Inflation/Deflation

Special Report

Highlights Many on the left have embraced Modern Monetary Theory because it seemingly provides a politically expedient way to increase social welfare spending without raising taxes. Money-financed budget deficits can be justified when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, but can be extremely inflationary once full employment is reached. Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation and larger budget deficits. The path to high rates is lined with low rates, meaning that an extended period of accommodative monetary policy is usually necessary to stoke inflation. Investors should maintain a bullish bias towards global equities for now, but be prepared to turn bearish late next year as inflation begins to accelerate in the United States. An earlier turn to a more defensive posture on stocks may be necessary if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, emerges as the likely victor in the next presidential election. Feature Print Some Money And Feel The Bern You know that an economic theory has reached the big leagues of policy debate when the Fed Chair is asked about it during his congressional testimony. This is exactly what happened on February 26, 2019, when Senator David Perdue questioned Jay Powell about his views on Modern Monetary Theory, or simply MMT as it is often called. Rather ironically given its name, MMT plays down the influence of monetary policy over the economy. Its adherents argue that Congress, and not the Fed, should be responsible for maintaining full employment. MMT proponents abhor the idea of a “balanced budget.” They contend that worries about sovereign debt levels are overblown. The U.S. government can always print money to finance itself. Fiscal deficits matter, but only to the extent that excessive deficits can cause inflation. The theory’s backers are a bit cagey about exactly how much inflation they are willing to tolerate or what they would do if, as in the 1970s, inflation and unemployment both rose together. Whether one thinks MMT is crackpot economics is not the point. What matters is that its supporters are growing in number. They include Stephanie Kelton, Bernie Sanders’ former economic advisor, and one of the speakers at BCA’s forthcoming annual New York Investment Conference. In my personal opinion, Sanders stands a very good chance of winning the 2020 presidential election. This makes MMT about as market-relevant as anything out there. In the following Q&A, we discuss the details of MMT and what it means for investors: Q: How does Modern Monetary Theory differ from standard Keynesian economics? A: MMT is almost indistinguishable from Keynesian economics when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, an environment where even interest rates of zero are not enough to revive demand. What really separates the two schools of thought is that MMT proponents tend to see liquidity trap conditions as the normal state of affairs, whereas most Keynesians see them as the exception to the rule. Q: Who’s right? The Keynesians or the MMTers? A: That remains to be seen. Near-zero rates have been the norm for most of the last decade, and much longer in Japan. This is a key reason why MMT has grown in popularity. The future may be different, however. Output gaps are shrinking and some of the structural forces which have held down rates over the last decade may fade. For example, the ratio of workers-to-consumers has peaked around the world, which may result in a decline in global savings (Chart 1). This could push up interest rates. Chart 1The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Q: Does the tendency of MMT backers to see the world as chronically ensnarled in a liquidity trap explain why they seem to consistently argue for bigger budget deficits? A: It does. If an economy needs negative interest rates to reach full employment, but actual rates are constrained by the zero-lower bound, anything which incrementally adds to aggregate demand will not result in higher rates. This means that increased government spending will not crowd out private investment – indeed, quite to the contrary, bigger budget deficits will “crowd in” private spending by boosting employment. The standard MMT prescription is to run a budget deficit that is large enough, but no larger, to maintain full employment. In effect, this means taking any excess private-sector savings – that is, savings which cannot be transformed into private investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus – and having the government absorb them with its own dissavings. Q: So MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time? Good luck with that. A: Yes, that is a common problem with most left-wing theories: They assume that the government should not be trusted with anything unless it is run by fellow leftists, in which case it should be trusted with everything. To make the fiscal response timelier, MMT supporters have proposed creating a government job guarantee. The basic idea is that the government would hire more workers when the private sector is hunkering down, while shedding workers when the private sector is expanding. In theory, automatic fiscal stabilizers of this sort could help dampen the business cycle. The consensus among MMT backers in the U.S. is that a $15 wage would be high enough to offer a tolerable standard of living without enticing many people to opt for government work when suitable private-sector employment is available. MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time. Unfortunately, as is often the case with such ideas, the devil is in the details. For example, does the $15 wage include potentially generous government benefits? What will the government do if someone shows up for work but decides to just loaf around? What about low-skilled workers who would be more productive in the private sector but are instead diverted into government make-work projects? Inquiring minds want to know. Q: And the price tag could be huge! Wouldn’t an extended period of large budget deficits – even if justified by economic circumstances – cause debt levels to spiral out of control? A: A prolonged period of large budget deficits would most certainly lead to a significant increase in the government debt burden. However, if the interest rate on government borrowing is lower than the growth rate of the economy, as MMT supporters tend to assume, the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually stabilize.1 In such a setting, the government could just roll over the existing stock of debt indefinitely, while issuing enough new debt to cover interest payments. No additional taxes would be necessary. Chart 2 shows this point analytically. Right now, projected GDP growth is higher than 10-year government borrowing rates for most countries (Chart 3). That’s the good news. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that this will remain the case indefinitely. If interest rates ever rose above GDP growth for an extended period of time, debt dynamics would quickly become unsustainable. MMTers argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants because they see the currency as a public monopoly.  Q: Isn’t it crazy to assume that interest rates will always stay below GDP growth? A: Not according to MMTers. They argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants. This is because they see the currency as a public monopoly. As long as a government is able to issue its own currency, it can create money to pay for whatever it purchases, and by definition, money pays no interest. This means that the interest rate can always be held below the growth rate of the economy. The only reason policymakers may wish to raise interest rates is if inflation is getting out of hand. However, even then, most MMT adherents would prefer that the government tighten fiscal policy either by hiking taxes on the rich or cutting spending programs they don’t like (the military is usually high on their list). Raising rates is widely seen by MMT supporters as simply providing a handout to bondholders. Q: It sounds like MMT basically cuts the Fed and other central banks out of the loop. A: That’s right. MMTers contend that monetary policy has little impact on the economy. In fact, many MMT advocates believe that higher rates raise aggregate demand by putting more income into bondholders’ pockets. It’s a very odd argument. Yes, corporate investment tends to respond more to animal spirits than to changes in interest rates. However, there is little doubt that rates affect housing, the currency, and asset prices (and all three, in turn, affect animal spirits). It is almost as if the 1982 recession – an episode where the Volcker Fed took interest rates to 19% – never happened. Q: An odd argument, but perhaps not a surprising one? A: That’s where the “Magic Money Tree” moniker comes in. When an economy is suffering from high unemployment, there really is a free lunch: Putting more people to work can increase someone’s spending without decreasing someone else’s. However, when an economy is at full employment, scarcity becomes relevant again. If a government wants to spend more, it has to convince the private sector to spend less, which it normally does by raising