Capex

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Intensifying recession fears, rising risks of ineffectual monetary policy, and escalating trade policy uncertainty that is shattering corporate America’s capex plans, warn that sizable drawdown risks persist in the broad U.S. equity market in the upcoming 3-12 months. The transition from a virtuous to a vicious EPS-to capex cycle, souring global growth, the firming U.S. dollar that is weighing on cyclical/defensive pricing power and exports, and deteriorating relative balance sheet (b/s) and relative operating metrics compel us to put the cyclicals/defensives portfolio bent on downgrade alert. Recent Changes The cyclicals/defensives portfolio bent is now on our downgrade watch list. Table 1 Feature The SPX moved laterally last week, and remains below the critical 50-day moving average. Recession worries intensified on the back of the first sustained 10/2 yield curve slope inversion. Coupled with the trade war re-escalation, they remain the dominant macro themes. Worrisomely, BCA’s Equity Selloff Indicator captures these dynamics and continues to emit a distress signal (Chart 1). Equities have been relatively resilient in the face of these headwinds. Investors are hoping not only for a U.S./China trade deal, but also that the Fed’s cutting cycle will save the day. Chart 1Mind The Gap What caught our attention from all the speeches at the recent Jackson Hole Symposium was RBA Governor Philip Lowe’s speech, especially the section titled “Elevated Expectations That Monetary Policy Can Deliver Economic Prosperity”.1 Lowe highlighted that “When easing monetary policy, all central banks know that part of the transmission mechanism is a depreciation of the exchange rate. But if all central banks ease similarly at around the same time, there is no exchange rate channel: we trade with one another, not with Mars. There are, of course other transmission mechanisms, but once we cancel out the exchange rate channel, the overall effect for any one economy is reduced. If firms don't want to invest because of elevated uncertainty, we can't be confident that changes in monetary conditions will have the normal effect (stress ours).” The perception that the Fed is going to be the savior of the economy is a big risk, and when reality hits that President Trump’s tariffs are a shock to global final demand and presage profit contraction, volatility will skyrocket (please refer to Chart 3 from the August 19 Weekly Report). Importantly, the virtuous capex upcycle that has been in motion since the Trump inauguration when CEOs voted with their feet and started investing, has ground to a halt according to national accounts (Chart 2). U.S. non-residential fixed investment subtracted from GDP growth last quarter, and we doubt the Fed’s fresh interest rate cutting cycle will arrest the fall. Leading indicators of capital outlays point to additional pain in coming quarters (Chart 2). As a reminder, generationally low interest rates and a real fed funds rate near zero hardly restrict expansion plans. Chart 2Free Falling The shift from a virtuous to a vicious capex cycle is a theme that will start gaining traction as the year draws to a close. While pundits are dismissing the recent steep fall in capex as a one off, our indicators suggest otherwise. The middle panel of Chart 3 clearly depicts this emerging dynamic. Profit growth peaked in 2018 on the back of the massive fiscal easing package and capex is following suit, albeit with a slight lag. There are high odds that a looming profit contraction will further shatter frail animal spirits, sabotage the capex upcycle and tilt into a down cycle. Tack on the ongoing trade uncertainty, and CEOs are certain to, at least, postpone deploying longer-term oriented capital. Worryingly, this transition from a virtuous to a vicious capex cycle is not limited to a few cyclical sectors as we would have expected on the back of the re-escalating Sino-American trade tussle. In fact, basic resources’ and non-capital goods producers’ capital outlays are decelerating, warning that corporate America is in the early stages of retrenchment (bottom panel, Chart 3). Chart 3EPS-To-Capex Down Cycle Chart 4Capex… Charts 4, 5 & 6 break down sectorial capex growth using financial statement reported data from Refinitiv. Seven out of eleven sectors are steeply decelerating from near 20%/annum growth to half that; given that these sectors comprise more than 72% of the total capex pie, they will continue to weigh on overall stock market reported investment. Chart 5…Per… Chart 6…Sector Similarly, the news on the cyclicals versus defensives capex profile is grim. Trade uncertainty and the global growth soft patch has dealt a blow to deep cyclical expansion plans and leading indicators signal that the cyclicals/defensives capex will flirt with the contraction zone in the coming quarters (Chart 7). In sum, intensifying recession fears, rising risks of ineffectual monetary policy, and escalating trade policy uncertainty that is shattering corporate America’s capex plans, warn that sizable drawdown risks persist in the broad U.S. equity market in the upcoming 3-12 months. As a reminder, this is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which contrasts BCA’s sanguine equity market house view. Chart 7Relative Capex Blues This week we update our cyclicals versus defensives bias (we are currently neutral) and are compelled to put this portfolio bent on our downgrade watch list. Put The Cyclical/Defensive Tilt On Downgrade Alert Roughly two years ago, when nobody was talking about the brewing capex upcycle, we penned a report titled “Underappreciated Capex” and posited that: “It would be unprecedented if the current business cycle ended without a visible capex upcycle. Since the 1980s recession, all four recessions were preceded by stock market reported capex soaring to roughly a 20% annual growth rate. At the current juncture, capex is merely on the cusp of entering expansion territory and, if history at least rhymes, a significant capex upcycle is looming.” Fast forward to today and as historical empirical evidence had suggested, capex growth peaked near the 20%/annum mark (Chart 3 above). If our assessment is accurate that capex has now likely hit a wall and the virtuous EPS-to-capex cycle reverses to a vicious down cycle as EPS are now contracting, then deep cyclical high-operating leverage sectors are in for a rough ride. This will especially be true if the global recession warnings also morph into an actual recession on the back of the re-escalating Sino-American trade war. More specifically, our capex indicators are firing warning shots. Capex intentions according to a plethora of regional Fed surveys are sinking steadily, which bodes ill for cyclicals versus defensives (Chart 8). One key driver of the capex cycle is China and the emerging markets (EM). News on both fronts is grim. Our real-time indicator that gauges China’s reflation efforts (monetary and fiscal) turning into actual economic activity is Chinese excavator sales that remain in the doldrums (top panel, Chart 9). Chart 8Drop In Capex Will Weigh On Relative Profits Chart 9Elusive Global Growth Granted, global growth remains elusive as we highlighted last week and while softening Chinese economic activity is weighing on global growth, European and Japanese GDP growth is also decelerating with a number of economies already in the contraction zone (bottom panel, Chart 9). Melting global bond yields reflect these growth fears and warn that the relative share price ratio has more downside (middle panel, Chart 9). Export growth is an important indicator that closely tracks the ebbs and flows of global trade. When the trade-weighted U.S. dollar appreciates it dampens trade, the opposite is also true. Currently the Fed’s trade-weighted greenback based on goods has vaulted to cyclical highs, warning that the path of least resistance is lower for trade, thus a net negative for relative export