Developed Countries

Highlights   Portfolio Strategy Firming relative profit prospects, rising likelihood of an oil price spike and higher geopolitical risk premia, bombed out valuations and extremely oversold technicals all signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P energy sector. Rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. Recent Changes There are no changes to the portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities were range bound last week, digesting the aftermath of the drone attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities and the kneejerk oil price spike, and the Fed’s at the margin hawkish interest rate cut (Chart 1). While the U.S./China trade war news headlines took the back seat, it is disquieting that the largest oil production disruption in recent memory came to the forefront. Crude oil prices spiked and oil volatility skyrocketed as market participants were not pricing in any geopolitical risk premium on crude prices (Chart 1). This is a wake-up call for market participants and there are longer-term ramifications if the previously dormant geopolitical risk premium returns with a vengeance in the oil markets as we expect. Chart 2 shows that historically, an oil price shock is coincident with a U.S. recession. Given that our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) service would not rule out another oil price surge in the coming months, a near doubling in oil inflation would likely be the straw that broke the camel’s back and check the final box for recession. Chart 1Mind The Oil Vol Spike Chart 2Doubling In Oil Prices Are A Bad Omen For Stocks To be precise, since the mid-1970s a 91% year-over-year oil price increase – using end of period monthly data – is synonymous with recession, with no false positives. In order for that prerequisite to be satisfied, WTI crude oil would have to surge to roughly $86/bbl by December (top panel, Chart 2). While this may seem as a tall order, our CES service has started assigning a rising probability to a sizable oil price jump in the coming months. With regard to equities, in all previous five oil price shocks the S&P 500 suffered significant losses, and if history at least rhymes, then the SPX would steeply contract anew (middle panel, Chart 2). While the U.S. economy is not currently in recession, it is fragile enough that an exogenous oil price shock would tilt it in recession. As a reminder, the U.S. benefits from the “good deflation” i.e. lower oil prices and suffers from oil spikes. Chart 3 depicts this inverse correlation. Importantly, re-reading James D. Hamilton’s “Historical Oil Shocks” NBER paper was insightful.1 In this piece Hamilton documents that “All but one of the 11 postwar recessions were associated with an increase in the price of oil, the single exception being the recession of 1960.” Hamilton then argues that “The correlation between oil shocks and economic recessions appears to be too strong to be just a coincidence…This is not to claim that the oil price increases themselves were the sole cause of most postwar recessions. Instead the indicated conclusion is that oil shocks were a contributing factor in at least some postwar recessions (emphasis ours)”. Chart 3GDP And Oil Are Inversely Correlated  This week, we update a deep cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Table 2Real GDP Growth (Annual Rate) And Contribution Of Autos To The Overall GDP Growth Rate In Five Historical Episodes While only the energy sector benefits from the oil price shock, the consumer, and most other sectors of the economy, have to contend with rising energy input costs. Hamilton finally makes a key point on auto production and a link to output: “one of the key responses seen following an increase in oil prices is a decline in automobile spending, particularly the larger vehicles manufactured in the United States”. He shows this relationship in Table 2 that we have replicated.2 Chart 4 also shows a number of different automobile-related economic series, and the current message is grim. It is clear that, were an oil price shock to hit, the motor vehicle-related production destruction would subtract from overall output and raise the probability of recession. Chart 4What’s Up With Autos? In sum, geopolitical risk is getting priced into the crude oil markets and were an oil spike to take place near $86/bbl, then this external shock would most likely tilt the economy in recession as has happened in all previous such oil inflation surges since the 1970s. We would refuse the temptation to listen to pundits that, similar to the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, would declare that “this time is different”. As a result of all this heightened uncertainty, we remain cautious on the prospects of the overall equity market. This week, we update a deep cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Energy’s Time To Shine? The recent drone attacks in Saudi Arabia’s oil processing and production facilities have re-concentrated investors’ minds on reassessing geopolitical risk premia in the crude oil market (top panel, Chart 5). Given the heightened risk of a future oil price spike that BCA’s CES and Geopolitical Strategy services outlined recently, we remain overweight in the S&P energy sector and re-iterate our high-conviction overweight status.   Rising oil prices will also filter through to rising inflation expectations and further boost the allure of the S&P energy sector (middle & bottom panels, Chart 5). This crude oil supply disruption comes at an inopportune time as U.S. crude oil inventories have been depleting recently; this represents another source of support for the relative share price ratio (crude oil supply shown inverted, second panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Energy Catch Up Phase Looms Chart 6Energy Can Burst Higher On the demand front, non-OECD demand remains on an upward trajectory since the start of its recovery path in the aftermath of the 2015/2016 manufacturing recession. Importantly, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index is accelerating driven by the emerging markets and signals that recent easing monetary policy measures in EM economies will put a lid under EM oil demand (Chart 6). As a result, still depressed relative S&P energy sales expectations should turnaround (third panel, Chart 