interest rates. MMTers like to throw out the old chestnut about how budget deficits endow the private sector with financial assets such as cash or government bonds. But if additional government spending leads to higher inflation, an increase in the volume of financial assets will simply result in the erosion of the value of existing financial assets. There may be times when more government spending is beneficial even in a full-employment economy, such as funding for basic scientific research or public infrastructure. However, there may also be times when increased government spending is wasteful and comes at the expense of valuable private-sector investment. MMT does not distinguish between the two cases because its adherents seem to deny that any such trade-off exists. Q: It sounds like MMTers want to have their cake and eat it too. A: Exactly. The political appeal of MMT is that it seemingly promises European-style welfare spending without Europe’s level of taxes. Just print more money! Let us ignore the fact that the Fed actually pays interest on bank reserves. Under the current rules, increasing the monetary base would not be costless for the government if that money ended up back at the Fed in the form of excess reserves, as it surely would. The bigger problem is that a large increase in government spending, which is not matched by much higher taxes, will quickly cause the economy to overheat. At that point, policymakers would either need to rapidly tighten fiscal policy, aggressively hike interest rates, or face hyperinflation and a plunging currency. Q: That seems like an obvious point. Why don’t MMTers see it? A: It gets back to what we discussed at the outset – MMTers regard the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity globally, including in the United States, where the unemployment rate has fallen below official estimates of NAIRU (the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment). MMT supporters tend to be skeptical of these NAIRU estimates, believing them to be biased upwards. MMTers see the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity in the world. To be fair, the methodology used by the OECD and many other statistical agencies to calculate the full employment rate, which effectively just smooths out past values of the actual unemployment rate, has probably understated the degree of labor market slack in a few countries (Chart 4). Chart 4AThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (I) Chart 4BThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (II) That said, we doubt that NAIRU is overstated in the United States. Both the Fed and the OECD peg NAIRU at 4.3%, slightly below the CBO’s estimate of 4.6%. As it is, the current CBO estimate is nearly one percentage point below the post-1960 average (Chart 5). Back in the 1960s and 1970s, most economists thought NAIRU was lower than it actually turned out to be (Chart 6). This caused the Fed to keep rates below where they should have been. Chart 5U.S. NAIRU Is Estimated To Be The Lowest On Record Chart 6The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Q: Let’s bring this back to market strategy. What does the increasing popularity of MMT mean for investors? A: Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation. The idea that central banks should raise rates preemptively to avoid overheating is slowly giving way to the belief that they should wait to see the “whites of inflation’s eyes” before tightening monetary policy. Meanwhile, on the fiscal side, austerity is out, and big deficits are in. None of this should be all that surprising. Attitudes towards inflation move in generational cycles. The generation that grew up during the 1930s was highly sensitized towards deflation risk. As a result, policymakers focused on increasing employment, even at the expense of higher inflation. In contrast, the generation that came of age in the 1970s favored policies that clamped down on inflation. For today’s generation, the stagflation of the seventies is a distant memory. “Maximum employment” is the name of the game again. It often takes several years for an overheated economy to produce inflation. This is particularly true when the Phillips curve is quite flat, as appears to be the case today. To the extent that the Fed raises rates over the next 12 months, it will be in response to better-than-expected growth. The stock market should be able to do well in that environment. However, as we get into late-2020 or early-2021, inflation may begin to move materially higher, forcing the Fed to crank up the pace of rate hikes. At that point, equity prices will drop and a maximum short duration stance towards government bonds will be warranted. Q: Just in time for Bernie Sanders’ inauguration! You predicted Trump would win, but Crazy Bernie? Come on, seriously? A: My guess is that Trump was the only Republican candidate who could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, while Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who could have lost to Trump. Had it been Bernie versus Trump, Trump would have lost. Given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed.   This is not just idle speculation. During the tail end of the 2016 primary season, head-to-head polls showed Sanders leading Trump by about 10 points, compared to a 3-point lead for Clinton (Chart 7). The final results would have been more favorable for Trump, but given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed. A strong economy will help Trump this time around. However, demographic trends continue to move against Republicans. Trump also made a strategic mistake during his first two years in office by focusing on Republican pet issues like corporate tax cuts and gutting Obamacare, rather than securing funding for the border wall, which was his signature campaign promise. For its part, the Democrat establishment will try to stymie Sanders again, but having recently watered down the “superdelegate” rules, it will be in a much weaker position to do so than last time. Q: Yikes, President Bernie doesn’t sound good for stocks! A: In our client conversations on “tail risks” facing the markets, Bernie Sanders almost never comes up. Admittedly, a lot can change in the next 12 months, including the possibility that Joe Biden will enter the race. Biden is more moderate than Sanders and has broad-based appeal. This means that it is still too early to make any significant changes to portfolio strategy. However, if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, begins to do well in the polls, markets may start to get antsy later this year.     Peter Berezin Chief Global Investment Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com       1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Low Bond Volatility: Weakening non-U.S. growth and a more dovish Fed have crushed global government bond volatility, especially in Europe and Japan where yields are struggling to stay above 0%. Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads, which now largely reflect long-run real growth differentials between the U.S and Europe/Japan, are likely to stay range bound. USTs vs Bunds/JGBs: Stay overweight Bunds & JGBs versus Treasuries, on a hedged basis in U.S. dollars, given the boost to returns from hedging into higher-yielding dollars. Feature Bond Yields Are In Winter Hibernation Developed market (DM) government bonds, never the most exciting of asset classes to begin with, have become boring of late. While benchmark 10-year yields since the end of January have moved in line with our recommended country allocations - lower in Germany (-7bps), Japan (-3bps), the U.K. (-5bps) and Australia (-11bps) where we are overweight, higher in the U.S. (+5bps), Canada (+2bps) and Italy (+19bps) where we are underweight – government bonds have settled into trading ranges and lack direction. The proximate trigger for the muted yield volatility was the Federal Reserve shifting to a neutral stance on U.S. monetary policy in January. Investors have priced out any possibility of a Fed rate hike over the next year, and now even discount a modest rate cut, according to the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. Yet while most of the attention for bond investors have been focused on the U.S., there are developments in other major economies that are also depressing yields – namely, weakening economic momentum and sluggish inflation. In particular, the downturn has shown no signs of stabilizing in the eurozone and Japan, with the latest readings on manufacturing PMIs now below the 50 line, signaling a contraction (Chart of the Week). The latest data in both regions still shows that core inflation is nowhere near the inflation targets of the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ). The story is much different in the U.S, with the manufacturing PMI still well above 50 and core inflation hovering close to the Fed’s 2% inflation target. Yet Treasury yield volatility has collapsed, with the MOVE index of Treasury options prices now back to the lows of this cycle. Chart Of The WeekAre Treasuries Leading Or Following? For the time being, non-U.S. factors are driving the direction of global bond yields. We think that will change later this year, as steady U.S. growth