and profit prospects (Chart 10). Similarly, EM capital outflows exacerbate the ongoing global growth blues and put additional strain on EM economies as depreciating currencies sap consumer purchasing power (top panel, Chart 10). The implication is that EM final demand is in retreat. The rising U.S. dollar not only deals a blow to basic resource exports via making them less competitive and leading to market share losses, but it also undermines cyclical sectors' pricing power. The top panel of Chart 11 shows that deflating commodity prices are exerting downward pull on relative share prices. The ISM manufacturing survey’s prices paid subcomponent corroborates this deflationary backdrop. Keep in mind that operating leverage cuts both ways, and now that the pendulum is swinging the opposite way revenue contraction in these high fixed costs industries will fall straight off the bottom line (Chart 11). Chart 10Rising Dollar Dollar Dampens Trade And… Chart 11…Saps Pricing Power Our macro-based cyclicals/defensives EPS growth models do an excellent job in capturing all these moving parts and signal that defensives have the upper hand in the coming quarters (bottom panel, Chart 8). Turning to operating metrics, the inventory buildup in the past few quarters coupled with a softness in overall business sales underscore that relative share prices will continue to trend lower (top panel, Chart 12). On the balance sheet front, relative net debt-to-EBITDA has troughed and widening junk spreads and the inverted yield curve warn that a further relative b/s degrading looms (second & third panels, Chart 12). If our thesis pans out in the coming months, then cash flow growth will come under pressure as the vicious capex cycle flexes its muscles foreshadowing a rise in bankruptcy filings. Already, the news on the profit margin front is disconcerting. Historically, the ISM manufacturing index and relative operating profit margins have been joined at the hip and the recent flirting of the former with the boom/bust line points toward an ominous relative margin squeeze (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 12Poor Financial & Operating Backdrop… Chart 13…But Excellent Valuations And Technicals Finally, soft versus hard data surprise oscillations have an excellent track record in forecasting relative share price movements. The current message is to expect additional weakness in relative share prices (second panel, Chart 13). While most of the indicators we track signal that the time is ripe to downgrade this portfolio bent to an underweight stance, bombed out relative valuations, and oversold technicals keep us at bay, at least for the time being (third & bottom panels, Chart 13). However, we are compelled to put the cyclicals/defensives ratio on downgrade alert to reflect the transition from a virtuous to a vicious EPS-to-capex cycle, souring global growth, the firming U.S. dollar that is weighing on cyclical/defensive pricing power and exports, and deteriorating b/s and operating metrics. The way we will execute this downgrade will be via a downgrade of the S&P tech sector (for additional details on the S&P tech sector's downgrade mechanics please refer to last Friday’s U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report). Bottom Line: Stay on the sidelines in the S&P cyclicals/S&P defensives ratio, but put it on downgrade alert.     Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2019/sp-gov-2019-08-25.html Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights China’s infrastructure investment growth rate could rebound moderately from its current nominal 3% pace, but will remain well below the double-digit rate it has registered for most of the past decade.  A lack of funding for local governments and their financing vehicles will somewhat cap the upside in infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI) in the next six to nine months. Special bond issuance will be insufficient to ensuring a major recovery in infrastructure spending. Investors should tread cautiously on infrastructure plays in financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Nominal infrastructure investment growth in China has slowed from over 15% in 2017 to 3% currently (Chart I-1). This is the weakest growth rate since 2005 excluding the late 2011-early 2012 period. Over the past decade, each time the Chinese economy experienced a considerable slowdown, infrastructure construction was ramped up to revive growth. Infrastructure spending growth skyrocketed in 2009 and was also boosted in 2012. In 2015-2016, it was not allowed to decelerate with the issuance of nearly RMB 2 trillion of special infrastructure bonds. This time the government has also reacted. Since mid-2018, the Chinese authorities have dramatically raised local governments’ special bonds balance limits, prompted local governments to front-load their issuance this year, and also encouraged the private sector to participate in public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects. Will Chinese infrastructure FAI growth accelerate over the next six to nine months from its current nominal 3% pace to double digits? The short answer is no. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. For purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service, (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management, and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. Chart I-2 presents the breakdown of the nominal infrastructure FAI by category. Funding Constraint Preceding both the 2011-2012 and 2018 infrastructure investment slumps, the Chinese central government increased its scrutiny on local government debt and tightened funding conditions for infrastructure projects. As a result, all three categories of infrastructure spending experienced a sharp deceleration (Chart I-3). Overall, financing and qualitative limitations that Beijing imposes on local government infrastructure spending hold the key to the outlook. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. Looking forward, without a considerable recovery in available financing, there will be no meaningful rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment and construction activity. For now, we are not very optimistic on financing. Chart I-4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. All of them are likely to face considerable funding constraints over the next six to nine months. Chart I-3Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board   1. Self-Raised Funds Self-raised funds contribute nearly 60% of overall infrastructure funding. They include net local government special bond issuance, PPP financing and government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues excluding proceeds from special bond issuance. A. Local government special bond issuance, which is exclusively used to fund infrastructure projects, has been the major source of financing for local governments in the past 12 months. The authorities significantly boosted net local government bond issuance to RMB 1.2 trillion in the first six months of this year from only RMB 361 billion in the same period in 2018. However, the amount of special bond issuance in the second half of this year will unlikely be significant enough to boost infrastructure FAI greatly. First, the central government has not only set a limit on the aggregate local government special bond balance, but it also set limits for each of the 31 provinces/provincial-level cities.1 In the past three years, nearly all provinces did not use up their special bond issuance quotas. This resulted in an outstanding aggregate amount of special bonds of only about 85% of the limit.2 In both 2017 and 2018, local governments were left with RMB 1.1 trillion special bond issuance quota unused for that year. Second, based on the limit on outstanding amount special bonds set by the central government for the end of 2019, local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of this year. In comparison, in 2018, the issuance was heavily concentrated in the second half of the year with RMB 1.6 trillion. Our estimate shows there will be only RMB 400-600 billion increase in net total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018.3 This will translate into a merely 2-3% growth in Chinese infrastructure investment. Third, net local government special bond issuance made up only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Hence, there is still a huge financing gap to be filled (Chart I-5). B. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are unlikely to meet the financing shortage either. PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments since 2014. Nevertheless, to control rising local government debt risks, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early last year. A series of tightened rules have resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPPs contributions to total infrastructure FAI have plunged from over 30% in 2017 to 10% currently (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Chart I-6Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage   So far, the rules on PPP projects on local governments remain tight. In March, the central government tightened its rule on local government participation in PPP projects. The new rule states that, if a local government has already spent more than 5% of its overall general expenditures on PPP projects excluding sewage and waste disposal PPP projects, it will not be allowed to invest in any new PPP projects. Before March, the threshold was over 10%. In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded all PPP projects undertake a thorough feasibility study. The NDRC emphasized that PPP projects that do not follow standard procedures will not be allowed. Chart I-7Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales C. Government-managed funds (GMF) excluding special bond issuance accounts, which contribute about 15% of overall infrastructure financing, are also facing constraints. According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures of the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. Land sales by local governments are one major revenue source for GMFs. Contracting property floor space sold is likely to depress real estate developers’ land purchases, further reducing local governments’ revenues from selling land (Chart I-7). This will curb local governments’ ability to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. 2. Domestic Loans Domestic loans contribute to about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. Infrastructure projects are generally long term in nature. Presently, the impulse of non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) lending has stabilized but has not yet improved (Chart I-8). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending reflects commercial banks’ reluctance to finance infrastructure projects. We believe a decelerating economy, mounting local government debt, and often-low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to constrain loan funding of infrastructure projects from both banks and the private sector. 3. General Government Budget The general government budget (which includes central and local governments) accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. The general budget is also facing headwinds from declining revenue due to recent tax cuts and lower corporate profit growth (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Chart I-9Government General Budget: Large Deficit   Bottom Line: Funding constraints will likely linger, making any recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment growth moderate over the next six to nine months. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. While local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of 2019, it would be well below the RMB 1.4 trillion of special bond issuance that was rolled out in the second half of 2018. FAI In Transportation: In Nominal Terms… The transportation sector accounts for about 31% of total Chinese infrastructure investment. It includes railway, highway, urban public transit, air and water transport. Table I-1 shows the 13th five-year (2016-2020) transportation investment plan released by the government in February 2017,4 which excludes urban public transit. The authorities planned to invest RMB 15 trillion in the transportation sector over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020, with highways accounting for over half of the investment, followed by railways (23%), air transportation (4.3%) and water transportation (3.3%). The table also shows our calculation of the realized investment amount in these four sub-sectors for the period of January 2016 to June 2019. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Table I-1 suggests the remaining FAI for the transportation sector for the July 2019 to December 2020 period will be considerably smaller than the FAI amount over the past 18 months. This entails a major drag on infrastructure investment at least over the next 18 months. It is important to emphasize that this is conditional on the central planners in Beijing sticking to their five-year plan for infrastructure FAI. As of now, there has been no announcement of revisions to these five-year FAI targets. Bottom Line: China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. …And Real Terms Table I-2 summarizes the 2020 targets for major Chinese infrastructure development (urban rail transit, railway, highway and airport) in real terms. Chart I-10Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away In real terms, the annual growth of transportation infrastructure will likely be 4.2% in both 2019 and 2020. We illustrated in the previous section that the five-year budget plan had been front-loaded, leaving a very small budget for transportation investment over the next 18 months. This may suggest that without considerably exceeding the budget, transportation infrastructure will fail to achieve the 4.2% annual growth in real terms both this year and next. In brief, more funding should be dispatched/allowed by the central planners in Beijing for infrastructure FAI not to shrink. Second, urban rail transit, high-speed railways, highways and airports will reach their respective 2020 targets, while non-high-speed railway construction will likely be a little bit off its 2020 target. Third, based on the 2020 targets, urban rail transit will enjoy very fast growth over the next one and a half years. Fourth, the growth of high-speed railways and highways will be very low, at around 1-2% in real terms (Chart I-10). Finally, while the number of airports will increase at a faster pace, their contribution to overall infrastructure investment will remain insignificant as they only account for about 1.4% of overall infrastructure investment. Bottom Line: In real terms, transport infrastructure growth will likely be only about 4% over the next six to nine months. Future Infrastructure Investment Focus Urban rail transit, environmental management and public utility management will likely be the major driving forces for Chinese infrastructure investment over the next 18 months. Urban rail transit line length will likely register fast growth of around 10% over the next six to nine months. As the central government enforces increasingly stringent rules on environmental protection, investment in environmental management will likely experience continued growth acceleration (Chart I-11). China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, as the country’s urbanization continues and more townships and city suburbs become urbanized,5 public utility management investment will also grow moderately. Public utility management investment, contributing a massive 45% of overall infrastructure investment, includes sewer systems, sewer treatment facilities, waste treatment and disposal, streetlights, city roads construction, parks, bridges and tunnels in the city. Investment Implications Investors should not hold their breath expecting a major upswing in infrastructure FAI and a major rally in related financial markets. Chinese steel demand is sensitive to construction of railways and urban rail transit lines (Chart I-12, top panel). In turn, mainland cement demand is dependent on highway construction (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Chart I-12Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand...   Chart I-13...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of total Chinese steel use, and about 30-40% of Chinese cement consumption. Nevertheless, given that we believe Chinese infrastructure spending will only have a moderate recovery, the positive effect on steel and cement prices will be muted as well (Chart I-13). The same holds true for spending on industrial machinery, equipment, chemicals and various materials. Notably, risks to this baseline scenario of a muted recovery are to the downside because of the lack of funding. Barring a substantial increase in the special bond issuance quota this year or a major credit binge, infrastructure FAI growth could in fact stall. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please note that the central government only set the special bond balance limit (not the quota) for local governments. The often-cited “quota” in the news is derived by calculating the difference between the current limit and the previous year’s limit. The “quota” used in this report is the difference between the current special bond balance limit and the actual special bond balance of the previous year end. 2  At the end of 2018, Chinese special bond balance was RMB 7.4 trillion, only 85.8% of the special bond balance limit of RMB 8.6 trillion. This ratio was 84.6% in 2017 and 85.5% in 2016. On average, the ratio was 85.3% in the past three years. 3  Given that the central government is aiming to somewhat stimulate infrastructure spending by increasing special bond issuance, we assume special bond balance at the end of 2019 to reach 88%-90% of the limit (RMB 10.8 trillion) that it has set for 2019. This will be higher than the 85% average of the past three years. In turn, this means that the special bond balance at the end of this year will likely be RMB 9.5-9.7 trillion. Since the balance at the end of last year was RMB 7.4 trillion, this results that net special bond issuance will be around RMB 2.1-2.3 trillion in 2019. Given the net special bond issuance last year was RMB 1.7 trillion, it follows that there will only be a RMB 400-600 billion increase in total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018. 4  Please see www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-02/28/content_5171576.htm, published February 28, 2017, by the Chinese central government website. 5  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report “Industrialization-Driven Urbanization In China Is Losing Steam,” dated January 2, 2019, available on ems.bcaresearch.com

Chart Of The WeekEM Profits Contraction Today we are publishing a review of domestic demand conditions in each of the 22 emerging economies we cover. Domestic demand growth is either sluggish, decelerating or contracting in the overwhelming majority of countries. This is in addition to the export contraction currently taking place in many EMs. Consistently, EM overall EPS and small-cap EPS growth rates have fallen to zero in local currency terms (Chart Of The Week). In U.S. dollar terms, overall EM EPS are contracting. The recent dollar weakness versus EM currencies has allowed some EM central banks to cut rates. However, we expect the greenback to strengthen, as we elaborated in last week's report, and that will prevent central banks in high-yielding EMs from easing monetary policy further. Hence, a domestic demand revival in EM is not imminent. We reiterate our negative stance on EM currencies and risk assets. China: Consumer Is Mixed; Capex Is Weak Chart I-1 Chart I-2 India: Domestic Demand Is Decelerating Chart I-3 Chart I-4 Indonesia: Domestic Demand Is Very Weak Chart I-5 Chart I-6 Malaysia: Is The Downturn Late? Chart I-7 Chart I-8 Singapore: Domestic Demand Is Contracting Chart I-9 Chart I-10 Thailand: Stable Domestic Demand Growth Chart I-11 Chart I-12 Philippines: From Boom To Bust? Chart I-13 Chart I-14 Korea: Exports Recession Will Dampen Domestic Demand Chart I-15 Chart I-16 Taiwan: Moderate Domestic Demand Growth Chart I-17 Chart I-18 Vietnam: Robust Domestic Demand Chart I-19 Chart I-20 Brazil: The Economy Needs Stimulus Chart II-1 Chart II-2 Chart II-3 Chart II-4 Mexico: Heading Into A Mild Recession? Chart II-5 Chart II-6 Chile: Heading Into A Recession? Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Chart II-9 Argentina: As Bad As It Gets? Chart II-10 Chart II-11 Chart II-12 Chart II-13​​​​​​ Colombia: Entering Another Downtrend Chart II-14 Chart II-15 Chart II-16 Peru: External Sector Drives Credit Cycle Chart II-17 Chart II-18 South Africa: More Downside Ahead? Chart III-1 Chart III-3 Chart III-2   Turkey: As Bad As It Gets? Chart III-4 Chart III-5 Chart III-6 Chart III-7 Russia: Sluggish Economy Chart III-8 Chart III-9 Chart III-10 Central Europe: Strong Demand/Weak Manufacturing Chart III-11 Chart III-12   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights A resurfacing of trade tensions could weigh on risk sentiment in the near term. A somewhat less dovish tone from the FOMC this month could further rattle risk assets. While we would not exclude the possibility of an “insurance cut,” the Fed is probably uncomfortable with the amount of easing that markets now expect. That being said, a trade truce is still more likely than not, and while the Fed will resist cutting rates this year, it will not raise them either. The neutral rate of interest in the U.S. is higher than widely believed, which means that monetary policy will remain accommodative. That’s good news for global equities. Investors should maintain a somewhat cautious stance over the next month or so. However, they should overweight stocks, while underweighting bonds, over a 12-month horizon. The equity bull market will only end when U.S. inflation rises to a level that forces the Fed to pick up the pace of rate hikes. That is unlikely to occur until late-2020 at the earliest. Feature Stocks Bounce Back We turned positive on global equities in late December after a six-month period on the sidelines. While we have remained structurally bullish over the course of this year, we initiated a tactical hedge to short the S&P 500 on May 10th following what we regarded as an overly complacent reaction by investors to President Trump’s decision to increase tariffs on Chinese imports. Our reasoning at the time was that a period of market pressure would likely be necessary to forge an agreement between the two sides. Our thesis was looking prescient for a while. However, the rebound in stocks since last week has brought the S&P 500 close to the level where we initiated the trade. Is it time to drop the hedge? Not yet. First, market internals do not inspire much confidence. Even though the S&P 500 is just below its year-to-date (and all-time) high, the Russell 2000 is 5.1% below its May highs, and 11.8% below where it was last August (Chart 1). The S&P mid cap and small cap indexes are 6.8% and 16.2%, respectively, below their highs reached last August. Such weak breadth is disconcerting. Chart 1U.S. Stocks: Not As Strong As They Appear Second, President Trump’s decision to suspend raising the tariffs on Mexican imports may have had less to do with his desire to seek a more conciliatory tone, and more to do with pressure from Congressional Republicans. Various news reports suggested that Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders opposed the action, and threatened to revoke the President’s authority to unilaterally impose tariffs.1 In the end, the deal with Mexico contained many of the same measures that the Mexicans had already agreed to implement months earlier. Our geopolitical team remains skeptical of a grand bargain in trade talks with China.2 In the United States, protectionist sentiment is politically more popular towards China than it is towards other countries (Chart 2). A breakthrough is still probable, but again, it may take a stock market selloff to produce a trade truce.   