6). Turning over to the financial statements of this now niche deep cyclical sector, there are no major red flags waving. Net debt-to-EBITDA is near 2x, on a par with the broad nonfinancial sector, and interest coverage is at a respectable 5x (Chart 7). The sector has been more stringent with shareholder friendly activities and the dividend payout ratio has fallen back to the historical mean (not shown). In more detail, the S&P energy sector sports the highest dividend yield compared with the rest of the GICS1 sectors, a full 185bps above the SPX, offering a relatively safe home for yield hungry investors in the era of depressed global interest rates (bottom panel, Chart 7). In fact, the S&P energy sector is so extremely undervalued that all of its 28 constituents combined are now worth as much as one stock, Microsoft. Indeed, our relative Valuation Indicator has plunged and is now roughly two standard deviations below the historical mean, a three decade low (second panel, Chart 8). Chart 7Repaired B/S With The Highest GICS1 Sector Dividend Yield Chart 8Oversold And…   Energy sector technicals are also bombed out, with our relative Technical Indicator in deeply oversold territory. Such depressed levels have marked prior reversals and a violent snap back would not surprise us. Internal energy sector dynamics reveal a similarly extreme picture, with both the percentage of subgroups trading above the 40-week moving average and with a positive 52-week rate of change perched at the zero lower bound (fourth & fifth panels, Chart 8). Sell-side analysts are equally pessimistic, assigning a low probability in energy sector revenues and profits besting the overall market. This is not only a near-term phenomenon, but the sell side has also thrown in the towel on a 5-year time horizon (Chart 9). All of this extreme bearishness overshadowing the S&P energy sector is contrarily positive. One key risk to our overweight stance in the S&P energy sector is the U.S. dollar. Historically, the higher the greenback goes the lower oil prices and energy shares fall. This multi-decade inverse correlation remains intact and were the U.S. dollar to materially increase from current levels, it would heavily weigh on relative share prices (top panel, Chart 8). BCA’s U.S. Equity Strategy’s relative profit growth macro-models have an excellent track record in forecasting relative profit trends as they accurately capture most of the key profit drivers. Currently, the relative EPS models are in a slingshot recovery, which stands in marked contrast to the overly pessimistic sell side analyst community (second panel, Chart 9). Chart 9…Undervalued Netting it all out, firming relative profit prospects, rising likelihood of an oil price spike and higher geopolitical risk premia, bombed out valuations and extremely oversold technicals all signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P energy sector. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy sector. This deep cyclical sector also remains on our high-conviction overweight list. Double Down On Exploration & Production Stocks S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) stocks have closely tracked crude oil prices, but recently a wide gap has opened and we reckon that it will likely narrow via a catch up phase in the former (top panel, Chart 10). Even natural gas prices have come out of hibernation and caught a bid of late and similarly suggest that relative share prices are uncharacteristically depressed by steeply deviating from the underlying commodities (second panel, Chart 10). There is so much pessimism ingrained in the E&P space with net EPS revisions sinking to “as bad as it gets” warning that even a modest rise in oil prices can serve as a catalyst to raise the profile of this unloved corner of the deep cyclical universe (bottom panel, Chart 10). While the energy default rate has risen lately, the high yield E&P option adjusted spread is neither surging a la 2015/2016 nor sending a distress signal. If anything, given the recent jump in oil prices and prospects of an oil price surge, independent oil producers’ bond holders should further breathe a sigh of relief (junk spread shown inverted, middle & bottom panels, Chart 11). Chart 10Primed To Follow Oil Prices Higher Adding it all up, rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. With regard to operating metrics, free cash flow has more than doubled since the 2016 trough and has now stabilized (second panel, Chart 12). This highly capital intensive industry has gotten forced to live within its means and be more careful with expansion plans financed by rising indebtedness. Use of cash has also come under scrutiny. Capex as a percentage of overall cash flow rose from 35% to over 60% at the recent cyclical peak and has now corrected to 47%, just above the two decade average (Chart 12). Chart 11No Yellow Flags Chart 12Cash Discipline Should Start To Pay Off Similar to the broad energy space, E&P stocks are compellingly valued irrespective of the valuation metric chosen. To name a few, the dividend yield differential is at 150bps versus the broad market, relative price-to-sales has corrected from 3x to par, and on an EV/EBITDA basis E&P stocks trade at a 35% discount to the broad market (Chart 13). Nevertheless, there is a risk to our still constructive view of the E&P index. Oil prices have to stay above the $50-$55/bbl range in order for the shale oil space to breakeven and sustain crude oil production at recent all-time high levels. As a reminder, an industry capex collapse is synonymous with oil price plunges and major relative share price drawdowns (Chart 14). Chart 13Bombed Out Valuations Chart 14Capex Collapse Is A Big Risk Adding it all up, rising oil price and natural gas price inflation, declining industry high yield spreads, higher capital expenditure discipline and compelling relative value all suggest that it pays to be overweight the S&P E&P index. Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the S&P oil & gas exploration & production index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: S5OILP – COP, PXD, DVN, HES, APA, MRO, XEC, COG, CXO, EOG, FANG, NBL.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   footnotes 1      https://www.nber.org/papers/w16790 2      Ibid. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives   (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Special Report