and surprisingly firm U.S. inflation readings will prompt the Fed to begin hiking rates again. Yet until there are signs that non-U.S. growth is stabilizing, the low yields in Europe and Japan will act as an anchor on U.S. Treasury yields, particularly given how wide U.S./non-U.S. yield differentials already reflect faster growth and inflation in the U.S. Decomposing Treasury-Bund & Treasury-JGB Spreads When looking at the pricing of the “Big 3” DM government bond markets – the U.S., Germany and Japan – there are some major differences but also some similarities as well. Even with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury sitting at 2.68% compared to a mere 0.11% and -0.03% on the 10-year German Bund and 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB), respectively. Simply looking at the breakdown of those nominal 10-year yields into the real and inflation expectations components, there is not much of a comparison (Chart 2). The real 10-year Treasury yield is in positive territory at 0.6%, compared to -1.4% and +0.2% for JGBs and German bunds, respectively. Inflation expectations, measured by 10-year CPI swap rates, are 2.1% in the U.S., 1.5% in Germany and 0.2% in Japan. Thus, the current wide 10-year Treasury-Bund spread (just under +260ps) can be broken down into a real yield spread of +200bps and an inflation expectations gap of +60bps. In the case of the 10-year Treasury-JGB spread (just under +270bps), that breaks down into a real yield differential of +80bps and an inflation gap of +190bps. Chart 2Big Differentials Here... So while the Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads are of similar magnitude, the valuation components driving the spread are much different. The former is more of a real yield gap, while the latter is more of an inflation expectations gap. That is no surprise given the BoJ’s Yield Curve Control policy that maintains a ceiling on the 10-year JGB yield of between 0.1% and 0.2%, limiting how much real yields can move (there are no BoJ restrictions on the level of CPI swap rates). Yet the U.S.-Japan inflation expectations gap is not too far off the spread between realized headline and core inflation measures in both countries - both are 1.4 percentage points higher in the U.S. as of January. Looking at other valuation metrics, the cross-county differentials are less pronounced (Chart 3). Chart 3...But Less So For Other Yield Measures Yield curves are quite flat, with the 2-year/10-year slope a mere +16bps in the U.S., +14bps in Japan and only +66bps in Germany. Our estimates of the term premia on 10-year government debt are negative for all three markets, most notably in the countries that have seen quantitative easing in recent years (-10bps in the U.S., -90bps in Germany and -60bps in Japan). Perhaps most importantly, our preferred measure of the market pricing of the real terminal policy rate – the 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward – is +0.2% in the U.S., -0.5% in Germany and 0.0% in Japan. That means the market is pricing in only a +70bp differential, in real terms, between the neutral policy rates of the Fed and ECB. That gap is only +20bps between market pricing of the neutral real rates for the Fed and BoJ. That narrower gap between the market-implied pricing of the real neutral rate is consistent with the theoretical macroeconomic drivers of real rate differentials, like growth rates of potential GDP and labor productivity. According to OECD estimates, potential GDP growth is 1.8% in the U.S., 1.5% in the overall euro area and 1.2% in Japan (Chart 4). This implies a long-run real yield gap between the U.S. and Germany of +60bps and the U.S. and Japan of +30bps – very close to the market pricing for the real terminal rate differentials.1 When looking at the 5-year annualized growth rates of labor productivity data from the OECD, there is no difference between the three regions with all growing at a mere 0.5% (suggesting that either a faster growth rate of the labor input, or greater productivity of capital, accounts for the higher potential growth rate in the U.S.). Chart 4No Major Differences In Long-Run Real Growth With the cross-country yield spreads now effectively priced for the long-run real growth differentials between the U.S. and Europe/Japan, this will limit the ability for nominal Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads to widen much further. Right now, U.S. inflation expectations are rising faster than those of Europe and Japan, in response to the Fed’s more dovish stance. Yet if those expectations continue to rise, likely in the context of stickier realized U.S. inflation alongside solid U.S. growth, then the Fed will return to a hawkish bias. That ultimately means higher U.S. real yields and, most likely, some pullback in U.S. inflation expectations since the markets would begin to price in the implications of the Fed moving to a restrictive policy stance (including a stronger U.S. dollar that will help dampen U.S. inflation, at the margin). So that means inflation differentials between the U.S. and Germany/Japan can move wider now but will narrow later; and vice versa for real yield differentials (narrower now and wider later). The main investment implication: nominal UST-Bund and UST-JGB spreads are unlikely to move much wider, likely for the remainder of this business cycle/Fed tightening cycle. The main takeaway is that bond yields in core Europe and Japan are effectively anchoring global yields, in general, and U.S. yields, in particular. Treasury yields will not be able to break out of the current narrow trading ranges until there are signs that growth has stabilized in Europe and Japan. Reduced global trade tensions and faster Chinese growth (and import demand) are necessary conditions to reflate the export-heavy economies of Europe and Japan. Yet even if that scenario does unfold in the months ahead (which is BCA’s base case scenario), there is still a case to prefer Bunds and JGBs over U.S. Treasuries on a currency-hedged basis in U.S. dollars. Given the wide short-term interest rate differentials between the U.S. and Europe/Japan, those near-zero 10-year Bund and JGB yields, after hedging into U.S. dollars, are actually higher than 10-year Treasury yields, which benefits the relative hedged performance of the low-yielders versus the U.S. (Chart 5) Chart 5Stay Overweight Bunds & JGBs Vs. USTs (Hedged Into USD) Thus, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on core Europe and Japan, versus an underweight tilt on the U.S., in global U.S. dollar-hedged government bond portfolios. Bottom Line: Weakening non-U.S. growth and a more dovish Fed have crushed global government bond volatility, especially in Europe and Japan where yields are struggling to stay above 0%. Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads, which now largely reflect long-run real growth differentials between the U.S and Europe/Japan are likely to stay range bound. Stay overweight Bunds & JGBs versus Treasuries, on a hedged basis in U.S. dollars, given the boost to returns from hedging into higher-yielding dollars.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com    Footnotes 1      We are using the full euro area data for these economic comparisons, even though we are discussing U.S.-German yield differentials in this report. We think this is reasonable given the status of German government bonds as the benchmark for the euro area, and with the ECB setting its monetary policy for the overall euro area. The differences between the data for Germany and the overall euro area are modest, with German potential GDP and 5-year productivity growth both only 0.3 percentage points higher. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights The Phillips curve, which encouraged economic policymakers of the sixties and early seventies to believe in a mechanical tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, fell into disrepute once stagflation strangled the U.S. economy. We do not view the idea that there is an inverse relationship between the unemployment rate and wage gains as controversial. This weak form of the Phillips curve simply formalizes the interplay between supply and demand in the labor market. We have found, however, that any reference to the Phillips curve has the potential to provoke strong reactions from investors. The criticism that the link between compensation gains and consumer prices is questionable has merit. Over the last 30 years, changes in compensation have exhibited a sporadic correlation with changes in consumer prices. Even if the empirical evidence between labor market tightness and inflation is somewhat wobbly, the Fed remains squarely in the Phillips curve camp, and its take on the relationship is the only one that matters for monetary policy. The investment implication is that labor market strength will prove self-limiting. An unemployment rate bound for 3.5% or lower will pull the Fed back off the sidelines, ultimately bringing down the curtain on the expansion and the equity bull market. Feature The stagflation of the seventies was a near-death experience for the Phillips curve and its proposition that unemployment and inflation are inversely related. As both Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps had predicted, the trade-off could not survive beyond the short term because workers would adjust their expectations as they caught on to the pattern, demanding wages that kept pace with inflation even when unemployment was high. Duly modified, the Phillips curve’s appeal was rekindled, and the Phelps-Phillips expectations-augmented version has gone mostly unchallenged within the economics profession ever since. The Fed and other policymakers may have given up on the notion that they could manage their economies via a mechanical tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, but the inverse relationship remains a pillar of their macroeconomic models. We don’t find the idea that the unemployment rate and wage inflation are inversely related the least bit controversial, as it fully accords with the laws of supply and demand. Unemployment’s link to consumer price inflation is uncertain, however, and even the narrow unemployment/wages form of the Phillips curve relationship we favor often invites controversy. Discussing upward wage pressures within the context of consumer price inflation and the Fed’s reaction function can elicit spirited resistance. As one client put it in a January meeting, “it is unbecoming for BCA to subscribe to these sorts of cost-plus notions of inflation.” This Special Report examines the record in an effort to determine the influence the Phillips curve thesis will have on policy and markets going forward. It asks the following questions along the way: What is the Phillips curve? Where does inflation come from? Is there a relationship between wage inflation and price inflation? Where does the Fed stand? What impact will a falling unemployment rate have on the economy and financial markets? A Brief History Of The Phillips Curve The Phillips curve arose from a study of the unemployment rate and wages in the U.K. from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries. William Phillips discovered a consistent inverse relationship between the unemployment rate and changes in wages: high unemployment was associated with muted wage gains, and low unemployment was associated with robust wage gains. He posited that the unemployment rate revealed the level of tightness in the labor market, and the extent to which employers had to compete to attract workers. Other researchers extended the relationship from wage inflation to price-level inflation and suggested that policy makers could use the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation to fine-tune the course of the economy. The stagflation of the seventies blew up the notion of a mechanical tradeoff, but a modified form of the inverse relationship between unemployment and wage gains resides at the heart of mainstream macroeconomic forecasting models. Those models have become more sophisticated, and now include the concept of a natural rate of unemployment, but the inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation remains at their core. Investor skepticism aside, the Phillips curve is deeply embedded in orthodox economic narratives relating inflation and unemployment. As New York Fed President Williams put it last Friday in the first line of a speech discussing the issues raised in a new Phillips curve paper, “The Phillips curve is the connective tissue between the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate goals of maximum employment and price stability.1” Where Does Inflation Come From? Thousands of dissertations have grappled with this subject without providing a definitive solution, but there are two broad explanations we find most compelling. The first is that inflation responds to the level of slack in the economy. That’s to say that inflation is a by-product of the relative balance between aggregate supply and aggregate demand. When the output gap is wide (demand falls well short of the economy’s capacity), inflation is unlikely to find a footing. When the output gap is closed (demand and capacity are in balance) or negative (demand exceeds capacity), inflation will gain traction unless imported capacity bridges the gap. For the second, we combine the idea that inflation expectations play a central role with Milton Friedman’s always-and-everywhere admonition. The stable inflation of the last couple of decades has coincided with stable inflation expectations. The causation mostly appears to run from (trailing) inflation to expectations (Chart 1), but expectations surely influence economic actors’ price negotiations and open the door to a monetary influence. Inflation expectations are likely to be well anchored under a central bank that convinces households and businesses of its commitment to price stability. When the monetary authority lacks inflation credibility, inflation expectations may become unmoored and impel economic actors to insist upon higher wages and selling prices to keep pace with a rising price level. Chart 1Seeing The Future In The Recent Past The expectations-augmented Phillips curve makes it clear that inflation is a function of inflation expectations just as surely as it is a function of the unemployment rate. The more firmly expectations are anchored, the more unemployment has to drift from its natural rate (NAIRU, or u-star (u*)) to move the inflation needle. In other words, when expectations are as well-anchored as they have been since the crisis, wages will be so unresponsive to changes in the unemployment rate that the Phillips curve will appear to be broken. Believing that inflation will permanently remain at 2% or lower, workers feel no urgency to press for larger wage/salary increases. The Empirical Record – Unemployment And Wages The seventies played havoc with the Phillips curve, but over the last twenty-five years, the inverse relationship between changes in the unemployment rate and wage gains has held up very well once the unemployment rate has reached threshold levels at or near u-star. When there is ample slack in the labor market, wages are nearly insensitive to changes in the unemployment rate. When the unemployment rate moves from 10% to 9%, 9% to 8%, or 8% to 7%, there are multiple qualified candidates for every job opening and employers have no reason to bid wages higher (Chart 2, top panel). Below 5%, roughly around u*, employers have to compete for workers and wage gains are very sensitive to moves in the unemployment rate (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 3 illustrates the threshold concept, segmenting the last 30 years of observations by their relationship to the unemployment gap. Observations for which the unemployment gap is greater than or equal to 2% are shown in gray; their best-fit line with wage gains is nearly flat. Positive, but small, unemployment-gap observations are shown in orange; their best-fit line is steeper and indicates a more robust correlation with moves in wages. Negative unemployment-gap observations are colored blue; they have the steepest best-fit line and exhibit the tightest correlation with changes in wages. A skeptic might seek more convincing evidence, but period-to-period noise in the data limits the amount of variation in wages explained by the unemployment rate (just under 40% over the last 30 years). Noting that the unemployment gap tends to persist in negative and positive territory for extended periods, we measured the annualized rate of wage gains for negative-gap and positive-gap phases. The results were robust, with wage gains in negative-gap phases consistently topping gains in positive-gap phases (Chart 4). Both groups exhibited remarkably consistent growth rates – the three complete negative-gap phases featured wage gains of 3.8%, 3.8% and 3.9%, while the three positive-gap phases had wage growth of 2.7%, 2.5% and 2.4%. At 3%, the current negative-gap phase has already separated itself from the last three decades’ positive-gap phases, though the 3.8% level is still a ways away. Chart 4Mind The Gap The Empirical Record – Wage Inflation And Price Inflation If businesses were omniscient, omnipotent and able to adjust selling prices in real time – something like Amazon, in another words – they might seek to preserve their profit margins by instantaneously raising prices to offset wage gains. Wage inflation and price inflation would then move together in lockstep without any lags. Businesses do not have unlimited power or unlimited knowledge, however, and neither do workers. There are information and expectation lags, and price-making/price-taking status is fluid. The empirical record over the 50-plus years covered by the average hourly earnings series shows that the wage-price relationship is constantly shifting. Under a cost-push inflation framework, tightness in the labor market shows up in consumer prices after employees negotiate raises, and employers subsequently raise prices to recoup lost profits. In a demand-pull model, businesses perceiving signs of excess demand take the opportunity to raise prices, spurring employees to demand raises to preserve their purchasing power. There is room for both models, as BCA’s analysis of wage/price dynamics over the years has shown that leadership between prices and wages regularly shifts. For the purposes of this report, it is sufficient to note that the wage/price