Financial Markets

Highlights Economic data and policy announcements over the past month reflect the view that policymakers are serious about restraining credit growth, and that they will attempt to combat any weakness in external demand by boosting domestic consumption. A review of historical episodes of "outsized" investment intensity shows that policymakers have good reason to try and shift the composition of China's economy towards consumption, as it suggests that China's current experience probably cannot be sustained. A shift even somewhat away from heavy investment-led growth means that the "strike price" of the China put option has fallen relative to past economic slowdowns, implying that it will take more pain before investors can cash in. It is too soon to move towards an outright long position favoring domestic stocks, even though considerable bad news has been priced in. CNY-USD likely has further downside, and investors allocating among Chinese stocks should only favor domestic over investable equities in currency-hedged terms. Feature September's total social financing data, released earlier this month, provided important evidence supporting our view that Chinese policymakers are not aiming for a significant acceleration in private sector credit growth. Chart 1 highlights that the year-over-year growth rate of adjusted total social financing (TSF) actually ticked modestly lower in September, in clear contrast to the bet of many investors that China is following its "old stimulus rulebook". Chart 1Chinese Policymakers Are Not Pumping The Credit Taps Some market participants have pointed to the fact that adjusted TSF is rising sharply on a 3-month annualized basis after adjusting for seasonality (Chart 2), and have concluded from this fact that a sustained expansion in credit growth is forthcoming. However, Chart 3 illustrates that the pickup shown in Chart 2 is due to a surge in special local government bond issuance, which reflects front-loading of fiscal spending. Financial news outlets have reported that "provincial authorities had by the end of September already raised 92 percent of the 1.35 trillion yuan ($195 billion) worth of special infrastructure bonds that the central government has targeted for the entire year",1 implying that local government bond issuance in Q4 will drop off significantly relative to the past three months. Chart 2A Near-Term Pickup... Chart 3...Caused By Front-Loaded Fiscal Spending The September credit data aside, we acknowledge that there have been several small-scale stimulus announcements from the Chinese government over the past month. But the bottom line for now is that developments over this period reflect the view that policymakers are serious about restraining credit growth, and that they will attempt to combat any weakness in external demand by boosting domestic consumption.2 Restraining Credit Growth: Wisdom Or Folly? China's unwillingness to resort to a significant acceleration in credit growth to help stabilize its economy has surprised some investors, and raised criticism in some corners that the country is making a policy mistake. A recurring argument in this vein, particularly among perennial China bulls, is that policymakers should not be concerned about China's elevated levels of private sector debt because it is the natural and inevitable result of a high savings rate. According to this view, restraining credit growth and attempting to boost consumption merely dooms China's ability to escape the middle-income trap, because higher per capita income can only be achieved by further growth in the stock of capital. BCA's China Investment Strategy service does not dispute the notion that a high savings rate can lead to a high leverage ratio, particularly among small, fast-growing economies. But in the case of China, the sharp rise in private sector debt that has occurred since 2010 was not natural, and certainly was not inevitable. Instead, our view is that it was the result of an explicit "least-bad" choice made by policymakers to weather the reality of poor external demand following the global financial crisis. Chart 4 presents, in a nutshell, the theoretical support for the "keep investing" view. The chart depicts real per capita GDP for 80 countries in 2014 as a function of the average share of gross capital formation to GDP from 1960 to 2014. The chart clearly shows that richer countries today have tended to invest more on average in the past, which is entirely consistent with textbook economic theory. Chart 4Higher Investment Has Led To Higher Per Capita GDP Growth... However, there are two reasons why the simple inference from Chart 4 that China should just "keep investing" is deeply flawed. First, while investment as a share of GDP in China has recently declined from its 2011-2014 peak, it remains close to 45%. This is a massive rate of investment, and a historical review points to the conclusion that it probably cannot be sustained: 45% is nearly off the x-axis scale shown in Chart 4, suggesting that China's current rate of investment is not achievable over extended periods of time. In fact, the chart suggests that 30% is the highest realistic rate of investment as a share of GDP that a country can maintain over an extended period. In 2014, based on the definition of the data from the Penn World Table (GDP share of gross capital formation at current purchasing power parity), China had maintained its investment share above 30% for 12 years. At first blush, there appears to be some precedent suggesting that China's outsized investment run can go on for longer: among the 80 countries included in Chart 4, 14 of them have experienced a longer continuous run of investment as a share of GDP. However, Chart 5 shows that most of these experiences occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when global exports as a share of GDP were rising from a very low base. This implies that historical examples of outsized investment runs have largely reflected export-driven catch-up stories, which bodes poorly for China's ability to continue to invest at its recent massive scale given that global exports to GDP appear to have peaked. Chart 5...But Very High Rates Of Investment Have Driven By Exports Second, the relationship shown in Chart 4 captures the potential gains of profitable and rational investment, or in other words the accumulation of a "useful" stock of capital. But an unfortunate reality facing savers is that while one can choose to save or invest, one cannot necessarily choose the accompanying rate of return. If China invests heavily at very low or negative rates of return, the idea that investment will lead China out of the middle-income trap is very likely wrong. As we have discussed in previous reports, there is good evidence to suggest that the marginal gains from investment in China have been falling. The private sector debt-to-GDP ratio features prominently in the case against profitable investment in China: despite a massive rise in investment and debt from 2002-2007, the private sector debt-to-GDP ratio barely rose, because this debt was used to accumulate capital that verifiably delivered nominal GDP growth. Yet following 2010 the ratio rose sharply, implying that the returns from the investment that has taken place over the past decade have been (at least so far) considerably lower than those of the prior decade. Also, we noted in our August 29 Special Report that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have accounted for a sizeable portion of the private sector leveraging that occurred after 2010,3 and that the marginal operating gain from debt for SOEs has become negative (Chart 6). A gap between the cost/return on borrowed funds strongly implies that the investment channeled through SOEs over the past several years does not represent, on balance, the accumulation of useful capital. Chart 6Strong Evidence Against Productive SOE Investment In our view, a cohesive story emerges from the above analysis, one that counters the view that China is making a policy mistake by trying to avoid another significant episode of private sector leveraging. China's enormous catchup in per capita