Highlights The attack on Saudi Arabian energy facilities brought oil price shocks back onto investors’ radar screens: Benchmark crude prices in Europe and the U.S. blasted higher following the September 14th attacks on Saudi oil installations. Although the initial price spike largely unwound, the incident demonstrated that oil infrastructure is vulnerable: Saudi officials say output will be restored sooner than markets initially feared, but oil production is now in play for bad actors. The probability of supply-driven price shocks has increased. How vulnerable is the U.S. economy to an oil price shock?: A whole heck of a lot less than it was at the time of the 1973-74 oil embargo. The U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer, and is on its way to becoming a net exporter. Higher oil prices now amount to much more than a tax on U.S. households and corporations. Feature On Saturday, September 14th, Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq crude-oil processing facility and its Khurais oil field were struck by air attacks that caused multiple explosions. Yemeni forces claimed responsibility, in retaliation for Saudi Arabia’s involvement in its protracted civil war, though the Saudi and U.S. governments asserted that Iran was to blame. As our Commodity & Energy and Geopolitical Strategy colleagues have written, Iran’s involvement makes the situation more ticklish.1 It is unclear where escalating rounds of provocations between the U.S. and Iran might end up, but the geopolitical, energy and economic impacts could be quite serious. There are a lot of moving parts, and we will not rehash our colleagues’ analysis here. From the U.S. Investment Strategy perspective, the biggest takeaway is that Middle Eastern oil infrastructure is more vulnerable to malign state and non-state actors than markets previously realized. It is remarkable that the world’s single most important oil processing facility could be so easily and precisely targeted, though anyone who began flying after September 11th would likely be amazed to learn that passengers once boarded planes without anyone giving the contents of their baggage a second thought. Regardless of how quickly Abqaiq operations are fully restored, Middle East oil infrastructure has been exposed as a soft target. The net economic impact of higher oil prices is the sum total of a broad range of gross subsidiary impacts. The global oil market is therefore more vulnerable to shocks from unplanned supply outages than previously assumed, and should begin to price in a terrorism premium. Any given economy’s exposure to oil price shocks is a more important consideration than it was before the attack on Aramco operations. In this Special Report, we examine the U.S. economy’s susceptibility to an oil price shock. The good news is that we find the U.S. to be considerably less vulnerable to an oil price shock than it was at the time of the Arab oil embargo; the net “tax” from higher oil prices is a good bit lower than it was then, and it is no longer exclusively paid to foreign entities. Six Channels Of Economic Impact We count six primary channels through which oil prices impact the U.S. economy: consumption, capital expenditures, corporate profits, the trade balance, employment and financial conditions (Figure 1). Higher oil prices are unequivocally bad for consumption, because they reduce households’ discretionary income. They should be a net positive for capital expenditures, because oil exploration and production is a capital-intensive pursuit that would likely outweigh incremental cutbacks in investment by businesses in the rest of the economy. They directly increase input costs for the wide range of goods that incorporate petroleum, and the goods and services that use oil as fuel, though other businesses’ reduced profits will be offset somewhat by domestic oil producers’ increased profits. As long as the U.S. remains a net oil importer, they will act to widen the trade deficit; once it becomes a net exporter, possibly within the next few years, they will narrow it. Their net impact on employment and financial conditions is mixed. Figure 1Oil Prices And The Economy Consumption Consumption is the linchpin of the oil-shock/recession narrative, as typified by the 1973-74 oil embargo. During the October 1973 war between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, OPEC members angered by American support for Israel ceased exporting oil to the U.S. and sharply reduced production. Although the embargo lasted just six months, oil prices tripled. Inflation surged, consumer confidence suffered mightily amid ubiquitous images of gasoline lines, and a sharp recession and punishing equity bear market laid siege to the U.S. economy. Chart 1The '70s Oil Shocks ... The overthrow of Iran’s pro-western monarch in 1979 generated a second oil price shock (Chart 1). The U.S. soon entered the first phase of the Volcker double-dip recession, and the notion that oil price shocks cause recessions became entrenched in the introductory macroeconomics curriculum. Filling up the tank consumes a much smaller share of household budgets today than it did in the ‘70s, however, so household spending is nowhere near as vulnerable as it was then (Chart 2). Energy is no more expensive relative to the PCE basket than it was at the end of the ‘70s (Chart 3), allowing fuel efficiency gains to translate directly to increased discretionary income (Chart 4). The household savings rate is lower, as well (Chart 5), clearing the way for consumers to spend more of their discretionary income.2 Chart 2... Took A Big Bite Out Of Consumers' Wallets Chart 3Relative To Other Consumer Prices, Oil Costs What It Did After The Second Shock Chart 4New-Model Mileage Has Doubled Chart 5Consumers Are More Willing To Spend Than They Were In The '70s ... Bottom Line: Consumption will be undermined by higher oil prices, but not nearly to the degree it was in the 1970s, when fuel costs ate up a greater share of discretionary income. Corporate Profits Higher input costs stoked the wage-price cycle in the ‘70s, but low inflation expectations and supine unions have all but stamped out cost-push inflation pressures today. Chart 6... And Economic Output Is Far Less Dependent On Oil Higher oil prices’ negative impact on input costs is as clear-cut as their