skeptics have a point. A decade-by-decade review of year-on-year gains in average hourly earnings (“AHE”) and core CPI shows that correlations between AHE and consumer prices regularly make big swings. The ‘60s, ‘80s and ‘00s were pretty good to Phillips curve adherents (Chart 5), but the ‘70s, ‘90s and the current decade mocked them, featuring repeated instances of outright decoupling (Chart 6). The bottom line is that the direction of causation between wages and consumer price inflation, as well as the sensitivity of the relationship, is fluid. The empirical record does not support the idea that wage inflation translates to overall inflation in a consistent and timely fashion. Chart 5Moving In Lockstep One Decade... Chart 6... Decoupling The Next The Fed’s Reaction Function Wage gains exhibit little sensitivity to changes in the unemployment rate when there is a lot of slack in the labor market. Even at lower levels of unemployment, inflation expectations can temper wages’ sensitivity to the unemployment rate. There is assuredly an inverse relationship between wages and unemployment, nonetheless, and wage gains are especially sensitive when the unemployment gap is negative. The jury is out on the relationship between unemployment and inflation, however. The direction of causation is not constant and the response lags between the series can be quite long. Inflation expectations play a sizable role, and are capable of smothering wage gains in times of low unemployment if they’re well-anchored, or goosing them even in times of high unemployment if they’re spiraling upward. Believing in the Phillips curve relationship requires a lot of assumptions, and if the theory were brand-new today, it might have a hard time surviving peer review. Markets don’t take their cues from peer-reviewed journals, however. When it comes to interest rates and the entire gamut of financial assets impacted by monetary policy, the Fed has the last word. What it believes about the Phillips curve is much more important than whether or not its conclusions have iron-clad empirical support. It has long been BCA’s view, informed by our contacts within the Fed, the former central bankers who sat on our Research Advisory Board, the Bank of Canada veterans who have worked at BCA, and careful observation of the Fed’s own comments and research, that the Fed maintains a Phillips curve view of the world. The Fed has plenty of company in this regard. Nearly all central banks are Phillips curve believers; in the absence of a mainstream alternative model of inflation, they all have to fall back on the expectations-augmented hypothesis. Investors and economics enthusiasts can rail against the Phillips curve’s empirical shortcomings, and posit that globalization, robotics/AI, Amazon and the gig economy have rendered it null and void. Those theories have not been confirmed by the data,2 however, and until the profession unites behind an alternative narrative, the Phillips curve will continue to heavily influence monetary policy. New York Fed President Williams clearly subscribes to the tell-‘em-what-you’re-gonna-tell-‘em/tell-‘em/tell-‘em-what-you-just-told-‘em method of constructing speeches. One need look no further than his remarks last Friday, when discussing a paper co-authored by former Fed governor Frederic Mishkin, for his view. “[T]he Phillips curve is very much alive in very tight labor markets,” he said near the beginning of his remarks. “[T]he Phillips curve is alive and kicking,” he said more than halfway through. “In summary, the Phillips curve is alive and well,” he said in conclusion, in case anyone in the audience had been napping. The bottom line for an investor today is that the Fed’s reaction function ensures that labor market strength will ultimately prove to be self-limiting. Assuming that Baby Boomer retirements will stifle further gains in the labor force participation rate, the unemployment rate is likely to ratchet lower across 2019.3 As it dips further and further below NAIRU, the Fed can be counted upon to remove accommodation, ultimately triggering a recession (Chart 7). Chart 7Expansions End When Unemployment Rises Investment Implications As the Fed’s pause allows the economy to regather momentum, hiring and wage growth should be well supported. The accompanying decline in the unemployment rate will drive the Fed to revive its tightening campaign. The irony is the longer the Fed grants the economy, and investors, a respite by holding its fire, the more accommodation it will have to remove to stamp out inflation pressures. It will take until 2020 for the Fed to complete its tightening campaign, but we expect the terminal fed funds rate in this cycle will be at least 3.25 to 3.5%, far above the OIS curves’ projection that fed funds will end 2020 at 2.25%. Such a wide disparity between our expectations and market expectations leaves considerable room for the Treasury curve to shift out along all maturities. We expect the curve will ultimately invert, but the process will follow a bear-flattening course, and long maturities will suffer the worst capital losses. We therefore advocate underweighting Treasuries in all fixed-income portfolios, while maintaining below-benchmark duration in all bond sleeves. We expect that Fed tightening will bring the curtain down on the equity bull market before the recession officially begins (Chart 8). Until it does, however, we expect the Fed’s forbearance to help the economy generate evident momentum, pushing risk-asset values higher. We continue to recommend that investors overweight equities and spread product for now, but the clock is ticking. Watch the unemployment gap for the cue to position portfolios more defensively. Chart 8Inducing A Recession Is Tantamount To Inducing A Bear Market Doug Peta, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      Williams, John C., “Discussion of ‘Prospects for Inflation in a High Pressure Economy: Is the Phillips Curve Dead or Is It Just Hibernating?’” Remarks at the U.S. Monetary Policy Forum, New York City, February 22, 2019. https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2019/wil190222 2      Please see the September 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “Did Amazon Kill the Phillips Curve?” available at bcaresearch.com. 3      Holding the participation rate constant, the U.S. economy has to create 110,000 jobs a month to keep the unemployment rate at a steady state. Please see the Atlanta Fed’s online jobs calculator at https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx.

Highlights It may seem self-evident that most governments are overly indebted, but both theory and evidence suggest otherwise. Higher debt today does not require higher taxes tomorrow if the growth rate of the economy exceeds the interest rate on government bonds. Not only is that currently the case, but it has been the norm for most of history. Unlike private firms or households, governments can choose the interest rate at which they borrow, provided that they issue debt in their own currencies. Ultimately, inflation is the only constraint to how large fiscal deficits can get. Today, most governments would welcome higher inflation. There are increasing signs China is abandoning its deleveraging campaign. Fiscal policy will remain highly accommodative in the U.S. and will turn somewhat more stimulative in Europe. Remain overweight global equities/underweight bonds. We do not have a strong regional equity preference at the moment, but expect to turn more bullish on EM versus DM by the middle of this year. Feature A Fiscal Non-Problem? Debt levels in advanced economies are higher today than they were on the eve of the Global Financial Crisis. Rising private debt accounts for some of this increase, but the lion’s share has occurred in government debt (Chart 1). Chart 1Global Debt Levels Have Risen, Especially In The Public Sector Not surprisingly, rising public debt levels have elicited plenty of consternation. While there has been a lively debate about how fast governments should tighten their belts, few have disputed the seemingly self-evident opinion that some degree of “fiscal consolidation” is warranted. Given this consensus view, one would think that the economic case for public debt levels being too high is airtight. It’s not. Far from it. Debt Sustainability, Quantified Start with the classic condition for debt sustainability, which specifies the primary fiscal balance (i.e., the overall balance excluding interest payments) necessary to maintain a constant debt-to-GDP ratio (See Box 1 for a derivation of this equation).   An increase in the economy’s growth rate (g), or a decrease in real interest rates (r), would allow the government to loosen the primary fiscal balance without causing the debt-to-GDP ratio to increase (Chart 2).1 If the government were to ease fiscal policy beyond that point, debt would rise in relation to GDP. But by how much? It is tempting to assume that the debt-to-GDP ratio would then begin to increase exponentially. However, that is only true if the interest rate is higher than the growth rate of the economy. If the opposite were true, the debt-to-GDP ratio would rise initially but then flatten out at a higher level.2 A Fiscal Free Lunch The last point is worth emphasizing. As long as the interest rate is below the economic growth rate, then any primary fiscal balance – even a permanent deficit of 20%, or even 30% of GDP – would be consistent with a stable long-term debt-to-GDP ratio. In such a setting, the government could just indefinitely rollover the existing stock of debt, while issuing enough new debt to cover interest payments. No additional taxes would be necessary. In fact, stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio becomes easier the higher it rises. Chart 3 shows this point analytically.    