Third, we have become increasingly concerned that the market has gotten ahead of itself in pricing in Fed easing. While we would not rule out the possibility that the Fed takes out an “insurance cut” to guard against downside risks to the economy, the 80 basis points of easing that the market has priced in over the next 12 months seems excessive to us. Chart 3Financial Conditions Have Not Tightened Much Unlike late last year, U.S. financial conditions have tightened only modestly over the past nine weeks (Chart 3). The economy is also performing reasonably well. According to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model, real final sales to domestic purchasers3 are set to grow by 2.5% in the second quarter, up from 1.5% in Q1 (Chart 4). Real personal consumption expenditures are on track to rise by 3.2%. Gasoline futures have tumbled, which will support discretionary spending over the next few quarters (Chart 5).   Chart 5Lower Gasoline Prices Should Bode Well For Discretionary Spending Granted, the labor market has cooled down. Payrolls increased by only 75K in May. However, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that flooding in the Midwest shaved 40K from payrolls. And even with this adverse impact, the three-month average for payroll growth still stands at 151K, well above the 90K-to-100K or so that is needed to keep up with labor force growth. Meanwhile, initial unemployment claims remain muted and the employment component of the nonmanufacturing ISM hit a seven-month high in May. Chart 6Trimmed Mean PCE Inflation Back To 2% Inflation expectations are on the low side, but actual inflation is proving to be reasonably sturdy. The core PCE index rose by 0.25% month-over-month in April. Trimmed mean PCE inflation increased above 2% on a year-over-year basis for the first time in seven years (Chart 6). According to a recent Fed study, the trimmed mean calculation is superior to the core PCE index as a summary measure of underlying inflationary trends.4 Ultimately, the fact that the U.S. economy is holding up well is a positive sign for equity returns over the next 12 months. In the short term, however, it does create the risk that the Fed will sound less dovish than investors are anticipating, leading to a temporary selloff in stocks. Hence our view: near-term cautious, longer-term bullish. Who Determines Interest Rates? Central banks decide where rates will go in the short run, but it is the economy that determines where interest rates will go in the long run. The neutral rate of interest is the rate that corresponds to full employment and stable inflation. One can also think of it as the rate that aligns the level of aggregate demand with the maximum potential output the economy is capable of achieving without overheating. Both the Fed dots and the widely-used Laubach Williams model suggest that rates are close to neutral. But are they really? If a central bank keeps rates below their neutral level for too long, inflation will eventually break out, forcing the central bank to raise rates. Conversely, if a central bank raises rates above their neutral level, growth will slow, inflation will decline, and the central bank will be forced to cut rates. The problem is that changes in monetary policy typically affect the economy with a lag of 12-to-18 months. Inflation is also a highly lagging indicator. It usually peaks well after a recession has begun and troughs long after the recovery is under way (Chart 7). Thus, central banks have to make an educated guess as to where the neutral rate lies and try to steer the economy towards that rate in a way that achieves a soft landing. Needless to say, this is easier said than done. Today, both the Fed dots and the widely-used Laubach Williams model suggest that rates are close to neutral (Chart 8). Chart 8The Fed Thinks Rates Are Close To Neutral But are they really? That’s the million dollar question. Not only will the answer determine the medium-term path of interest rates, it will also determine how long the current U.S. economic expansion will last. Recessions rarely occur when monetary policy is accommodative, and equity bear markets almost never happen outside of recessionary periods (Chart 9). Thus, if rates are currently well below neutral, investors should maintain a bullish equity tilt. Chart 9Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Chart 10U.S.: Federal Fiscal Policy Has Been Expansionary Where Is Neutral? The neutral rate of interest is a function of many variables, most of which are not in the Laubach Williams model. Let us consider a few: Fiscal Policy A larger budget deficit boosts aggregate demand, while higher interest rates lower demand. Thus, once an economy has achieved full employment, an easing of fiscal policy must be counterbalanced by an increase in interest rates, which is another way of saying that looser fiscal policy raises the neutral rate of interest. The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit has risen by about 3% of GDP since 2015. Both tax cuts and increased federal discretionary spending have contributed to the deterioration in the fiscal balance (Chart 10). Standard “Taylor Rule” equations suggest that a 1% of GDP increase in aggregate demand will raise the appropriate level of the fed funds rate by 0.5-to-1 percentage points.5 This implies that easier fiscal policy has lifted the neutral rate of interest by 1.5-to-3 percentage points over the past five years. Labor Market Developments A tight labor market tends to increase the share of national income accruing to workers (Chart 11). Workers generally spend more of every dollar of income than businesses. Thus, a shift of income from businesses to workers raises the neutral rate of interest. The fact that a tight labor market usually generates the biggest gains for workers at the bottom of the income distribution – who have the highest marginal propensity to spend – further amplifies the positive effect on aggregate spending. Chart 11Workers Garner A Larger Piece Of The Income Pie When The Labor Market Is Tight The labor share of income has rebounded since reaching a record low in 2014. The lowest-paid workers have also seen the largest wage increases during the past 12 months (Chart 12). Neither of these nascent developments have come close to unwinding the beating that labor has suffered in relation to capital over the past four decades, but if the unemployment rate keeps falling, workers are going to start gaining the upper hand. Thus, one would expect the neutral rate of interest to rise further as the labor market continues to tighten. Credit Growth The Great Recession ushered in a painful deleveraging cycle. Household debt fell from 86% of GDP in 2009 to 70% of GDP in 2012. The household debt-to-GDP ratio has edged slightly lower since then due to continued declines in mortgage debt and home equity lines of credit. A return to the rapid pace of credit growth seen before the financial crisis is unlikely. Nevertheless, a modest releveraging of household balance sheets would not be surprising. Some categories such as student and auto loans have seen fairly robust debt growth (Chart 13). Housing-related debt could also stage a modest comeback due to rising home prices and buoyant consumer confidence. Conceptually, the rate of credit growth determines the level of aggregate demand.6 Thus, if household credit growth picks up at the margin, this would push up the neutral rate of interest. Corporate debt levels also have scope to rise further. Net corporate debt is only modestly higher than it was in the late 1980s, a period when the fed funds rate averaged nearly 10% (Chart 14). Chart 13U.S. Housing