impact on consumption. Higher input costs helped trigger the ‘70s and ‘80s recessions, dragging down corporate profits and exacerbating cost-push inflation pressures as employees demanded higher wages to keep up with rising prices. That dynamic still applies, but its force is considerably attenuated, as tepid inflation expectations and the decline of unions’ collective bargaining power have all but wiped out cost-push inflation pressures. The continuing shift from manufacturing to services also limits the impact of higher input costs; the oil intensity of the U.S. economy is little more than a third of what it was at the time of the embargo (Chart 6). Growing energy self-sufficiency keeps some of the increased input costs from escaping the domestic economy. It is still valid to think of higher energy prices as a tax on businesses and consumers, but at least some of the tax revenue now accrues to U.S. parties. Shale drillers, pipeline companies, vendors and workers, and the states and localities where they reside, all share in the benefits. That limits the drag on domestic corporate profits, and the second-order drags on fixed investment, employment, consumption and creditworthiness. Capital Expenditures And The Other Channels Energy production’s increasing role within the U.S. economy came to the fore when crude prices collapsed from $107 to $26/barrel between June 2014 and February 2016. Per the ‘70s foreign-oil-dependency template, households would have gotten a huge discretionary income boost, while corporate margins would have surged. Employment and investment would likely have followed, and the consequent increase in consumption would have fed back into even more investment. Improved U.S. terms of trade would have improved living standards, and the trade balance would have narrowed. The U.S. economy no longer has a simple one-way relationship with oil price moves. Those happy growth outcomes did not materialize in the latest oil bust. Consumption growth was robust for the six quarters through 2Q16, but nonresidential fixed investment staggered across 2015 and into 2016 (Chart 7), failing to surpass its 4Q14 level (in real terms) for good until 3Q16. Swooning oil prices had no apparent effect on the trade deficit, which continued to grow at a steady pace (Chart 8). Chart 7Consumption Growth Surged During The Oil Bust, But Capex Growth Crashed Chart 8The Oil Bust Didn't Affect The Trade Deficit, ... Financial conditions tightened as high-yield credit spreads blew out, driven by bankruptcies and defaults in the oil patch (Chart 9, top panel). Oil patch capex evaporated as lenders and equity investors deserted the sector. That would happen in any oil bust, but it spread to the broader economy because shale plays had come to account for a close to a sixth of high-yield bond issuance (Chart 9, bottom panel). The net result was to reduce the supply of loanable funds for non-oil entities, while increasing their cost, bringing about a sharp tightening of financial conditions. Chart 9... But It Tightened Financial Conditions Employment suffered at the margin, as five years of steady oil and gas job gains from 2010-14 were wiped out in 2016 alone. Oil-related employment doesn’t account for a meaningful share of overall employment, but it has been a critical driver of new manufacturing employment since the crisis (Chart 10). The bottom line is that the economy’s failure to respond more positively to 2014-16’s long and steep oil price decline showed that it no longer has a one-way relationship with oil prices. Where sharply lower oil prices would previously have been an unmitigated boon for the economy, they now produce a range of offsetting effects. Chart 10Help Wanted In The Shale Patch Investment Implications Modeling the quantitative impact of a given rise in oil prices on any one factor is beyond the scope of this report, and there is no lack of published studies which have attempted to do so. Research recently cited by Dallas Fed President Kaplan suggests that a 10 percent increase in the real price of oil from a supply-driven oil price shock would lead to a roughly 10- to 30-basis-point decline in real GDP growth.3 In a general sense, we agree with both the direction and the magnitude of those studies’ conclusion. Higher oil prices would be a drag on the U.S. economy, but an increasingly modest one as domestic oil production rises and the country approaches true energy independence. Figure 1 shows that the modest negative net impact on the economy is the aggregation of several individual gross impacts, implying that the key investment takeaways are some layers below the broad macro level. When the arrows conflict within any of the individual channels in the figure, there may be an opportunity for investors to pair exposures. The need to protect vital oil infrastructure could bolster defense stocks, which have long been a favorite of our U.S. Equity Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy services. U.S. airlines, which (with one exception) scorn the idea of hedging their fuel costs, could be an attractive short/underweight candidate to pair with a defense overweight. From a macro perspective, the increased potential for oil price shocks enhances the appeal of TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. As long as an oil supply shock would act as a headwind for U.S. growth, investors seeking to add some inflation protection to their portfolios should focus on shorter-maturity TIPS. A supply shock pushes inflation higher in the short term, but weighs on it in the long term, as investors revise their long-run inflation expectations lower upon factoring in its long-run growth-dampening effect.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the September 16, 2019 and September 19, 2019 Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raise Questions About U.S. Response,” and “Policy Risk, Uncertainty Cloud Oil Price Forecast,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Disposable income is after-tax income. Discretionary income is what’s left of disposable income after the costs of necessities, like food, rent, clothing, gasoline and utilities, are backed out. 3 Kaplan, Robert S., “A Perspective on Oil,” June 19, 2018. Downloaded September 16, 2019 from https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/news/speeches/kaplan/2018/rsk180619.pdf.