Ah, one might say: If the government issues a lot of debt, then interest rates would rise, and before we know it, we are back in a world where the borrowing rate is above the economy’s growth rate, at which point the debt dynamics go haywire. Now, that sounds like a sensible statement, but it is actually quite misleading. As long as a government is able to issue its own currency, it can always create money to pay for whatever it purchases. If people want to turn around and use that money to buy bonds, they are welcome to do so, but the government is under no obligation to pay them the interest rate that they want. If they do not wish to hold cash, they can always use the cash to buy goods and services or exchange it for foreign currency. As long as a government is able to issue its own currency, it can always create money to pay for whatever it purchases. Wouldn’t that cause inflation and currency devaluation? Yes, it might, and that’s the real constraint: What limits the ability of governments with printing presses to run large deficits is not the inability to finance them. Rather, it is the risk that their citizens will treat their currencies as hot potatoes, rushing to exchange them for goods and services out of fear that rising prices will erode the purchasing power of their cash holdings. When Is Saving Desirable? The reason governments pay interest on bonds is because they want people to save more. However, more savings is not necessarily a good thing. This is obviously the case when an economy is depressed, but it may even be true when an economy is at full employment. Just like someone can work so much that they have no time left over for leisure, or buy a house so big that they spend all their time maintaining it, it is possible for an economy to save too much, leading to an excess of capital accumulation. Under such circumstances, steady-state consumption will be permanently depressed because so much of the economy’s resources are going towards replenishing the depreciation of the economy’s capital stock.  Economists have a name for this condition: “dynamic inefficiency.” What determines whether an economy is dynamically inefficient? As it turns out, the answer is the same as the one that determines whether debt ratios are on an explosive path or not: The difference between the interest rate and the economy’s growth rate. Economies where interest rates are below the growth rate will tend to suffer from excess savings. In that case, government deficits, to the extent that they soak up national savings, may increase national welfare.   r < g Has Been The Norm Today, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield stands at 2.69%, compared to the OECD’s projection of nominal GDP growth of 3.8% over the next decade. The gap between projected growth and bond yields is even greater in other major economies (Chart 4). Granted, equilibrium real rates are likely to rise over the next few years as spare capacity is absorbed. Structural factors might also push up real rates over time. Most notably, the retirement of baby boomers could significantly curb income growth, leading to a decline in national savings. Chart 5 shows that the ratio of workers-to-consumers globally is in the process of peaking after a three-decade long ascent. Economic growth could also fall if cognitive abilities continue to deteriorate, a worrying trend we discussed in a recent Special Report.3 Chart 5The Global Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked It may take a while before real rates rise above GDP growth. Still, it may take a while before real rates rise above GDP growth. As Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist at the IMF, noted in his Presidential Address to the American Economics Association earlier this year, periods in U.S. history where GDP growth exceeds interest rates have been the rule rather than the exception (Chart 6).4 The same has been true for most other economies.5 Chart 6GDP Growth Above Interest Rates: Historically, The Rule, Not The Exception What’s Next For Fiscal Policy? Austerity fatigue has set in. In the U.S., fiscally conservative Republicans, if they ever really existed, are a dying breed. Trump’s big budget deficits and his “I love debt” mantra are the waves of the future. For their part, the Democrats are shifting to the left, with the “Green New Deal” proposal being the latest manifestation. The case for fiscal stimulus is stronger in the euro area than for the United States. The European Commission expects the euro area to see a positive fiscal thrust of 0.40% of GDP this year, up from a thrust of 0.05% of GDP last year (Chart 7). This should help support growth. Chart 7The Euro Area Will Benefit From A Modest Amount Of Fiscal Easing This Year Additional fiscal easing would be feasible. This is clearly true in Germany, but even in Italy, the cyclically-adjusted government primary surplus is larger than what is necessary to stabilize the debt ratio.6 Unfortunately, the situation in southern Europe is greatly complicated by the ECB’s inability to act as an unconditional lender of last resort to individual sovereign borrowers. When a government cannot print its own currency, its debt markets can be subject to multiple equilibria. Under such circumstances, a vicious spiral can develop where rising bond yields lead investors to assign a higher default risk, thus leading to even higher yields (Chart 8).   Mario Draghi’s now-famous “whatever it takes” pledge has gone a long way towards reassuring bond investors. Nevertheless, given the political constraints the ECB faces, it is doubtful that Italy or other indebted economies in the euro area will be able to pursue large-scale stimulus. Instead, the ECB will keep interest rates at exceptionally low levels. A new round of TLTROs is also looking increasingly likely, which should protect against a rise in bank funding costs and a potential credit crunch. Our European team believes that a TLTRO extension would be particularly helpful to Italian banks.  Even in Italy, the cyclically-adjusted government primary surplus is larger than what is necessary to stabilize the debt ratio. Despite having one of the highest sovereign debt ratios in the world, Japan faces no pressing need to tighten fiscal policy. Instead of raising the sales tax this October, the government should be cutting it. A loosening of fiscal policy would actually improve debt sustainability if, as is likely, a larger budget deficit leads to somewhat higher inflation (and thus, lower real borrowing rates) and, at least temporarily, faster GDP growth. We expect the Abe government to counteract at least part of the sales tax increase with new fiscal measures, and ultimately to abandon plans for further fiscal tightening over the next few years. In the EM space, Brazil, Turkey, and South Africa are among a handful of economies with vulnerable fiscal positions. They all have borrowing rates that exceed the growth rate of the economy, cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficits, and above-average levels of sovereign debt (Chart 9).   In contrast, China stands out as having the biggest positive gap between projected GDP growth and sovereign borrowing rates of any major economy. The problem is that the main borrowers have been state-owned companies and local governments, neither of which are backstopped by the state. Not officially, anyway. Unofficially, the government has been extremely reluctant to allow large-scale defaults anywhere in the economy. Despite all the rhetoric about market-based reforms, they are unlikely to start now. Historically, the Chinese government has allowed credit growth to reaccelerate whenever it has fallen towards nominal GDP growth. As we recently argued in a report entitled “China’s Savings Problem,” China needs more debt to sustain aggregate demand.7 Historically, the government has allowed credit growth to reaccelerate whenever it has fallen towards nominal GDP growth (Chart 10). The stronger-than-expected jump in credit origination in January suggests that we are approaching such an inflection point. Chart 10Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth Investment Conclusions The consensus economic view is that deflation is a much harder problem to overcome than inflation. When dealing with inflation, all you have to do is raise interest rates and eventually the economy will cool down. With deflation, however, a central bank could very quickly find itself up against the zero lower bound constraint on interest rates, unable to ease policy any further via conventional means. While this standard argument is correct, it takes a very monetary policy-centric view of macroeconomic policy. When interest