GDP over the past 20 years was initially export-led, but was sustained after 2010 by quasi-fiscal spending in the form of a material leveraging of state-owned enterprises. This shadow government spending was aimed at preventing large-scale job losses, but proved to be considerably less productive than the private, export-driven investment-boom that preceded it. This suggests that China is simply investing too much for an economy that needs to accumulate capital for the purposes of domestic production, and that any further, aggressive leveraging of the private sector will simply raise the odds or the cost of the eventual bailout. While investors who are hoping to profit from China's credit excesses may wish for a different outcome, the bottom line is that Chinese policymakers will act in the best interests of their country, and they have good reason to try and shift China's economy away from extremely high rates of investment towards more consumption. Implications For Investment Strategy As would be the case in any other major country, we have no doubt that Chinese policymakers will eventually move to a maximum reflationary stance (which would imply a significant reacceleration in credit growth) if they feel that the existing slowdown will lead to deep, threatening economic instability. The key point for investors is that a desire of policymakers to shift even somewhat away from heavy investment-led growth means that the "strike price" of the China put option has fallen relative to past economic slowdowns, implying that it will take more pain before investors can cash in. Within the universe of Chinese financial assets, there are three pertinent investment strategy questions that arise from this reality: Even if there is more pain to come, Chinese domestic stocks have fallen 30% in local currency terms, and close to 40% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 7). Is it time to go outright long? Should investors allocating among Chinese stocks favor domestic or investable equities? What is the outlook for CNY-USD? For now, our answers are as follows: 1) not yet, 2) domestic over investable in currency-hedged terms, and 3) weaker (possibly significantly so). Chart 7The Bear Market In A-Shares Is Advanced... We agree that 30% is a reasonable estimate of the likely decline in domestic earnings over the coming year, which normally would suggest that A-shares have fully priced the bad news and that investors should consider buying. However, there are two key reasons why we think this conclusion is premature: We noted in our September 19 Weekly Report that the lesson of 2014/2015 was Chinese stocks needed both policy stimulus and earnings clarity before bottoming.4 For now, China's stimulative response has been measured, and we have yet to see any decline in domestic 12-month forward earnings (Chart 8). While it is not the only factor contributing to the decline, the escalation in the trade war with the U.S. acted as a clear negative catalyst for the Chinese stock market. We have argued that the evolution of the trade positions of both sides suggests that the imposition of a third and final round of import tariffs covering all Chinese exports to the U.S. is likely, which would further reduce Chinese earnings visibility for investors. News reports this week suggested that an announcement to this effect could occur in early-December, if a meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi is called off or fails (as we expect). Chart 8...But Forward EPS Have Yet To Start Falling Chart 9 presents our framework for forecasting CNY-USD as a function of various U.S. import tariff scenarios, which we used to argue that a break above the psychologically-important level of 7 for USD-CNY appeared likely barring strong action from the PBOC4. The RMB has weakened in line with our view over the past month, and Chart 9 shows that it stands to weaken further, potentially significantly, if the U.S. does move ahead with a 25% import tariff on all imports from China. Chart 9Further Downside In CNY-USD Is Likely Finally, our negative outlook for the currency informs our view that a relative position favoring domestic over investable stocks should be currency-hedged. Chart 10 shows that an uptrend in relative performance does appear to be forming in local currency terms, but not in U.S. dollar terms (due to the recent renewed weakness in CNY-USD). Chart 10Relative To Investable Stocks, Only Favor A-Shares In Hedged Terms We opened a shadow trade in our July 5 Weekly Report of being long the MSCI China A Onshore index / short MSCI China index,5 which we said we would consider implementing in response to a 5% rally in relative performance. Our intention was to structure this trade in unhedged terms (consistent with most of the trades in our trade book), and our judgement is that it is simply too early to do so despite the fact that a 5% relative rise in U.S. dollar terms has indeed occurred. Signs of a durable bottom in CNY-USD, or an assessment of minimal further downside coupled with strong outperformance of domestic stocks in local currency terms, are likely catalysts for a green light. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 "China Is Struggling To Find Projects To Spend Bond Splurge On", Bloomberg News, October 22, 2018. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Reports "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8, 2018, and "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Part Two", dated August 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging", dated August 29, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War", dated September 19, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Standing On One Leg", dated July 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights So What? Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to step down as party chairperson is positive for European political evolution and thus not a risk to the market. Why? The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is unlikely to turn Euroskeptic, the median German voter is not. Europhile Green Party is surging, throwing shade at the narrative that Germans are souring on Europe. New elections are unlikely in the next 12 months, neither main centrist party would benefit. Chancellor Merkel's stabilizing role in the Euro Area crisis is overstated. Infusion of new blood is precisely what Germany, and Europe, needs. Also... 2019 will be a big year for Europe with multiple decisions to be taken on governance reforms. New leadership in Berlin is exactly what the doctor ordered. Feature German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a deep loss in the Hesse election on October 28. Germany's main centrist parties - the center-right CDU and center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) - suffered deep losses in Hesse, mirroring the results in Bavaria from October 14 (Chart 1). The results have prompted Angela Merkel to confirm that she will not stand for re-election as chair of the CDU at the Hamburg party convention and that she will not seek any political posts after her current term as chancellor ends in 2021. Chart 1Winners And Losers In Bavaria And Hesse In this Client Note, we examine what Chancellor Merkel's decision means for Germany and Europe. Are Euroskeptics Taking Over Germany? The most important question for global investors is whether Merkel's fall from grace is related to a growing trend of populism in Europe. In part, yes. However, Merkel's problem is deeper. Merkel-fatigue in Germany has deeper roots than her decision on immigration in 2015. Polling suggests that Merkel recovered from that crisis and reached a 70% approval rating in mid-2017, only to see a precipitous decline since (Chart 2). Chart 2Merkel's Political Capital Is Spent That said, German Euroskeptic sentiment is not on the rise (Chart 3). In fact, Germans support the currency union at one of the highest clips in Europe. Furthermore, Germans continue to "feel" European (Chart 4). Chart 3Germans Are Europhile... Chart 4...And Feel Quite European In the last two Lander elections in Bavaria and Hesse, the right-wing, Euroskeptic party Alternative for Germany (AfD) underperformed its national polling. Its support in opinion polls, at 16%, appears to be limited by the number of Germans who identify as Euroskeptic, similarly around 14%. In fact, it was the Green Party that surprised in both Bavaria and Hesse, gaining 8.9% and 8.7% respectively. Bottom Line: The short answer is no, Germany is not being taken over by Euroskeptics. True, the 2015 migration crisis has given the AfD a tailwind, allowing it to become entrenched in the political system. Yet just as impressive is the rise of the Europhile Green party (Chart 5). Chart 5Grand Coalition Parties Would Be Crazy To Call A New Election OK, But Will The CDU Move To The Right? The previous question was purposely hyperbolic. The more nuanced question is whether the CDU will swing to the right in the face of AfD's rise? The answer depends on the issue. The two key issues are immigration and EU integration. On immigration, it is simply good politics for Germany's center-right party to steal from the AfD platform. The only downside of adopting a right-leaning immigrant policy is that it will make forming coalitions with the surging Green Party more difficult. It was immigration policy that ultimately prevented the so-called Jamaica Coalition - the CDU, the Green Party, and the pro-business and mildly Euroskeptic Free Democratic Party (FDP) - from becoming a fully-fledged ruling coalition in November 2017. This forced Merkel to re-establish the uninspiring Grand Coalition with the SPD.1 On European integration, it is possible that the CDU will adopt more Euroskeptic rhetoric, but such a move could backfire. First, data suggests that Germans continue to support the euro at a high clip. Second, AfD has already captured the "hard Euroskeptic" voters, whereas FDP has captured "soft Euroskeptics." It is unclear if the CDU has any chance of getting any of those voters back by crowding the "Euroskeptic corner." In fact, data from Bavaria and Hesse indicate that the CDU has been losing voters equally to the Green Party and the AfD. From the perspective of the Median Voter Theory, the CDU has a clear path forward. By remaining Europhile and pro-EU, it can ensure that it does not abandon the 83% of Germans who continue to support the currency union. The German median voter clearly does not want to abandon European institutions. But by ditching Merkel's liberal, pro-immigrant policy, the CDU can ensure that it withstands the AfD's attack on its right flank. Bottom Line: Germany's main center-right party has the luxury of picking its battles with the right-wing AfD. We suspect that the CDU will adopt some of the AfD's anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy, but retain its centrism on other issues. Who Will Replace Merkel As The Head Of The CDU? After months of speculation, Chancellor Merkel has confirmed that she will not pursue the CDU chairmanship at the upcoming December 7-8 party conference in Hamburg. Instead, Germany's ruling party will select a new chairperson, one who will be groomed as Merkel's successor for the 2021 election. The process for selecting the CDU chairperson is largely closed and dominated by party elites. The Federal Executive Board of the CDU - which is made up of the chairperson and 39 other members - sits down with the CDU parliamentary faction to approve the candidates, ensuring that a rogue candidate cannot stage a surprise in the delegate vote. It is highly likely that Merkel will be able to hand-pick a successor. Table 1 is our attempt to collate the likeliest candidates to replace Merkel as the head of the CDU. The list includes only one Euroskeptic candidate - former party whip Friedrich Merz who has not sat in the Bundestag since 2009 - and quite a few outright Europhiles. Merkel's preferred candidate is Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer - often referred to by German media by her acronym AKK - a centrist who is to the left of Merkel on economic policy, EU matters, and social issues. Table 1Potential Merkel Successors Given the short period of time between now and the Hamburg conference, it is highly unlikely that a surprise candidate - such as the Euroskeptic Merz - will emerge victorious. Merkel, for instance, spent months grooming the party rank-and-file prior to her nomination. Bottom Line: Merkel's successor is likely to be hand-picked. Will Merkel Survive Until 2021? Merkel's chances of staying in power until the end of the current government's term will increase if her favored successor - Kramp-Karrenbauer - emerges victorious in December. A win for an outsider, or someone highly critical of Merkel (such as Jens Spahn, who has disagreed with Merkel on immigration), might hasten Merkel's demise. How would such an outcome play out? If Merkel resigns, the Bundestag would have to elect a new chancellor with a simple majority. Given that the CDU currently governs in a coalition with the SPD, the latter party would have to support the election of a new chancellor. Kramp-Karrenbauer would be acceptable to the SPD, but one of the more contentious candidates may not. A new election would require the chancellor - Merkel or her successor - to lose a confidence vote that he or she has called. However, this is a controversial matter constitutionally as the government must claim that it has reached a legislative impasse on a particular issue. (Chancellor Gerhard Schroder argued in 2005 that his economic agenda was stalled.) The other question is why would either of the ruling parties want new elections at this point? Both centrist parties are tanking in the polls, as both Bavarian and Hesse elections signal and as overall polling indicates (see Chart 5). As such, we suspect that a new election will not take place over the next 12 months, at the very least. Bottom Line: Early elections are not easy to arrange and neither of the two ruling parties want one at the moment. Merkel has at least one more year in power. Investment Implications: Does Any Of This Matter? Chancellor Merkel has lost all of her political capital: that much is clear. As such, her decision to begin the process of finding a successor is a positive development, one that political leaders rarely take willingly. Given the election of a Europhile Emanuel Macron in France in 2017, Berlin needs to find a comparable partner that can carry on reforms. Otherwise, Germany risks wasting the window of opportunity afforded by the Macron presidency to make critical changes to Euro Area governance. On the agenda over the next year or two are several important issues. First, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is supposed to be granted new powers, evolving it into a kind of European replacement for the IMF. Some argue - including the ESM's leadership - that this expanded role will necessitate a greater injection of capital, for which obviously Berlin must be on board. Second, the stalled Banking Union project requires Berlin's intimate involvement. A deposit insurance union would go a long way toward stabilizing the Euro Area amid future financial crises. Under Merkel, Berlin has been reticent to greenlight such developments. Third, Berlin must agree with EU peers on several important positions after the European Parliament elections in May 2019. These will include staffing the European Commission. According to press reports this summer, Merkel was focused on ensuring that the next president of the European Commission would be a German. To get her way, Chancellor Merkel supposedly indicated that she would not fight to get a German to replace Mario Draghi, whose term at the ECB is set to expire in October 2019. A change at the top in Berlin, particularly if a Euroskeptic takes over the CDU, may signal a reversal of this strategy. That said, what Berlin wants is not necessarily what Berlin will get, no matter who is in charge. Finally, there is the philosophical question of whether Merkel has been a factor of stability for Europe over the past decade. We believe the answer is no. Not for any normative reason but rather because she has been an intently domestic chancellor. Investors have been overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of Euro Area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent Euro Area fiscal backstop mechanism due to the upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. Such delays and hesitations have cost Europe considerable momentum throughout the crisis and since. As such, we believe that Chancellor Merkel's decision presents considerable upside for European politics and limited downside. Infusion of new blood in Berlin is the only way for Europe to restart the stalled governance reforms. However, much will depend on whether the CDU takes a significant turn towards a "softer Euroskeptic" position or maintains its traditional pro-European outlook. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The name references the colors of the three parties (black for CDU, green for the Green Party, and yellow for the FDP).

Highlights Growth Scare: Despite the recent pickup in global equity market volatility, bond volatility remains subdued. Until there is more decisive evidence of a deeper pullback in global growth that is impacting the mighty U.S. economy, yields on government bonds - which remain overvalued in all major developed economies - will have difficulty falling much more even if equity markets continue to correct. Stay below benchmark on global duration exposure, while maintaining only a neutral allocation to global credit. Canada: The Bank of Canada remains on a hawkish path to a more neutral policy rate, even with the lingering concerns over household debt and global trade tensions. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in hedged global bond portfolios. Feature Just like that other great October tradition, Halloween, market volatility has returned to spook investors. Both the MSCI All-Country World Index and S&P 500 index are officially in correction territory, down -10% from the highs reached in September. The causes for the pullback range from high-profile third quarter U.S. earnings disappointments to increased evidence that the U.S.-China tariff war is negatively impacting U.S. investment spending. Yet the reaction from global bond markets has been relatively muted for such a large pullback in stocks. Benchmark 10-year government bond yields for the major developed markets are down from their peaks, but the declines have been smaller in countries where central banks are in a rate hiking cycle (U.S. -14bps, Canada -19bps) relative to countries where central banks are on hold (Germany -20bps, U.K. -31bps). One possible reason for this discrepancy is that the downtrend in data surprises appears to have stabilized in the U.S. and, even more importantly, China, while European data continues to disappoint relative to expectations (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekNoisy Equities, Calm Bonds We still do not believe that global bond yields have peaked for the cycle. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark strategic bias on overall duration exposure, but with only a neutral allocation to global corporate bonds that favors U.S. credit. On a more shorter-term tactical basis, there is a risk that yields could decline further, with more credit spread widening than seen during the current risk-off episode, if economic data starts to disappoint in the U.S. where growth has so far been resilient. Staying up in credit quality within an allocation to U.S. corporates is one way to hedge against such an outcome. Bond Yields Are Normalizing, Bond Volatility Is Not The selloff in risk assets has resulted in a pickup in widely-followed market volatility measures like the U.S. VIX index. Yet when looking at the level of realized total return volatility across all major asset classes, the current bout of turbulence has been unimpressive outside of global equities. In Chart 2, we present an update of a chart from our 2018 global bond outlook report, showing the current levels of realized volatility across different asset class benchmarks compared to their historical ranges. The vertical lines in each chart represent the range between 1999 and 2017 of annualized monthly volatilities for global government bonds, credit, equities, currencies and commodities. The red triangles represent the most recent 13-week annualized volatilities for those same asset classes. What stands out in the chart is that volatilities are off the historical lows for global equities, Italian government bonds and industrial commodities, yet volatilities remain subdued for developed market government bonds, global corporate debt and currencies. Chart 2Bond Volatility Remains Subdued, Despite More Volatile Equities We have long argued that the shift to a structurally higher level of volatility across all asset classes will show up first with a rise in bond volatility. In the U.S., in particular, sustained periods of elevated volatility for both Treasuries (as measured by the MOVE index) and stocks (as measured by the VIX index) have occurred alongside episodes of greater variance in nominal GDP growth (Chart 3). When the latter rises, that also triggers more uncertainty about the future path of monetary policy which feeds into a rise in expected bond volatility. That, in turn, impacts volatility in growth sensitive assets like equities, credit and commodities. Chart 3Equity Vol Responding To Growth Uncertainty Right now, nominal GDP volatility has picked up in the U.S. but still remains low by historical standards (middle panel). Some of that increased growth volatility can be attributed to the Trump fiscal stimulus coming at a time of full employment, which has helped boost both real GDP growth and U.S. inflation. Interest rate markets have moved to discount more Fed hikes in response, but the Fed's steady pace of well-telegraphed, 25bps-per-quarter rate increases is likely acting to dampen Treasury market volatility. As we have written about extensively throughout the course of 2018, the hurdle for central banks (not just the Fed) to shift to a less hawkish or more dovish policy stance is much higher when unemployment is low and inflation is closer to central bank targets. In such an environment, the correlation between equity and bond returns should be weaker than during periods of excess capacity and low inflation when central banks can stay dovish. That can be seen in Chart 4, which plots the trailing 52-week correlation of total returns for equities and government bonds for the major developed markets (top panel), along with the 10-year market-based inflation expectations for each country (bottom panel). For almost all countries shown, the stock/bond correlation has risen to zero away from the negative correlations that dominated the post-crisis years. That move in correlations has occurred alongside a more stable backdrop for inflation expectations, which are much closer to central bank targets. The lone exception is, of course, Japan, where inflation remains disappointingly low and the Bank of Japan continues to keep a tight lid on interest rates. Chart 4More Stable Inflation Means Less Correlated Stock & Bond Returns Besides more stable inflation, another factor preventing yields from falling as much as implied by the declines in equity markets is that global bond yields remain overvalued relative to trend economic growth. One way to assess this is to look at the level of real bond yields relative to a moving average of actual GDP growth. We show this for the major developed economies in Charts 5 & 6, which plot rolling 3-year moving averages of real GDP growth (a proxy for "trend" or potential growth) versus real 5-year government bond yields, 5-years forward. For the latter, we take the nominal 5-year/5-year forward yield and subtract a five-year moving average of realized headline inflation for each country, rather than market-based inflation-linked instruments like CPI swaps or TIPS, to allow for a longer history of real yields in the charts. Chart 5Real Bond Yields Are Still Too Low ... Chart 6... Compared To Real Economic Growth For all countries show, real bond yields remain below the level of real growth. The gap between the two is smallest in the U.S. and Canada - unsurprising, as central bankers have been tightening monetary policy, and helping push up real interest rates, in both countries. Bonds look most overvalued in core Europe, Japan and Sweden where policymakers have been using negative interest rates and quantitative easing (QE) to hold down bond yields. Real yields in those countries are between 200-300bps below our proxy for trend real growth. With such a large gap between actual growth and interest rates, it becomes harder for policymakers to consider easing monetary policy, or at least slow the pace of policy normalization, in response to more volatile financial markets. It should not be a surprise that last week, during a period of global market turmoil, the European Central Bank and Sweden's Riksbank both signaled that they remain on pace to end QE and begin hiking interest rates within the next 6-12 months, while the Bank of Canada delivered another 25bp rate hike. In the absence of a VERY large global growth shock, global real yields should be expected to increase over at least the next year, and a defensive posture on global duration exposure should be maintained. One such shock could come from a deeper downturn in China than has already occurred in 2018, which would feed into a bigger slowdown in non-U.S. growth. Another shock could come from the U.S. if the recent pullback in core durable goods orders (Chart 7) is a sign that a) U.S. companies are becoming more worried about the impact of U.S.-China trade tariffs on global growth; and/or b) the impact of the Trump fiscal stimulus is already starting to fade. Such a move could be exacerbated by a larger downturn in housing activity than seen already in response to rising mortgage rates. Chart 7Treasuries Are Exposed To A U.S. Growth Scare These shocks, if large enough, could trigger a short-covering rally in U.S. Treasuries, where sentiment remains very depressed (bottom panel). However, with leading economic indicators still pointing to above trend U.S. growth, and with U.S. consumer spending holding firm alongside a tight labor market and faster wage growth, such a pullback in yields would likely be short-lived and difficult for investors to time successfully. Bottom Line: Despite the recent pickup in global equity market volatility, bond volatility remains subdued. Until there is more decisive evidence of a deeper pullback in global growth that is impacting the mighty U.S. economy, yields on government bonds - which remain overvalued in all major developed economies - will have difficulty falling much more even if equity markets continue to correct. Stay below benchmark on global duration exposure, while maintaining only a neutral allocation to global credit. Canada Update: The BoC Stays Hawkish The Bank of Canada (BoC) delivered another rate hike last week, lifting the policy rate by 25bps to 1.75%. The language used to explain the hike was surprisingly hawkish. In the press conference following the BoC meeting, Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins noted that the policy rate remains negative in real terms and is still below the central bank's estimate of neutral (between 2.5% and 3.5%). She also noted that the term "gradual" was no longer used to describe the pace of monetary tightening, so as not to give the impression that policy was following a steady predetermined path similar to the Fed's tightening cycle - potentially, a sign that more hawkish surprises could be in the offing. The BoC also sounded more optimistic on the outlook for the Canadian economy, while sounding less concerned about the two factors that should cause the most worry - high consumer debt levels and uncertainty over global trade. The more upbeat tone is at odds with the current pace of economic growth in Canada, which has slowed. GDP growth has decelerated to 1.9% from 3.0% at the end of 2017, while the OECD's leading economic indicator for Canada is also in a downtrend (Chart 8). In the Monetary Policy Report (MPR) that was also released last week, the latest BoC forecasts for Canadian real GDP growth for 2019 and 2020 were essentially left unchanged. Chart 8Is The BoC's Growth Optimism Justified? The BoC noted that the composition of demand within the Canadian economy was shifting away from consumption and housing towards business investment and exports. That can be seen in the most recent data that shows sluggish consumer spending (middle panel) and rebounding export growth (bottom panel). The central bank attributes the softer path for consumption to its own interest rate increases and changes to housing market policies, both of which have forced households to adjust their spending patterns. That is evident in the sharp decline in house price growth, deceleration of household credit growth and the softening trends in housing starts and residential investment spending (Chart 9) Chart 9Canadian Housing Has Cooled Off The BoC is of the view, however, that consumer spending will rebound (but not overheat) on the back of strong household income growth and a pickup in net immigration inflows that is boosting population growth. The other area of diminished concern for the central bank is investment spending, which has been negatively impacted by the uncertainty over the renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). That smooth acronym is now gone, to be replaced by the more awkward "USMCA", or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That new trade deal has reduced the immediate uncertainty over the impact of U.S. trade policy on Canada, although the BoC did note in the MPR that there was still the potential for lingering uncertainty based on previous U.S. trade actions (i.e. on steel and aluminum imports to the U.S.) and because the USMCA has not yet been ratified. The BoC did make an upward adjustment to its assumptions regarding the hit to Canadian growth from U.S. trade policy compared to the July MPR. The level of exports is now only expected to fall by -0.3% over the next two years (vs -0.7% in the July MPR) and business investment is expected to decline by -0.7% over the same period (vs -1.4% in the July MPR). The reduction in trade uncertainty should be expected to free up demand for capex in Canada. The Q3/2018 BoC Senior Loan Officers' Survey reported a further easing of lending standards from the Q2 survey (Chart 10). The central bank's Q3 Business Outlook Survey also noted that firms' investment intentions continued to strengthen to the highest level in eight years (middle panel). This was primarily due to increased expectations for future sales growth, coming at a time of high reported capacity pressures (bottom panel). Importantly, the Business Outlook Survey took place before the USMCA deal was reached, suggesting that the data may actually understate sales expectations. This bodes well for future gains to overall GDP growth from business investment spending. Chart 10Canadian Companies Need To Invest & Hire That same Business Outlook Survey also reported that firms are continuing to experience labor shortages, most notably in sectors such as construction, transportation and information technology. This is a sign that employment growth should remain firm in Canada. Coming at a time when the unemployment rate at 5.9% remains well below estimates of full employment, this suggests that there could be some upward pressure on inflation. Canadian headline CPI inflation currently sits at 2.2%, while core CPI inflation is at 1.8% (Chart 11). That is a sharp decline from the 3% inflation seen in July, which was the result of an unexpected surge in airline fares. Yet at current levels, Canadian inflation sits right at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target range. Furthermore, the BoC's own assessment is that the output gap is in a range of -0.5% to +0.5%, in line with the estimates from the IMF and OECD (middle panel). Although headline wage growth has cooled in recent months, the BoC's preferred measure that incorporates several wage measures ("Wage-Common"), has been stable near the same 2% levels as seen for CPI inflation. Chart 11Canadian Inflation At BoC Target Expect More BoC Hikes With the Canadian economy operating at full employment and with inflation at target, the BoC seems determined to push the policy rate back up towards their estimated 2.5%-3.5% range for the neutral rate. This means another 75-175bps of additional rate increases. At the moment, there are only 49bps of hikes over the next year discounted in the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve (Chart 12). This leaves Canadian bond yields exposed to additional rate increases. This is especially true given our forecast of continued Fed interest rate increases in 2019, as the BoC has been playing a game of "Follow the Leader" with the Fed during the current tightening cycle (top panel). Chart 12Stay Underweight Canadian Government Bonds In terms of our recommended fixed income investment strategy, we continue to favor: an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds for global bond investors a below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated Canadian bond portfolios long positions in Canadian inflation protection (CPI swaps or inflation-linked bonds) While we expect the Canadian yield curve to flatten as the BoC delivers more rate hikes than currently discounted over the next year, we do not see the 2-year/10-year curve flattening by more than is currently priced in the forwards. This is not the case for an outright duration bet, where the forwards are currently priced for very little upward movement in Canadian bond yields over the next year. Therefore, we prefer to stick with directional bets on Canadian yields (higher) and Canadian relative bond performance versus global peers (worse). Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada remains on a hawkish path to a more neutral policy rate, even with the lingering concerns over household debt and global trade tensions. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in hedged global bond portfolios. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The current strength of the U.S. economy suggests that, as was the case in February, the sell-off in risk assets may not result in much of a drop in Treasury yields. Weak foreign economic growth still presents a risk, but it should be hedged by adopting a more defensive stance on credit, not by increasing portfolio duration. Corporate Bonds: Weak foreign economic growth will impact U.S. corporate profits and investment spending before hitting U.S. consumer spending and overall GDP. This means it is better to hedge the risk from weak foreign growth by scaling back exposure to corporate bonds, while maintaining below-benchmark duration. Credit Curve: Favoring the long-end of the credit curve is a way to increase the average spread of a bond portfolio without taking on extra credit risk. Rather, the long-end of the credit curve outperforms when Treasury yields rise and underperforms when they fall. In the current environment we prefer going after the extra spread at the long-end of the credit curve, while maintaining an up-in-quality bias and only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds. Feature We're not out of the woods yet. Risk assets continued their decline last week, the VIX remains elevated and the 10-year yield has fallen off its highs (Chart 1). In the context of our Fed Policy Loop, lower bond yields are a positive sign for risk assets. Chart 1How Much Worse Will It Get? In our Fed Policy Loop framework, higher yields and the perception of increasingly hawkish Fed policy cause credit spreads to widen and stock prices to fall. Then, tighter financial conditions eventually lead to perceptions of more dovish Fed policy and lower bond yields. At some point, yields fall far enough to put a floor under risk assets (Chart 2). Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop We are now at the stage of the loop where we must determine how large a decline in Treasury yields will be necessary to halt the slide in risk assets. To make that determination, it is helpful to think about why risk assets are falling. Is it a simple correction driven by investors re-assessing appropriate valuations? Or is the market sniffing out a future slowdown in economic growth? Chart 3 shows why the difference is meaningful. In February 2018, a sharp increase in Treasury yields caused the stock-to-bond total return ratio to decline. However, the ratio quickly recovered once investor sentiment toward the stock market became somewhat less bullish. Importantly, Treasury yields did not need to fall to support a rebound in risk assets, they only needed to level-off for a time. Chart 3Lower Yields Required? In contrast, a meaningful decline in Treasury yields was required to arrest the drop in the stock-bond ratio that occurred in late-2015/early-2016. The difference between that period and the February 2018 period is obvious. In late-2015/early-2016, the U.S. Manufacturing PMI had just dipped below the 50 boom/bust line. This year the PMI has been closer to 60 (Chart 3, bottom panel). The current strength of the U.S. economy suggests that, as was the case in February, the sell-off in risk assets may not result in much of a drop in Treasury yields. With the market only priced for 54 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, and no signs of softening in the U.S. economic data, we are reluctant to abandon our cyclical below-benchmark portfolio duration stance at this time. That is not to say there are no risks on the horizon. In past reports we flagged the risk that slowing foreign economic growth will eventually impact the U.S. economy, causing it to slow as we head into next year.1 However, we think it makes more sense to hedge this risk by adopting a more defensive allocation to corporate credit versus Treasuries, rather than by shifting portfolio duration to look for lower yields. Hedge Economic Risk In Credit, Not Duration As was stated above, U.S. economic growth remains strong and the biggest risk on the horizon is that weak foreign growth eventually migrates stateside via a stronger dollar. Last week's third quarter GDP report confirmed that overall growth is solid, but also showed some evidence of weak foreign growth impacting the U.S. figures. Overall, real GDP grew by a healthy 3.5% (annualized) in the third quarter, supported mostly by consumer spending which contributed 2.7% to overall growth, the most since Q4 2014 (Chart 4). However, weakness was found in nonresidential investment spending which contributed only 0.1% to real growth, down from 1.2% in the prior quarter (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Parallels With Early 2015 This distribution of growth between consumer spending and investment is identical to what occurred in 2015, the last time that weak foreign growth infiltrated the U.S. economy. The more globally-exposed investment sector contributed almost nothing to growth in the first two quarters of 2015, while overall GDP growth stayed elevated, driven by strong consumer spending. Eventually, consumer spending also weakened and GDP growth plunged in the second half of the year, but the warning sign that weak foreign growth was negatively impacting the U.S. economy came from investment spending in the first half of 2015. We draw the distinction between U.S. investment spending and U.S. consumer spending for two reasons. The first is that investment spending is more influenced by global factors than the U.S. consumer. The second is that investment spending is tightly linked to corporate profit growth (Chart 5). In other words, weak foreign economic growth is likely to negatively impact U.S. corporate profits before it hits overall U.S. GDP. This makes credit spreads more exposed to global weakness than Treasury yields, which take their cues from overall GDP growth. Chart 5Investment Spending And Profits Are Linked While we think that weak foreign growth will weigh on corporate profits in the coming quarters, presenting a clear negative for corporate bond spreads. We must also consider that spread widening during the past two weeks means that valuation has improved. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses now stands at 274 bps, up from 212 bps a month ago and slightly above the historical average (Chart 6). However, we must also point out that our calculation embeds expected default losses of only 1.04% for the next 12 months. This low default loss expectation, which is derived from Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, means that there is a high risk that default losses surprise investors to the upside during the next 12 months (Chart 6, bottom panel). Any moderation in profit growth would make such an upside surprise even more likely. Chart 6Junk Value Has Improved... Another way to think about our default-adjusted high-yield spread is that if we assume that default losses occur in line with our forecast and that junk spreads remain flat at current levels, then junk bonds will outperform duration-matched Treasuries by 274 bps during the next 12 months. If spreads tighten by enough to bring the default-adjusted spread back to its historical average of 247 bps, then junk will outperform duration-matched Treasuries by 380 bps. However, at the current juncture we are more worried about spread widening during the next 6-12 months than spread tightening. Chart 7 shows that junk spreads tend to predict changes in capacity utilization. At current spread levels, this means we should expect capacity utilization to rise back to the 80% level during the next six months. If weak foreign economic growth starts to weigh on U.S. corporate profits, then such a large gain is very much in doubt (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7...But Spreads Embed Strong IP Growth Bottom Line: Weak foreign economic growth will impact U.S. corporate profits and investment spending before hitting U.S. consumer spending and overall GDP. This means it is better to hedge the risk from weak foreign growth by scaling back exposure to corporate bonds, while maintaining below-benchmark duration. Extend Maturity In Credit, Not Treasuries Given the risk to corporate profits that is posed by weak foreign economic growth, we recommend investors maintain only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds and also maintain an up-in-quality bias across credit tiers.2 In the current environment we think the best way to pick-up spread within a neutral allocation to corporate bonds is to favor the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This will need to be offset by maintaining very low duration within your Treasury allocation to ensure that overall portfolio duration stays below benchmark. The rationale for favoring the long-end of the corporate credit curve is twofold. First, there is extra spread available at the long-end of the credit curve compared to the short-end. In fact, the long-maturity investment grade corporate bond index carries an average option-adjusted spread that is 107 bps greater than that of the intermediate-maturity index (Chart 8). Second, the extra spread available at the long-end of the credit curve is purely compensation for the extra duration risk. The bottom panel of Chart 8 shows that there is no spread advantage at the long-end on a "per unit of duration" basis. Chart 8Favor The Long-End Of The Corporate Credit Curve The fact that the extra spread at the long-end of the credit curve is purely compensation for duration is important because it means that when Treasury yields rise and average index duration falls, investors should demand less compensation for the extra duration risk at the long-end of the curve. In other words, rising Treasury yield environments should coincide with spread compression at the long-end of the credit curve versus the short end. We tested this idea empirically by looking at monthly excess returns in long-maturity corporate bonds versus short-maturity corporate bonds. Using a sample of monthly returns going back to 2000, we divide the months based on whether the Treasury curve bear-steepened, bear-flattened, bull-steepened or bull-flattened (Table 1). The results show that while changes in the slope of the yield curve don't have much impact, the long-end of the credit curve outperforms when Treasury yields rise and underperforms when they fall. Table 1Monthly Excess Return In Long Maturity Vs. Short Maturity Corporate Bonds (2000-Present) Bottom Line: Favoring the long-end of the credit curve is a way to increase the average spread of a bond portfolio without taking on extra credit risk. Rather, the long-end of the credit curve outperforms when Treasury yields rise and underperforms when they fall. In the current environment we prefer going after the extra spread at the long-end of the credit curve, while maintaining an up-in-quality bias and only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Waiting For Peak Divergence", dated October 23, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The latter stages of expansions and bull markets ought to be jittery, ... : Equities tend to get jumpier in the final stages of equity bull markets, but performance typically improves enough to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. ... and tariff fights, a potential trade war, and other daunting headlines only make things worse: Tariff worries are starting to pile up in earnings calls, threatening financial markets and the real economy. When it comes to the economy, U.S. investors have to ask how much good news is too much good news: The trouble with an extended stretch of good news is that it conditions investors to keep setting the bar higher. After all, bear markets don't begin when things are bad, they begin when things can't get better. We remain constructive on risk assets, but we recognize the need for vigilance: The indicators we're watching are not signaling a turn right now, but we are keeping our eyes peeled. Feature So much for the boring bull market. After a somnolent 2017, when single-day moves of at least 1% were a rarity, and there were no 2% moves at all, volatility is back (Chart 1). The S&P 500 shed 9% in the three weeks ended Wednesday; the major small-cap indexes and the NASDAQ have fared a good bit worse; and with the vast majority of S&P 500 constituents having made corrections (peak-to-trough declines of at least 10%), breadth is crumbling. The key question for asset allocators and equity investors of all stripes is whether or not the recent moves mark the beginning of a bear market. Chart 1What A Difference A Year Makes We do not think they do; volatility is supposed to reawaken in the latter stages of bull markets, and we are not deterred by October's admittedly lousy action. Our work on the key cycles does not point to an imminent inflection point, and we still think the bull market has another year to go. We are conscious of the dangers of being lulled to sleep by a strong U.S. economy, but we take some comfort from a review of the way bull markets have played out over the last 50 years. A preponderance of evidence suggests that the expansion, the credit cycle, and the equity bull market are not over yet, and we recommend staying invested. The Evolution Of Bull Markets The bull market that began in March 2009 is the ninth bull market of the last 52 years.1 Bull markets have been the rule, with the S&P 500 spending less than 20% of that stretch in a bear market (Chart 2). We have previously noted that large-cap U.S. bull markets have a tendency to sprint to the finish line; the pace of appreciation tends to quicken noticeably over a bull's final stages. Chart 2Bull Markets May Be Stocks' Natural Condition ... Charts 3 and 4 present the course of bull-market gains from 1966 through 2007. Details of the bull markets, which span nearly 8,400 sessions, are listed in Table 1. Each quintile in Chart 3 reflects the aggregate performance over the eight complete bull markets between 1966 and 2007; the first quintile's performance is calculated by linking the advance in the first 104 days of Bull #1, with the advance over the first 133 days of Bull #2, the advance over the first 311 days of Bull #3, and so on through the first 252 days of Bull #8, summing to eight advances across 1,679 trading days. Decile calculations follow the same protocol, aggregating 839 or 840 days of performance. Chart 3... But Performance Within A Bull ... Chart 4... Is Quite Variable Table 1S&P 500 Bull Markets Since 1966 The return distributions are quite uneven, with only the first and last deciles clearly topping the aggregate bull-market return. Investors who underweight equities before the bull market is complete are at risk of underperforming their benchmarks. Investors who are underweight equities when the bull market commences are almost certain to underperform. Bull markets may quicken in their final stages, but they begin by being shot out of a cannon. The cannon shot may offer an important takeaway about equity positioning in bear markets, but we will take the inflections one at a time. The key U.S. equity decision currently confronting an investor is whether or not attempting to capture the final gains in this bull market is worth his/her while. Per historical annualized mean returns and standard deviations in each bull-market decile, the risk/reward profile favors remaining fully invested (Chart 5, top panel). The first and last deciles lead the way on a return-per-unit-of-risk basis just as surely as they do on an absolute-return basis (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5Bulls Also Sprint To The Finish Line On A Risk-Adjusted Basis Bottom Line: The lion's share of bull-market gains are earned in their first and last deciles, on both an absolute and a risk-adjusted basis. If the bull market has another year to run, history favors maintaining at least an equal weighting in equities in spite of the recent upheaval. What Might Be Different This Time There is no shortage of factors to worry about right now. The tit-for-tat imposition of new tariff barriers is likely to exert at least some downward margin pressure for all companies that export goods to China, and/or consume resources/sell imported goods subject to tariffs. Tariffs are beginning to be cited regularly as a burden on quarterly earnings calls. Our geopolitical strategists don't expect the issue to go away any time soon; they view the trade contretemps as just one element of a struggle for preeminence between the U.S. and China. Pressure from a stronger dollar is also being blamed for lowered earnings forecasts. Comments from reliably dovish Atlanta Fed President Bostic confirmed that the FOMC is viewing developments through a more hawkish lens. Price stability is the focus at the Fed, as one should expect with the unemployment rate at a 50-year low and headed lower.2 There is more to exchange rates than policy-rate differentials, but the rising fed funds rate will keep at least some wind at the dollar's back. We do not expect that the president's ongoing attempts to discourage the Fed from continuing to hike will amount to anything. White House pressure on the Fed is nothing new, from LBJ's inimitable face-to-face negotiating style, to Nixon's (successful) campaign to influence Arthur Burns, to George H.W. Bush's testy public inveighing against rate hikes early in his term. Just last week, Paul Volcker divulged a remarkable joint effort by President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Baker to get the Fed to stay its hand ahead of the 1984 election. As Reagan looked on silently, according to Volcker, Baker told him, "The president is ordering you not to raise interest rates before the election."3 The news that devices resembling functional pipe bombs had been mailed to several Democratic officials, including former president Obama and the Clintons, helped to unsettle markets last Wednesday. Trade matters more to financial markets, however. For all the dispiriting headlines, it remains our view that the expansion remains healthy and is likely to continue for another year, backed by double-barreled fiscal and monetary accommodation. We are monitoring trade tensions and the dollar, but we don't yet see a catalyst to precipitate an inflection point in the key cycles. How To Fool A Macro Investor Even if the domestic economy is hale and hearty, however, investors can't blithely ignore the risks. The latter stages of expansions and bull markets can be treacherous. We know of no one who has articulated the market perils of good times as well as Oaktree Capital co-founder Howard Marks. Inspired by a client, we read all of Marks' client memos from 20074 at the beginning of the year, and we have been mulling over his concerns about the current cycle as he's raised them. Although we are not concerned about current valuation levels, the S&P 500 isn't cheap. We are encouraged that the forward earnings multiple is nearly three points off of its year-to-date high (Chart 6), but other metrics are at least somewhat elevated relative to history (Chart 7). We only get exercised about valuation at extremes, and we long ago internalized the law of mutual exclusivity: investors can have cheap stocks or good news, but they can't have both. Given the relentless drumbeat of good economic and corporate earnings news, stocks shouldn't be cheap. Chart 6Valuations Have Cooled Considerably Since January ... Chart 7... Across The Board There is a fine line between good and too good, however, because growth in mature companies and economies ultimately reverts to the mean. When expectations get too high, investors run the risk of finding themselves offside, as Marks has written: No matter how favorable and steady fundamentals may be, the markets will always be subject to substantial cyclical fluctuation. The reason is simple: even ideal conditions can become overrated and therefore overpriced. And having reached too-high levels, prices will correct, bringing capital losses despite the idealness of the environment [.] So don't fall into the trap of thinking that good fundamentals = positive market outlook [.] ... [P]rofit potential is all a matter of the relationship between intrinsic value and price. There is no level of fundamentals that can't become overpriced.5 Investment Implications We remain constructive on the economy and markets, because we do not see a near-term catalyst to cut off the expansion, the credit cycle and/or the equity bull market. Significant equity market downturns typically require outright contractions in corporate earnings (contractions, not decelerating growth, which has historically been just fine for stocks), and they rarely occur outside of recessions. Our simple recession indicator, which looks at the slope of the yield curve, the year-over-year change in leading economic indicators, and the state of Fed policy, is nowhere near danger territory.6 There is no doubt that complacent investors could get too bulled up on already-discounted good news, but fiscal stimulus would seem to ensure that a recession is out of the question in 2019. The fraught environment pushed us to cut our house view on global equities from overweight to equal weight at our June View Meeting, redirecting the proceeds to establish a cash overweight. U.S. Investment Strategy followed suit, pulling in its horns on U.S. equities. The downgrade has paid off; as of Thursday's close, the MSCI All-Country World Index had fallen 7% since June 15th, while the S&P 500 was down 2.7%. As we mentioned last week, the 2,600-2,640 range, spanning correction territory to the year-to-date lows (Chart 8), looks pretty good to us and we will look to increase our recommended equity exposure if the S&P approaches its lower bound. Chart 8The Sell-Off May Nearly Be Spent Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 We adhere to the classic definition of bull (and bear) markets, a trough-to-peak closing-price gain (peak-to-trough decline) of at least 20%. 2 According to the Atlanta Fed's online calculator (https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx?panel=1), it takes less than 110,000 monthly payroll gains to keep the unemployment rate at a steady state. 3 "Paul Volcker, at 91, 'Sees a Hell of a Mess in Every Direction,' New York Times. Accessed October 23, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/business/dealbook/paul-volcker-federal-reserve.html 4 Marks' memos are available to the public at https://www.oaktreecapital.com/insights/howard-marks-memos. 5 Marks, Howard, "It's All Good," July 16, 2007 Memo to Oaktree Clients, p.5. Accessed from online archive February 18, 2018. 6 Please see the August 13, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com.