Energy Stocks Are Heading North Banks Clamoring For Higher Rates And A More Hawkish Fed Homebuilding Stocks Are Catching Up To Housing Starts Will Global Trade Get “Fed-Exed”? Do Not Try To Bottom Fish… ... In Cyclicals Vs. Defensives​​​​​​​

Special Report

Highlights The U.K. economy has been holding up fairly well, despite the overhang of political uncertainty. However, even before the actual withdrawal of the U.K. from the E.U. has occurred, Brexit has left a lasting mark on the U.K. economy through elevated uncertainty, severe weakness in business investment spending, and anemic productivity. The net result is an economy with lower trend growth, a structurally weaker exchange rate, and relatively high domestic inflation. Brexit will be delayed beyond October 31. No-deal Brexit is an overstated risk unless an early election strengthens Boris Johnson’s hand. That is unlikely. The investment outlook for the British pound and U.K. gilts is highly binary: a “smooth” Brexit is bullish for the pound and bearish for gilts, while no-deal Brexit would push both the pound and gilt yields even lower. Feature Ever since the United Kingdom voted in 2016 to exit the European Union, the outlook for the economy and financial assets has been tied to the binary outcome of whether or not an exit would be orderly. This has been a tremendous source of uncertainty, putting the Bank of England (BoE) in one of the most inconvenient positions ever faced by a central bank. In this week’s report, we look to address a few high-level questions. First, has the slowdown in the U.K. economy been run of the mill, given the global manufacturing recession? Or has it been unduly protracted given heightened political uncertainty? If the latter, what are the prospects of a rebound should anything other than a “no-deal” Brexit prevail? Finally, has there been irreparable damage already done to the economy because of delayed investment, with longer-term ramifications irrespective of the relationship outcome with the E.U.? An Employment Boom The U.K. is currently experiencing the best jobs recovery since the Second World War. 4.2 million new jobs have been created over the past decade, nudging the employment-to-population ratio to the highest level in almost 50 years. What is remarkable is that this recovery looks even more impressive than that of the U.S., where labor market conditions have been very robust. For example, in the U.S., the employment rate stands at 60.9%, just a nudge below the U.K. but still nearly four percentage points below its pre-crisis peak (Chart 1). Compared to the eurozone, the outperformance of the U.K. labor market has been very evident. Despite this recovery, the pickup in wages has been the most tepid since the Boer War. The quality of jobs has also been stellar – full-time job creation has outpaced part-time and female participation rates are soaring. The jobs bonanza has also been broad across regions and industries. Yes, the manufacturing sector has seen some measure of volatility, but aside from the East Midland region, unemployment rates continue to converge downward across the United Kingdom (Chart 2) Chart 1An Employment Boom Chart 2Recovery Is Broad-Based     Despite this recovery, the pickup in wages has been the most tepid since the Boer War. In a July speech, the BoE’s chief economist, Andy Haldane, rightly noted that the lost decade of pay has been an equal-opportunity disaster across the major U.K. regions. From the 1950s until the Great Recession, real pay in the U.K. grew by about 2% per annum. Since the Great Recession, real pay has stagnated at a rate of -0.4% per year (Chart 3).1 Chart 3Wages Stagnated Until Recently There have been a few reasons for this. First, there has been strong growth in self-employment, zero-hours contracts and agency work. So even though the share of full-time work has been rising during the post-crisis period, it remains well below its pre-crisis highs. This has increased the fluidity of the labor market, lowering the cost of doing business in the process. Compensation of self-employed or zero-hours contract workers lies significantly below their permanent counterparts. The silver lining is that this phenomenon is not specific to the U.K., but is happening worldwide, especially in Europe where structural reform has disentangled rigidities in the labor market. The key question going forward is whether the nascent rise in wages will continue. Over a cyclical horizon, our contention is that should positive employment trends continue, the U.K. could begin to experience significantly stronger wage pressures. There are four fundamental reasons for this: Job offers continue to outpace the number of seekers. Depending on the measure used, there are 20%-40% more jobs than there are applicants (Chart 4). This impasse cannot easily be resolved by a higher employment rate (it is at a secular high) or lower unemployment. The BoE estimates NAIRU in the U.K. is at 4.4%, which means that the unemployment rate is firmly below its structural level. Business surveys continue to suggest that a shortage of skilled labor is among the top problems firms are facing. The Phillips curve in the U.K. has flattened in the last few years, but wage growth has started to inflect higher of late. Like many other countries, the Phillips curve in the U.K. is kinked, whereby the convexity of wage growth increases as the unemployment gap closes.  