rates are low, fiscal policy becomes very potent. Indeed, the whole notion that deflation is a bigger problem than inflation is rather peculiar. Just as it is easier to consume resources than to produce them, it should be easier to get people to spend than to save. People like to spend. And even if they didn’t, governments could go out and buy goods and services directly. Looking out, our bet is that policymakers will increasingly lean towards the ever-more fiscal stimulus. If structural trends end up causing the so-called neutral rate of interest to rise – the rate of interest that is necessary to avoid overheating – policymakers will have no choice but to eventually raise rates and tighten fiscal policy (Box 2). However, they will only do so begrudgingly. The result, at least temporarily, will be higher inflation. Fixed-income investors should maintain below benchmark duration exposure over both a cyclical and structural horizon. Reflationary policies that increase nominal GDP growth will help support equities, at least over the next 12 months. Chart 11 shows that corporate earnings tend to accelerate whenever nominal GDP growth rises. We upgraded global equities to overweight following the December FOMC meeting selloff. While our enthusiasm for stocks has waned with the year-to-date rally, we are sticking with our bullish bias. Chart 11Earnings And Nominal GDP Growth Tend To Move In Lock-Step A reacceleration in Chinese credit growth will put a bottom under both Chinese and global growth by the middle of this year. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will likely come under pressure in the second half of this year. Until then, we expect the greenback to be flat-to-modestly stronger. The combination of faster global growth and a weaker dollar later this year will be manna from heaven for emerging markets. We closed our put on the EEM ETF for a gain of 104% on Jan 3rd, and are now outright long EM equities. I do not have a strong view on the relative performance of EM versus DM at the moment, but expect to shift EM equities to overweight by this summer.8 Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 The Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability   Box 2 Debt Sustainability And Full Employment: The Role Of Fiscal And Monetary Policy Policymakers should strive to stabilize the ratio of debt-to-GDP over the long haul, while also ensuring that the economy stays near full employment. The accompanying chart shows the tradeoffs involved. The DD schedule depicts the combination of the primary fiscal balance and the gap between the borrowing rate and GDP growth (r minus g) that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. In line with the debt sustainability equation derived in Box 1, the slope of the DD schedule is simply equal to the debt/GDP ratio. Any point below the DD schedule is one where the debt-to-GDP ratio is rising, while any point above is one where the ratio is falling. The EE schedule depicts the combination of the primary fiscal balance and r - g that keeps the economy at full employment. The schedule is downward-sloping because an increase in the primary fiscal balance implies a tightening of fiscal policy, and hence requires an offsetting decline in interest rates. Any point above the EE schedule is one where the economy is operating at less than full employment. Any point below the EE schedule is one where the economy is operating beyond full employment and hence overheating. Suppose there is a structural shift in the economy that causes the neutral rate of interest – the rate of interest consistent with full employment and stable inflation – to increase. In that case, the EE schedule would shift to the right: For any level of the fiscal primary balance, the economy would need a higher interest rate to avoid overheating. The arrows show three possible “transition paths” to a new equilibrium. Scenario #1 is one where policymakers raise rates quickly but are slow to tighten fiscal policy. This results in a higher debt-to-GDP ratio. Scenario #2 is one where policymakers tighten fiscal policy quickly but are slow to raise rates. This results in a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. Scenario #3 is one where the government drags its feet in both raising rates and tightening fiscal policy. As the economy overheats, real rates actually decline, sending the arrow initially to the left. This effectively allows policymakers to inflate away the debt, leading to a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. Note: In Scenario #2, and especially in Scenario #3, the DD line will become flatter (not shown on the chart to avoid clutter). Consequently, the final equilibrium will be one where real rates are somewhat higher, but the primary fiscal balance is somewhat lower, than in Scenario #1.   Footnotes 1          One can equally define the interest rate and GDP growth rate in nominal terms (see Box 1 for details).  2       Japan is a good example of this point. The primary budget deficit averaged 5% of GDP between 1993 and 2010, a period when government net debt rose from 20% of GDP to 142% of GDP. Since then, Japan’s primary deficit has averaged 5.1% of GDP, but net debt has risen to only 156% of GDP (and has been largely stable for the past two years). 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Most Important Trend In The World Has Reversed And Nobody Knows Why,” dated February 1, 2019. 4      Olivier Blanchard, “Public Debt And Low Interest Rates,” Peterson Institute for International Economics and MIT American Economic Association (AEA) Presidential Address, (January 2019). 5      Paolo Mauro, Rafael Romeu, Ariel Binder, and Asad Zaman, “A Modern History Of Fiscal Prudence And Profligacy,” IMF Working Paper, (January 2013). 6      The Italian 10-year bond yield is 2.83% while nominal GDP growth is 2.64%. Multiplying the difference by net debt of 118% of GDP results in a required primary surplus of .22% of GDP that is necessary to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio. This is lower than the IMF’s 2018 estimate of cyclically-adjusted government primary surplus of 2.14%. 7      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 8      Please note that my colleague, Arthur Budaghyan, BCA’s Chief EM strategist, remains bearish on both EM and DM equities and expects EM to underperform DM over the coming months. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades        

Highlights Global Growth: Early leading indicators (credit impulses, our global LEI diffusion index) are signaling that the worst of the global economic downturn should soon end. Okun’s Law: In the developed economies, the observed relationships between economic growth and changes in unemployment suggest that the current pullback in global growth will not be severe enough to create slack in labor markets and reduce inflation pressures. Global Bond Allocation: Within dedicated global government bond portfolios, stay underweight the U.S. and Canada, neutral core Europe, and overweight the U.K., Japan and Australia. Remain tactically overweight global credit versus government bonds, at least until mid-year, with policymakers likely to stay cautiously dovish until global uncertainties recede. Feature Is This Risk Rally Too Good To Last? The mood of financial markets has improved significantly over the past few weeks, led by the dovish shift from central bankers that has revived investor risk appetite. Some positive headlines on U.S.-China trade negotiations have also generated hope over prospects for a deal, further fueling the bullish sentiment. The global economic picture remains muddled, though. Non-U.S. growth continues to languish, while the actual near-term state of the U.S. economy is proving difficult to determine given the data issues surrounding the 35-day U.S. government shutdown. Given lingering uncertainties, both political and economic, policymakers do not want to rock the boat by saying anything that might be interpreted as hawkish. With monetary policy no longer a near-term headwind, there is a window for continued outperformance of global risk assets in the next few months. That means higher global equity prices and stable-to-tighter global corporate credit spreads. Yet the seeds for the next wave of market turbulence may already be sewn. There are signs that the global growth downturn may soon end. Credit impulses are starting to pick up in several major economies, while our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators – itself a longer leading indicator – has clearly bottomed (Chart of the Week). The epicenter of global economic weakness, China, continues to deploy monetary and fiscal stimulus measures aimed at stabilizing growth. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy still appears to be in good shape, underpinned by solid consumer fundamentals. Chart of the WeekSunnier Days Ahead? A combination of easier financial conditions and faster economic growth will eventually prove to be incompatible with stable monetary policy, especially with surprisingly firm inflation in the major developed economies. Central bankers will respond by moving away from their current dovish bias, led by the U.S. Federal Reserve. With government bond markets now discounting both stable monetary policy and too-low inflation expectations, the path for global bond yields is eventually higher. While headline inflation rates are cooling in response to the lagged impact of weaker oil prices, the pullback has been far more muted so far compared to similar sharp oil-driven moves in the past (Chart 2). This is because domestically-driven inflation rates for services and wages are much sturdier today in many countries. If BCA’s bullish oil view for 2019 comes to fruition, then the current decline in headline/goods inflation rates may prove to be very short-lived and with little pass-through into core/services inflation. Chart 2Sticky Global Inflation, Despite Lower Oil Prices This dynamic is not the same in every country, however. When looking at the individual trends of goods inflation and services/wage inflation in the major developed economies, the largest gaps between the two exist in the U.S. and Canada (Chart 3). There, wage growth is accelerating and services inflation rates remain sturdy, despite sharp drops in goods inflation. Chart 3Domestic Inflation Pressures Most Acute In The U.S. & Canada Our recommended government bond allocation at the country level reflects these underlying inflation trends. We are more bearish on bond markets with the most intense domestic inflation pressures – and where future interest rate hikes are most likely – and vice versa. We remain underweight the U.S. and Canada, where wage growth and services inflation are both above the inflation targets of the Fed and Bank of Canada, and where market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap rates have already bottomed (Chart 4). We remain neutral on core Europe (Germany, France) where wage growth has perked up, core/services inflation remains closer to 1% than the 2% target of the ECB, and inflation expectations continue to drift lower. Finally, we remain overweight the U.K., Japan and Australia, all of which have an underlying inflation picture that is muted enough to keep policymakers on hold for at least the next 6-9 months. Chart 4Favor Bond Markets Where Domestic Inflation Pressures Are Weakest Bottom Line: Early leading indicators (credit impulses, our global LEI diffusion index) are signaling that the worst of the global economic downturn should soon end. Central bankers will remain cautious and dovish in the near-term, however, implying that the current outperformance of global equity and credit markets has more room to run – but also setting up the next upleg for bond yields later this year. Okun’s Law Revisited Central bankers remain wedded to the idea that there is an “exploitable” relationship between unemployment and inflation, a.k.a. the Phillips Curve. A logical extension is that unless policymakers can credibly forecast a reduction in labor demand that pushes unemployment rates beyond levels associated with full employment, inflation will not be expected to decline. Policymakers will have a difficult time staying dovish without believing that inflation pressures are diminishing. One way to measure the relationship between economic growth and changes in economic slack is by using a concept that you may remember from an old macroeconomics class – Okun’s Law. More an empirically observable rule of thumb than any rule based in actual economic theory, Okun’s Law simply measures how much unemployment rates change relative to swings in real GDP growth. Past estimations for the U.S. economy have shown that the long-run coefficient in the Okun’s Law regression is around 2, which means that a 2% fall in real GDP growth should be associated with a 1% increase in the unemployment rate (and vice versa). That coefficient is not the same over shorter time horizons, though, as the unemployment/GDP growth relationship can be impacted by other cyclical factors like changes in hours worked or labor productivity. Charts 5 and 6 show annual real GDP growth (the percentage change over four quarters) versus the change in the unemployment rate over twelve months for the major developed economies (the U.S., U.K., euro area, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden) dating back to 1980. There is a reasonably strong relationship between the two series in the charts, although the “fit” does vary from country to country. Chart 5The Okun’s Law Relationship … Chart 6… Still Holds For Most Countries That can be seen in the individual country scatterplots shown in Charts 7 to 14, which plot each quarterly data point of the change in unemployment and real GDP growth. The darker dots represent the period from 1980-2010, while the lighter dots are the post-2010 era. The actual estimated regression, and its R-squared, are also shown in the charts (the equation can be defined as “the estimated change in the unemployment rate for a given pace of real GDP growth”). For most countries shown, the R-squareds are reasonably good (between 0.55 and 0.70) for a single-factor model like this. The coefficients on the change in real GDP are all between -0.35 and -0.45, which means that a fall in real GDP growth of 3.5 to 4.5 percentage points is consistent with a rise in the unemployment rate of 1 percentage point. The lone country where the Okun’s Law relationship has a relatively poor historical fit is in Japan, which is due to the lack of GDP variability relative to swings in the unemployment rate, especially over the past decade. We can use these estimates of the Okun’s Law coefficient to conduct a “back of the envelope” thought experiment that answers the following question that relates to the current economic and financial market backdrop: how much of a decline in GDP growth is necessary to raise unemployment rates back to full-employment (NAIRU) levels? As we have consistently noted in recent Weekly Reports, global central bankers can only turn so dovish, even after the severe market turbulence seen at the end of last year and with elevated political uncertainty in many locations. Why? Because unemployment rates remain below levels that are consistent with stable inflation. Without a meaningful weakening of labor markets that pushes unemployment rates back above “full employment” levels, policymakers will not be able to lower their inflation forecasts and signal a need for easier monetary policy. In Table 1, we present the estimated Okun’s Law regressions from 1980, along with the real GDP growth rate that falls out of those equations if we assume the employment gaps are closed.1 We also show the consensus 2019 real GDP growth forecasts taken from Bloomberg, as well as the expected change in central bank policy rates over the next year taken from our Central Bank Discounters. The conclusion from the Table is that it would take significant declines in real GDP growth to raise unemployment rates enough for policymakers to become less worried about inflation pressures. Table 12019 Consensus Growth Forecasts Are Well Above Levels That Would Eliminate The Unemployment Gap In the U.K., where the unemployment rate is furthest below the OECD’s estimate of the full-employment NAIRU rate, a whopping -3.3 percentage point cut to real GDP growth is needed to raise unemployment back to 5.6%. The required GDP fall is lower in the U.S., with only a -1.6 percentage point decline in real GDP growth need to push the unemployment rate back to the OECD NAIRU estimate of 4.3%. Falls in real GDP growth of between -1.5 and 2.0 percentage points are necessary in most of the other countries to close the “unemployment gap”, except for Japan. Given the weak estimated Okun’s Law relationship in Japan, we are reluctant to put much weight on the results of this thought experiment for Japan. Those “required” declines in real GDP growth are nowhere close to the 2019 consensus Bloomberg forecasts for each country. This is even true in the U.S., where the consensus expects real GDP growth to decline by -0.9 percentage points in 2019. Unsurprisingly, markets are discounting very little change in monetary policy over the next year according to our Central Bank Discounters, with modest odds of a rate cut now discounted in Australia (-19bps), New Zealand (-11bps) and the U.S. (-8bps) and a full 25bp hike now priced in Sweden. Summing it all up, our simple Okun’s Law thought experiment shows that it would take a significantly larger decline in global growth than the consensus, or BCA, expects for central banks to shift even more dovishly in the direction of interest rate cuts. This puts a cyclical floor underneath global bond yields, given that relatively stable policy rates are now discounted. Bottom Line: The observed relationships between economic growth and changes in unemployment suggest that the current pullback in global growth will not be severe enough to create slack in labor markets and an easing of inflation pressures in the developed economies.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Given the declining productivity trend seen in all countries over the past 20 years, we have made a downward adjustment to those Okun’s Law estimated coefficients. In other words, we do not think that it will take the same magnitude of GDP loss to generate the same increase in unemployment when labor productivity is low. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns