed centrality. To some extent Trump is even prisoner to his own logic: as he softens policy to get a trade ceasefire, he faces challenges from Congress on everything from tech export controls to Hong Kong human rights to Chinese corporate listings on U.S. stock exchanges. The Democrats will accuse him of caving to China if he agrees to a deal. Still, if China were to grant Trump deep trade concessions, it would effectively vindicate Trump’s approach. Future American presidents could always threaten across-the-board tariffs whenever they want to extract rapid structural changes from China’s policymakers. This is an intolerable precedent to set. A hard line on China has policy consensus across U.S. administrations. Chart 13Trump's Trade Policy Highly Disruptive Chart 14China's Tech Sector Under Threat   3. China cannot predict the outcome of U.S. primary or general elections. No one knows who will win the Democratic Party’s primary election. Joe Biden is the frontrunner and has clear advantages in terms of electability versus Trump. But Elizabeth Warren is gaining on him and her chief progressive rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is likely to continue flagging in the polls and feeding her rise due to his ill health. It is highly unlikely that Xi Jinping will make decisions regarding a ceasefire with Trump, as early as next month, based on up-and-down developments in a primary election that has not technically even begun (the first vote is in February). Once Biden or Warren have clinched the nomination, it is not clear who will win in November 2020. President Trump narrowly seized the electoral college in 2016 and the risks to his reelection are extreme, as outlined above. Yet he is the incumbent and BCA Research does not expect a recession next year, which should create a baseline case of reelection. Meanwhile Biden’s debate performances and polling are lackluster, despite being the establishment pick and front runner. Warren’s far-left ideology is a liability, although she is at least capable of beating Trump. Chinese policymakers will assess the developments, but Beijing will conduct strategy to be prepared for any outcome. Summing up the above, all that China knows for certain is that Trump is the current standard-bearer of a broader sea change in the Republican Party and Washington. The new consensus is broadly antagonistic toward China’s growing global influence. Hence China is preparing for “protracted struggle” regardless of whether Trump or a Democrat sits in the Oval Office after 2020. The logical conclusion is to continue negotiating with Trump, and offer some concessions to maintain credibility, but not to capitulate to his gunboat diplomacy. Finally, there are a two key arguments that work against the argument that China prefers Warren to Trump: Democrats will need time to build a multilateral anti-China coalition: Trump’s greatest mistake in the trade war is arguably his failure to form a “coalition of the willing” among western nations to take on China’s mercantilist trade practices together. Chart 15Trump Missed Chance To Build Grand Coalition Such a coalition would have represented a much greater economic constraint for Chinese leaders (Chart 15), making structural concessions more likely. A future Democratic president would have better luck in galvanizing such a coalition. Thus, by favoring Trump, Beijing could perpetuate the division between “America First” and “the liberal Western order.” Yet western nations will still be reluctant to confront China and it will take years of diplomacy to build such a concerted effort. These are years in which China can improve its economic self-sufficiency and use diplomacy to undermine western cohesion. By contrast, a second-term Trump could pursue punitive measures immediately (beyond tariffs) and could also pursue more western alignment, for instance on tech sanctions. A Chinese policy focused on overall stability would not clearly prefer the latter. As for a Warren presidency, her trade policy has more in common with Trump’s than with Biden’s or the status quo. It is not at all clear that she would be able to unify the West against China on the issue of trade. Hence there is no clear advantage to China of preferring Trump. Biden is probably a greater threat to China on this front, since he would “renegotiate” (i.e. rejoin) the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and court the Europeans, while likely maintaining Obama’s line on China. Yet Biden is viewed as the most pro-China candidate of all.  In short, trade policy is a wash from China’s point of view. The U.S. has already taken a more protectionist turn. From China’s view, the U.S. as a whole has taken a protectionist turn. Democrats will not prioritize China: Trump will be unshackled from concerns about bear markets and recessions if he is reelected to a second term due to the two-term limit. Warren would enter as a first-term president and would therefore face the reelection constraint that has hindered Trump’s own trade policy. If Trump loses, Warren faces an implicit threat should she clash with China. Chart 16Market Sees Warren As Health Care Risk Warren will also, like President Obama, spend the majority of her first term engrossed in an ambitious domestic policy agenda. Her policy priority is a universal single-payer health care system, which is a much more dramatic undertaking than Biden’s proposal of restoring and enhancing Obamacare, which is why health sector equities are sensitive to Warren’s election chances (Chart 16). Obama did not devote his full attention to Iran and China until his second term, and it is normal for the second term to be the “foreign policy term” due to the absence of electoral constraints. Several of Warren’s policy priorities would also be more favorable to China. In particular, Warren’s desire to impose tougher restrictions on U.S. financials, energy companies, and tech companies is broadly beneficial to China’s efforts to create globally competitive champions. At the same time, Trump is more likely to continue the buildup in U.S. military spending, which, combined with the unlikelihood that Trump will ultimately abandon U.S. allies in Asia, poses a strategic threat for China (Chart 17). China cannot calculate its trade negotiations according to the ups and downs of volatile U.S. politics. Instead it has an incentive to play both sides: to give Trump promises while hesitating to implement them, so as not to render him a dangerous “lame duck” (Chart 18) but also not to gift-wrap the election for him. Chart 17Trump's Military Buildup The one thing that can be expected over the next two years is that China will try to maintain economic stability to attract Europe and Asia deeper into its orbit. This means incrementally more stimulus, as mentioned above. China cannot allow itself to risk debt-deflation while encouraging other economies to become less reliant on Chinese demand. Bottom Line: China cannot predict the future. Its best play is to try to undermine the emerging U.S. policy consensus to be tough on China. This means agreeing to a ceasefire to pacify Trump without giving him major structural concessions that improve his chances of reelection. If he loses, future presidents will be afraid of tackling China aggressively. If he wins, yes, China can try to exploit his “America First” policy to keep the U.S. divided within itself and with the rest of the West. If a Democrat wins, China will have set a precedent that gunboat diplomacy fails. It can try to bind the Democrat to the Trump ceasefire terms. If the Democrats tear up the deal then China will have a basis to begin negotiations as an aggrieved party. Investment Conclusions The problem for President Trump is that a weak, short-term ceasefire – in which China does not verifiably implement structural concessions and the threat of “tech war” continues to loom – will not have as positive of an impact on global and American economic sentiment as Trump hopes. Moreover it could collapse under the weight of Sino-American strategic distrust in areas outside trade. Thus while we expect global policy uncertainty to drop off – as we outlined at the beginning of this report – we expect the reduction to be moderate rather than dramatic and not to last all the way to the U.S. election.  Our colleagues Bob Ryan and Hugo Belanger have demonstrated that a rise in global policy uncertainty is correlated with a rise in the trade weighted dollar (Chart 19). If uncertainty falls, it will help the dollar ease, which improves global financial conditions and cultivates a rebound in global growth and trade. Chart 19Policy Uncertainty Boosts The Dollar Chart 20Falling Uncertainty Hurts US Outperformance This is corroborated by the U.S. trade policy uncertainty index, which reinforces not only the point about the dollar but also the implication that global equities can begin to outperform U.S. equities (Chart 20). With trade sentiment recovering, and U.S. domestic political risk rising due to the election, there is a basis for equity rotation. This assumes that China’s growth does incrementally improve, as we expect.   Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com