The velocity of circulation in the jobs market, also known as the job-to-job flow, has picked up. This has historically been positive for wage growth (Chart 5). This is also mirrored by the quits rate, which has been accelerating since 2012. Chart 4Wage Pressures Should Mount Chart 5Velocity Of U.K. Employment Rising At the moment, the transmission mechanism from a tight labor market to higher wages is being impeded by political uncertainty, which will continue to cast a near-term shadow on longer-term hiring plans. For example, for all the talk of the U.K. being a financial center, attrition in banking and insurance employment remains entrenched (Chart 6). The U.K. continues to attract a significant amount of financial business, especially in the foreign exchange market, but there was a clear hit to volumes in 2016, the year the Brexit referendum was held (Chart 7). Meanwhile, for the manufacturing sector, it will take a while to rekindle animal spirits and re-attract foreign direct investment. Chart 6Attrition In Manufacturing And Finance Employment Chart 7The U.K. Is An Important Financial Center That said, the U.K. economy remains mostly driven by services, meaning wages will still face some measure of upward pressure. Service sector wage growth has been robust and unless the manufacturing recession grows deeper and starts to infect other sectors of the U.K. economy, the path of least resistance for wages remains up. Bottom Line: The U.K. economy has been holding up fairly well, despite the overhang of political uncertainty. Virtuous Circle Of Spending While the U.K. income pie could grow, a lack of confidence is nonetheless constraining spending. Chart 8 shows that U.K. consumer confidence has negatively diverged from trends in both the U.S. and the euro area. There have been a few offsetting factors at play suggesting that once the clouds of Brexit uncertainty lift, spending could re-accelerate higher. The transmission mechanism from a tight labor market to higher wages is being impeded by political uncertainty, which will continue to cast a near-term shadow. A big driver for retail sales in the U.K. is tourist arrivals and the weaker pound is likely to keep attracting an influx of visitors (Chart 9). Chart 8Confidence Will Be Key For ##br##Any Recovery Chart 9The Cheap Pound Will Encourage ##br##Foreign Shoppers The U.K. commands many of the world’s leading brands that will benefit from a cheap currency. The household deleveraging process is well advanced, and the tentative recovery in borrowing and mortgage applications is helping to cushion the fall in U.K. house prices. This is underpinned by the fact that mortgage-borrowing costs in the U.K. have collapsed along with yields (Chart 10). That said, any rise is borrowing will be mitigated by the fact that household debt-to-GDP in the U.K. remains higher than in many other developed economies. Chart 10Low Rates Should Help Housing Chart 11Cost-Push Inflation Inflation expectations are blasting upward, partly in response to the weaker currency. What is remarkable is that the pound has plummeted by a lot more than is warranted on a fundamental PPP basis. This will bring about imported inflation (Chart 11). Bottom Line: The big risk to the U.K. economy is that it enters into stagflation. A BoE survey pins the loss to output in the event of a no-deal Brexit at around 3% of GDP, but these are estimates since the bulk of the economic adjustment might occur through the exchange rate. The range of estimates for the economic impact of a no-deal (Table 1), perhaps not coincidentally, mirrors the range of Britain’s recessions in the 20th century (Chart 12). This puts the BoE in a particularly uncomfortable “wait and see” mode. For example, if a hard exit leads to a fall in the pound and a rise in inflation expectations, it is not clear the BoE’s Monetary Policy Committee would cut rates if it were to meet its inflation mandate. Table 1Wide Range Of Estimates For Impact ##br##Of No-Deal Brexit Chart 12Past British Recessions Offer Guidelines ##br##For No-Deal Impact Brexit Uncertainty Has Already Caused Lasting Damage To U.K. Growth A major drag on U.K. economic growth over the past three years has been the collapse in business confidence and associated contraction in capital spending (Chart 13). Since the 2016 Brexit vote, business investment has been substantially weaker than at similar points in previous U.K. business cycles – by a cumulative 26%, according to the BoE (Chart 14). While some of the softness seen in 2019 can also be attributable to slowing global economic growth and uncertainty related to the U.S.-China trade war, U.K. capital spending has been far weaker than that of other advanced economies (Chart 15). Since the 2016 Brexit vote, business investment has been substantially weaker than at similar points in previous U.K. business cycles – by a cumulative 26%. This is a critical point to consider when judging the long-run damage that has already been inflicted on the U.K. economy just from the uncertainty of Brexit. The best way to evaluate this damage is through the lens of capital spending, the growth of which is highly correlated to changes in productivity and potential economic growth (Chart 16). Chart 13Gloomy U.K. Businesses Have Stopped Investing Chart 14Massive Underperformance Of U.K. Capex Compared To History ... Chart 15...And Compared To ##br##Global Peers Chart 16A Lasting Hit To The U.K. Economy From Brexit Uncertainty     An important research paper published by the BoE last month – co-authored by two current members of the BoE Monetary Policy Committee, Ben Broadbent and Silvana Tenreyro – discusses the linkages between Brexit uncertainty, capital spending and U.K. productivity.2 The authors concluded that the economic effects of the Brexit referendum result can be categorized as a response to an anticipated, persistent decline in productivity growth for the tradeable sectors of the U.K. economy. In that framework, the following chain of events would occur after the “news” of weaker expected productivity (i.e. the Brexit referendum result) is announced: Chart 17A Misallocation of Resources An immediate and permanent fall in the relative price of non-tradeable output relative to tradeable output, i.e. the real exchange rate. Resources shift to the tradeable sector to take advantage of the higher relative price, leading to an increase in output and a rise in exports. Productivity growth in the tradeable sector then falls, as heralded by the “news” of the Brexit vote, leading to a shift in economic resources back towards the higher productivity non-tradeable sectors. U.K. interest rates fall relative to the world, as financial markets discount the expected relatively slower path of U.K. productivity. Aggregate