Deleveraging Has Slowed Chart 14U.S. Corporate Debt (I): No Cause For Alarm   Thanks to low interest rates and rapid asset accumulation, the economy-wide interest coverage ratio is above, while the ratio of debt-to-assets is below, their respective long-term averages (Chart 15). The corporate sector financial balance – the difference between what businesses earn and spend – is still in surplus. Almost every recession in the post-war era has begun when the corporate sector financial balance was in deficit (Chart 16). Chart 15U.S. Corporate Debt (II): No Cause For Alarm Chart 16U.S. Corporate Debt (III): No Cause For Alarm     The Value Of The U.S. Dollar A stronger dollar reduces net exports. This drains demand from the economy, which lowers the neutral rate of interest. The real broad trade-weighted dollar index has risen 10% since 2014. According to the New York Fed’s econometric model, this would be expected to reduce the level of real GDP by 0.5% in the first year and by a further 0.2% in the second year, for a cumulative decline of 0.7%, equivalent to a decrease in the neutral rate of 0.35%-to-0.7%. The New York Fed model assumes an “all things equal” environment. All things have not been quite equal, however. The U.S. has benefited from a modest improvement in its terms of trade7 over the past five years (Chart 17). The shale boom has also significantly cut into oil imports. As a result, the trade deficit has fallen from 5.9% of GDP in 2005 to 2.9% of GDP at present. Chart 17The Dollar Has Appreciated Since 2014 Chart 18The Savings Rate Has (A Lot Of) Room To Drop, Judging From The Historical Relationship With Wealth Asset Prices An increase in asset values – whether they be equities, bonds, or homes – makes people and businesses feel wealthier, which leads to more consumption and investment spending. As such, higher asset prices raise the neutral rate of interest. Today, U.S. household net worth stands near a record high as a percent of disposable income (Chart 18). The personal savings rate, in contrast, still stands at an elevated 6.4%. If the savings rate falls over the coming months, this would further boost aggregate demand. Demographics Slower labor force growth has led to a decline in trend GDP growth in the U.S. and most other economies. Slower economic growth tends to reduce the neutral rate of interest. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects labor force growth to be broadly stable over the next 5-to-10 years, with immigration compensating for the withdrawal of baby boomers from employment (Chart 19). Chart 20Savings Over The Life Cycle In the current political climate, there is quite a bit of uncertainty over how many immigrants will settle in the United States. On the one hand, less immigration would reduce labor force growth, thus lowering the neutral rate. On the other hand, a decline in immigration would lead to an even tighter labor market, thus potentially raising the neutral rate. An additional question is how population aging, which will continue even if immigration remains elevated, will affect the neutral rate. Older people work less, but consume more than younger people, once health care spending is accounted for (Chart 20). If overall national output falls in relation to consumption, national savings will go down. This will raise the neutral rate of interest. The Shift To A Capital-Lite Economy Firms increasingly need less physical capital to carry out their activities. Larry Summers has labeled this the “demassification” of the economy. Lower investment spending would translate into a lower neutral rate. While plausible, it is not clear how important this phenomenon is. Companies may need less physical capital, but they need more human capital. Instead of more lending to businesses to finance purchases of machinery, we get additional lending to students. If our thesis that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed turns out to be correct, this means that the Fed will eventually need to start hiking rates again. The question is when. The share of R&D and other intangibles in business investment has risen from around 14% in the 1960s to 33% today (Chart 21). Importantly, the depreciation rate for intangible investment is much higher than for other forms of capital spending. As intangible investment has increased, the overall depreciation rate for the economy has risen (Chart 22). Conceptually, an increase in the depreciation rate should lead to a higher neutral rate of interest.8 Chart 21A Larger Share Of Business Investment Is Intangible... Chart 22...And That Puts Upward Pressure On The Depreciation Rate   Watch Housing And Business Capex The discussion above suggests that the neutral rate of interest is probably higher than widely believed. That said, there is significant uncertainty around any estimate of the neutral rate. As such, we recommend that investors track the more interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy to gauge whether monetary policy is becoming restrictive. Housing, and to a lesser extent, business capital expenditures are the key indicators to watch. As a long-lived asset, housing is very sensitive to mortgage rates. Chart 23 shows that changes in mortgage rates tend to lead residential investment and home sales by about six months. Chart 23Housing Is Interest-Rate Sensitive If the decline in mortgage rates since last fall fails to spur housing, this would support the claim that monetary policy turned restrictive last year. Fortunately, the jump in homebuilder confidence, the outperformance of homebuilder stocks, and the surge in mortgage applications for purchases all suggest that the housing sector remains on firm ground (Chart 24). Despite the broad-based weakness in the global manufacturing sector, U.S. capex intentions remain reasonably buoyant (Chart 25). This week’s release of the May NFIB small business survey, which showed that the share of firms citing “now is a good time to expand” jumped five points to a seven-month high, provides further evidence in support of this view. Chart 24Some Positives For U.S. Housing Chart 25U.S. Capex Intentions Remain Solid   A Two-Stage Fed Cycle Chart 26Inflation Expectations Are Not Where The Fed Wants Them To Be If our thesis that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed turns out to be correct, this means that the Fed will eventually need to start hiking rates again. The question is when. Right now, the Fed has the luxury of time on its side. Even though some measures of core inflation such as the trimmed mean calculation discussed above have reached the Fed’s 2% target, this follows a prolonged period of below-target inflation. A few years of above-trend inflation would hardly be the worst thing in the world. The Fed’s failure to reach its inflation target has pushed long-term inflation expectations below the central bank’s comfort zone (Chart 26). Given the asymmetric risks created by the zero lower bound on interest rates - if inflation rises too fast, the Fed can always hike rates; but if inflation falls too much, it may be impossible to ease monetary policy by enough to avert a recession - the Fed can afford to remain patient. Thus, while the Fed is unlikely to cut rates as much as investors currently expect, it is also unlikely to raise them this year. Thanks to a cyclical revival in productivity growth, unit labor cost inflation has actually declined over the past 12 months (Chart 27). However, as we get into late next year and 2021, circumstances may change. If an increasingly tight jobs market continues to push up wage growth, unit labor costs will start to reaccelerate. Cost-push inflation will kick in. At that point, the Fed may have no choice but to pick up the pace of monetary tightening. All this suggests that Fed policy will evolve in two stages: an initial stage lasting for the next 12-to-18 months where the Fed is doing little-to-no tightening (and could even cut rates if the trade war heats up), followed by a second stage