business investment growth slows, but overall employment growth remains resilient. This is exactly how the U.K. economy has evolved since the 2016 Brexit vote: The BoE’s trade-weighted index for the pound has fallen in both nominal and real terms. The export share of U.K. real GDP rose from 27% to 30%, while the investment share of real GDP declined from 10% to 9% (Chart 17, top panel). Annual employment growth in U.K. services (non-tradeable) fell from 2.1% to zero by the end of 2018, but has since begun to recover; manufacturing (tradeable) employment growth initially increased from 0.5% to 2.7% within a year of the Brexit vote, before slowing back to 0% in 2018, and is also starting to move higher (Chart 17, third panel). Productivity growth has declined from 1.9% to nil, even as wage growth has accelerated due to the steady pace of labor demand at a time of low unemployment (Chart 17, bottom panel). On a sectoral level, the worst growth rates of realized productivity growth are occurring in tradeable industries like metal products and financial services, while the highest productivity growth is seen in non-tradeable industries like professional services and retail (Chart 18).3 Chart 18Latest U.K. Productivity Growth Rates, By Industry Summing it all up, according to the analytic framework of the BoE research paper, the Brexit referendum result essentially created a signal, manifested by the plunge in the British pound, for the misallocation of U.K. resources away from higher-productivity non-tradeable industries to lower productivity tradeable sectors. If true, we would also expect to see the following: Chart 19Inflationary Consequences of Brexit Uncertainty Much higher inflation rates in more domestically-focused measures like services and wages. Faster growth in unit labor cost as a result of the gap between accelerating wages and stagnant productivity. Structurally higher inflation expectations. Lower real interest rates in the U.K. than in other advanced economies. Prolonged weakness in the exchange rate. Again, all of this has come to fruition in the U.K. (Chart 19): Services CPI inflation is now at 2.2%, compared to only 1.7% for overall CPI inflation. Unit labor costs growth has accelerated from below zero before the Brexit referendum to a 2%-3% range since the end of 2016. The real 10-year gilt yield (deflated by the 10-year CPI swap rate) is now -3.1%, compared to a 0% real yield on 10-year U.S. Treasurys. The trade-weighted British pound remains close to its post-Brexit referendum lows. It is clear that the Brexit uncertainty has resulted in a structurally weaker, and more inflationary, U.K. economy – an outcome that may not be quickly reversed in the event a no-deal Brexit is avoided. This has important implications for the future monetary policy decisions of the BoE and the investment outlook for the pound and U.K. gilts. Bottom Line: Even before the actual withdrawal of the U.K. from the E.U. has occurred, Brexit has left a lasting mark on the U.K. economy through elevated uncertainty, severe weakness in business investment spending and anemic productivity. The net result is an economy with lower trend growth, a structurally weak exchange rate, and relatively high domestic inflation. Political Uncertainty Prevails Chart 20Public Opposes No-Deal Brexit Even after considering the cyclical and structural state of the U.K. economy, as we have done in this report, the near-term outlook is still entirely dependent on the Brexit outcome. The state of Brexit is more uncertain than ever due to the Supreme Court case against the government’s suspension of Parliament and Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s refusal to obey an order by Parliament to seek an extension to the October 31 exit deadline. What is not in doubt is that parliament opposes a disorderly, no-deal Brexit. And the best polling suggests that public opinion opposes a no-deal Brexit as well (Chart 20). Members soundly rejected Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s negotiation strategy in September – they prohibited both a no-deal Brexit and voted against holding an early election on two separate occasions (Chart 21). Johnson lost his coalition majority and yet cannot go to new elections, leaving him hamstrung until Parliament returns. What is likely regardless of the outcome is a substantial increase in fiscal spending, The United Kingdom is not a seventeenth-century Stuart monarchy – Parliament is the supreme political body in the constitution and its decrees cannot be permanently ignored or disobeyed. Whenever Parliament reconvenes, likely October 14, it will have the ability to ensure that the Brexit deadline is extended. The E.U. is likely to grant an extension because it is in the E.U.’s interest to delay or cancel Brexit and demonstrate to all members that leaving the bloc is neither desirable nor practical. The result will then be an election. Chart 21Boris Johnson’s Negotiation Strategy Failed Chart 22A Hung Parliament Is The Likely Outcome Election polls show the Conservative Party breaking out, the Liberal Democrats overtaking Labour, and the Brexit Party maintaining an edge (Chart 22). Translating these polls to parliamentary seats is not straightforward because the first-past-the-post electoral system means that a smaller party can steal crucial votes from the most popular party leaving the second- or third-most popular party to win the seat. The key point is that the Brexit Party is a single-issue party and the Tories under Johnson are now monopolizing that same issue. If this dynamic persists, the Lib Dems pose a greater threat of splitting Labour’s votes than the Brexit Party does of splitting Conservative votes. The result is that it is still possible for the Conservatives to gain a majority, even though it seems unlikely given that they need 325-plus seats and have fallen to 288 seats after purging unruly members and losing leadership in Scotland. A hung Parliament is a more likely outcome. A hung Parliament will prolong the indecision and uncertainty – but will also be likely to remain united against a no-deal Brexit. An opposition coalition government will prevent a no-deal Brexit. Even a single-party Tory majority is not a disastrous outcome, as it would increase Johnson’s leverage with the E.U. and increase the likelihood that the E.U. would offer some concessions to get a withdrawal agreement passed, resulting in a Brexit deal and an orderly exit (Specifically, a Northern Irish limitation to the backstop, or a sunset clause or withdrawal mechanism for the same). Such a deal is in Johnson’s best interests so that he does not preside over a recession from the moment he returns to office. All of these outcomes point toward either an exit deal or a new chapter in which parliament seeks a new referendum. Chart 23Expect An Increase In Fiscal Spending The worst outcome for the markets would be a weak Tory coalition majority that cannot agree on Ireland or pass an exit deal, as this could lead to paralysis, as it did with Theresa May, at a time when the prime minister is committed to delivering an exit come hell or high water. This is the scenario in which no-deal once again becomes a genuine risk. Subjectively we have estimated that the risk of no-deal is around 30%, but this is currently falling, not rising, as a result of parliament’s strong majorities against that outcome in September – and only an election can change that. It is fruitless trying to predict the U.K.’s future political landscape without knowing the conclusion of the Brexit saga. What is likely regardless of the outcome is a substantial increase in fiscal spending, reversing the “austerity” of the aftermath of the Great Recession. This trend is already apparent from Johnson’s current attempt to present a generous social spending package at the Tory party conference this fall – which would, if vindicated by a new election, represent a turnaround in Conservative fiscal policy (Chart 23). More fiscal spending will be needed to counteract the negative impact of a disorderly Brexit, or to placate the middle class once it becomes clear that leaving the E.U. is not a panacea for the UK’s problems, or to fulfill the agenda of an opposition government when it comes to power. In the event that a no-deal Brexit occurs, the U.K. will not only face a tumultuous economic aftermath, but the constitutional struggles among the three kingdoms will reignite due to the negative impact in Northern Ireland and the likely revival of Scottish independence efforts. Bottom Line: The U.K. is not a dictatorship and the prime minister cannot refuse to obey Parliament’s will. Parliament has voted clearly to delay a no-deal Brexit and will continue to do so. A disorderly exit remains a risk because an eventual election could return the Tories to power. But in this case, the E.U. will be more likely to offer a concession that enables Parliament to pass a withdrawal bill. The odds of no deal are no higher than 30%. The structural takeaway, regardless of the outcome, is that fiscal spending will rise. Investment Conclusions The episodes surrounding the collapse of the pound in 1992 carry important lessons for today.4  Crucially, most of the adjustment in the pound happened quickly, but a key difference from today is that an exit from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism was unanticipated, unlike Brexit. Foreign exchange markets are extremely fluid and adjust to expectations quite quickly. Peak to trough, cable has already fallen by circa 30% suggesting the bulk of the downward adjustment is done. Chart 24A Binary Brexit Outcome for Gilts The British currency is free floating, meaning there are less “hidden sins” compared to the fixed exchange rate period. That said, the fair value of the pound has structurally weakened. Our bias is that if there is a hard Brexit, the pound could easily drop to the 1.10-1.15 zone. Part of this move will be an undershoot. In the case of a soft Brexit (or no Brexit), the pound should converge toward the mid-point of its historical real effective exchange rate range, which would pin it 15%-20% higher, or at around 1.50. From a risk-reward perspective, this looks attractive. For U.K. gilts, the direction of yields is also dependent on the Brexit outcome, as there is essentially no change in policy rates discounted in the U.K. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve (Chart 24).  A “smooth” Brexit would allow the BoE to return its focus to fighting elevated U.K. inflation expectations. That would likely result in both higher gilt yields and a flattening of the gilt yield curve, as the market prices in future BoE rate hikes, and lower longer-term inflation expectations. A rising cable will also temper inflation expectations. Neither gilts nor U.K. inflation-linked bonds would perform well in this scenario.. A “no deal” Brexit, on the other hand, would prompt the BoE to cut interest rates in order to offset the potential hit to business and consumer confidence. This could occur even if inflation expectations remain high or rise further on pound weakness. That would mean lower gilt yields and a steepening of the gilt curve. Going overweight gilts but also long inflation-linked bonds would be the best way to position for this outcome. The scenarios for fiscal easing outlined earlier would also influence the shape of the gilt curve, resulting in some degree of bearish steepening as the gilt curve prices in both larger deficits and higher future inflation, all else equal. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Andrew G Haldane, “Climbing the Jobs Ladder,” Bank of England, July 23, 2019 2 Bank of England External MPC Unit Discussion Paper No. 51, “The Brexit vote, productivity growth and macroeconomic adjustments in the United Kingdom”, August 2019 3  London’s role as a major global financial center makes the U.K. financial services industry a “tradeable” sector, in that a significant share of its output is “traded” to non-U.K. users. 4 Mathias Zurlinden, “The Vulnerability of Pegged Exchange Rates: The British Pound in the ERM,” Economic Research, Vol. 75, No. 5 (September/October 1993).