where the central bank is scrambling to raise rates to cool an overheated economy. U.S. Treasury yields are likely to rise modestly during the first stage in response to stronger-than-expected economic growth. We see the 10-year yield clawing its way back to the high-2% range by early next year. Yields could rise more precipitously, to around 4%, in the second stage once inflation begins to move decisively higher. The dollar is unlikely to strengthen during the first stage. Indeed, our baseline forecast calls for a period of modest dollar weakness stretching into late next year driven by a reacceleration in European and Chinese/EM growth. The sharp rebound in Chinese real estate equipment purchases from -18% on a six-month basis late last year to +30% in April suggests that the government’s stimulus efforts are working (Chart 28). Chart 27No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral Chart 28China: A Sign That Stimulus Is Finding Its Way Into The Economy   The greenback will likely appreciate, perhaps significantly so, once the Fed picks up the pace of rate hikes in late 2020. The accompanying tightening in global financial conditions is likely to sow the seeds for a worldwide downturn in 2021. The combination of faster global growth and a weaker dollar will support global equities over the next 12 months. European and EM bourses will benefit the most. Investors should begin derisking in the second half of next year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Patricia Zengerle, “U.S. Lawmakers Seek To Block Trump On Tariffs,” Reuters, June 5, 2019. 2      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Is Trump Ready For The New Long March?” dated May 24, 2019. 3      Final sales to domestic purchasers is equal to gross domestic product (GDP) excluding net exports of goods and services, less the change in private inventories. 4      Jim Dolmas and Evan F. Koenig, “Two Measures Of Core Inflation: A Comparison,” Federal Reserve Bank Of Dallas, Working Paper 1903, February 25, 2019. 5      Depending on which specification of the Taylor Rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor’s original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen’s preferred specification). John B. Taylor's 1993 specification is based on the following equation: rt = 2 + pt + 0.5(pt - 2) + 0.5yt. Janet Yellen's preferred specification is based on the following equation: rt = 2 + pt+ 0.5(pt - 2) + 1.0yt. Please note: For both specifications above, rt is the federal funds rate; pt is core PCE expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and yt is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook And Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. 6      Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. 7      Ratio (multiplied by 100) of the price index for exports of goods and services to the price index for imports of goods and services. 8      The higher the depreciation rate, the more investment is necessary to maintain the existing capital stock. More investment demand for any given level of savings implies a higher interest rate. One can see this in the Solow growth model, which posits that the neutral rate of interest (r*) should be equal to: Where a is the output elasticity of capital, s is the savings rate, n is labor force growth, g is the growth in total factor productivity, and d is the depreciation rate. The equation implies that the neutral rate of interest will increase if capital intensity increases, the savings rate declines, the rate of labor force growth picks up, technological progress accelerates, or the depreciation rate increases.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global Spread Product: The current low-volatility backdrop, triggered by more dovish central banks, will be maintained until there is more decisive evidence that global growth is rebounding. That will not occur until the latter half of 2019, thus keeping the window for corporate credit outperformance open for a few more months. Stay overweight global corporates versus governments, favoring the U.S. Canada: Much weaker-than-expected Canadian economic growth has surprised the Bank of Canada. Rate hikes are now off the table for at least the rest of 2019, and possibly longer. Upgrade Canadian government debt to neutral (3 out of 5) in global currency-hedged government bond portfolios. Feature Stick With A Tactical Overweight To Global Corporates We’ve dedicated our last few Weekly Reports to analyzing the outlook for government bond yields in the developed markets (DM), in light of the recent dovish shift in the policy stance of central banks. We concluded that yields had fully discounted a slower global growth backdrop, through lower inflation expectations and the pricing out of future interest rate hikes. Further declines in bond yields would require a deeper deceleration of activity than we are expecting, thus maintaining a below-benchmark medium-term duration stance is appropriate. That dovish shift by policymakers also took away a major roadblock for risk assets, namely the threat of a continued policy-induced rise in global yields at a time of slowing growth. The result has been sharp rallies in global equity and credit markets, with declining volatility (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekSlowing Growth Isn’t Always Bad For Risk Assets We upgraded global corporate debt, and downgraded global government bonds, on a tactical basis back on January 15 of this year.1 Since then, credit spreads have declined substantially across both DM and emerging markets (EM), most notably in Europe (Chart 2). Within our upgrade to overall global credit, we maintained a relative bias towards U.S. corporates versus non-U.S. equivalents, based on our expectation of relatively faster economic growth in the U.S. In our model bond portfolio, that meant moving U.S. corporates to an above-benchmark weighting, while reducing the size of the underweight in EM debt and only raising European credit to a neutral allocation. Looking at the performance of each of the major credit markets in excess return terms (versus duration-matched government bonds) since January 15, currency-hedged into U.S. dollars, there have not been huge differences between U.S. and non-U.S. returns. The exception is European high-yield which had an excess return of 4.4%, but only represents 0.8% of our custom benchmark index for our model portfolio (and where we are not underweight). Excess returns for investment grade and high-yield corporates in the U.S. have averaged 2.3%, compared to 2.2% for EM credit (averaging hard currency sovereign and corporate debt). We see the global “risk-on” dynamic continuing in next few months, fueled by benign monetary policies, thus we are sticking with our current overweight allocation to global corporates. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the decision to upgrade overall global corporate debt versus government bonds has been far more important than adjusting any regional credit allocations. We see that global “risk-on” dynamic continuing in next few months, fueled by benign monetary policies, thus we are sticking with our current allocations to global corporates. Our cue to reverse our tactical overweight stance on corporates will come from the U.S. Any additional spread tightening and easing of overall financial conditions will keep U.S. economic growth above trend and eventually force the Fed to become more hawkish in the second half of 2019. This will turn global monetary policy from a tailwind for corporate credit to a headwind, justifying a downgrade of corporate allocations. In the meantime, we recommend continuing to earn carry in a policy-induced low volatility environment. Bottom Line: The current low-volatility backdrop, triggered by more dovish central banks, will be maintained until there is more decisive evidence that global growth is rebounding. That will not occur until the latter half of 2019, thus keeping the window for corporate credit outperformance open for a few more months. Stay overweight global corporates versus governments, favoring the U.S. Canada: Upgrade To Neutral Canadian government bonds have been clawing back much of the relative underperformance that occurred in 2017 and 2018 while the Bank of Canada (BoC) was delivering multiple rate hikes. The spread between the yields on the Bloomberg Barclays Canada Treasury index and the overall Global Treasury index has narrowed by -40bps since October 2018, after widening 69bps between May 2017 and October 2018 (Chart 3). Expressed as a relative return (duration-matched and currency-hedged into U.S. dollars), Canadian government debt has lagged the Global Treasury index by -232bps since May 2017. Chart 3Canadian Bonds No Longer Underperforming That underperformance was driven by the combination of a strong Canadian economy, accelerating inflation and tightening monetary policy. The year-over-year pace of real GDP growth reached 3.8% in mid-2017 and stayed above-trend for the following year. The unemployment rate fell to 5.8%, while core inflation accelerated back to the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target band, alongside faster wage growth. The BoC – devotees of the Phillips Curve, like virtually every other DM central bank – took the message from the combination of tight labor markets and rising inflation and embarked on the long march away from a near-zero (0.5%) policy rate back in July 2017. Now, after 20 months and 125bps of rate hikes, Canada’s economy is weakening sharply. Real GDP only grew at a paltry 0.4% annualized pace in the 4th quarter of 2018, dragging the year-over-year pace to 1.6%. Inflation has followed suit, with headline CPI inflation falling from an early 2018 peak of 3% to 1.4% and the BOC’s median CPI index now growing at only a 1.8% pace. The most concerning part for the BoC is that the economy could be decelerating this rapidly with a policy rate of only 1.75%, which is well below the central bank’s estimated 2.5-3.5% range for the neutral rate. Our own BoC Monitor has rapidly fallen towards the zero line, indicating no pressure to either tighten or ease monetary policy (Chart 4). The more recent rapid decline in the BoC Monitor has been driven by the inflation-focused components of the indicator, while the growth-focused elements have been steadily drifting lower since that 2017 peak in real GDP growth. Chart 4Is The BoC Done, Well South Of Neutral? The BoC has been stunned by that shockingly weak Q4/2018 growth outturn. In the official policy statement released following the March 6 BoC meeting, the central bank’s Governing Council was forthright about how the growth uncertainty has put future rate hikes in question: “Governing Council judges that the outlook continues to warrant a policy interest rate that is below its neutral range. Given the mixed picture that the data present, it will take time to gauge the persistence of below-potential growth and the implications for the future inflation outlook. With increased uncertainty about the timing of future rate increases, Governing Council will be watching closely developments in household spending, oil markets and global trade policy.” Rising interest rates may be the big reason why growth has slowed so dramatically in Canada. The BoC’s economic projections for 2019 had already factored in some slowing global growth, as well a hit to business confidence and capital spending from global trade conflicts and last year’s decline in energy prices (a big deal for Canada’s huge oil industry). BoC officials, including Governor Stephen Poloz, have noted that a resolution of the U.S.-China trade tensions could therefore be a positive for the Canadian economy by removing a critical drag on Canadian business confidence and export demand. Yet when looking at the contribution to Canadian real GDP growth from the main components, there have been large drags on growth from consumer spending, capital spending and housing (Chart 5). That suggests that there is something more fundamental than just a series of external shocks at work here. Chart 5Broad-Based Weakness In Canadian Domestic Demand A look at the more interest-sensitive components of the Canadian economy suggests that rising interest rates may be a big reason why growth has slowed so dramatically. Consumer Durables Real consumer spending growth has plunged from a 4% pace in 2018 to 1.3% in Q4/2018, driven by a collapse in demand for consumer durables which contracted -1.2% year-over-year terms (Chart 6). Car sales plunged 7.5% on a year-over-year basis in Q4, suggesting that rising interest rates on auto loans may have been a major factor driving the weakness in durables spending. Softer incomes have also played a role, with wage growth rolling over even with the majority of evidence pointing to a very tight Canadian labor market that is getting even tighter (third panel). The fact that the drop was so focused on durables, however, suggests that higher interest rates were the more likely reason for the plunge in overall consumer spending. Chart 6Weak Canadian Consumption Concentrated In Durables Housing The overheated Canadian housing market has endured the double-whammy of rising mortgage interest rates and increasing macro-prudential changes to mortgage lending. House prices in the hottest Toronto and Vancouver markets – which should be most impacted by the changes in mortgage regulations – have stopped increasing, helping bring the growth in national house prices to only 1.9% (Chart 7). Yet the sharp deceleration of mortgage credit growth, alongside a contraction in housing starts and overall residential investment, suggests that higher mortgage rates could be the bigger driver of the housing weakness. Chart 7Some Long-Needed Cooling Of Canadian Housing The BoC has noted that it is difficult to disentangle the impact of regulatory changes in Canadian mortgages from that of rising interest rates. Yet the impact of higher mortgage rates on Canadian consumer spending power can be seen in the rising debt service ratio for Canadian households. As of Q4/2018, Canadians must now pay 14.5% of their household income to service their debts, an 0.53 percentage point increase over the past two years (Chart 8). For highly indebted Canadian households, who have mortgage debt equal to 107% of disposable income, even a modest pickup in mortgage rates can have a big impact on spending power through higher interest costs. Chart 8Leveraged Canadian Consumers Pinched By Higher Rates Does the fact that consumer spending has fallen so rapidly mean that the interest sensitivity of the Canadian economy is far greater than the BoC has assumed? If so, then the neutral range of 2.5-3.5% for the BoC policy rate may be too high, and the central bank could be closer to, if not already at, the end of its hiking cycle. The low level of the household savings rate – currently only 1.1%, a product of the housing bubble and the associated wealth effects on spending activity – makes Canadian consumers even more vulnerable to rate increases that diminish their spending power. For highly indebted Canadian households, even a modest pickup in mortgage rates can have a big impact on spending power through higher interest costs. Capital Spending Canadian companies have seen a steady decline in corporate profit growth over the past couple of years, decelerating from a 23% pace in 2017 to 2% late in 2018 on a top-down basis. Yet even allowing for that, the -8% contraction in year-over-year real non-residential investment spending in Q4/2018 is a shock. Particularly since the BoC’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that credit conditions have been easing, and our own Canadian Corporate Health Monitor is flashing that Canadian companies are in solid financial condition (Chart 9). Chart 9An Unusually Sharp Fall In Canadian Capex Business surveys from the BoC and the Conference Board did both show a sharp plunge in confidence and future sales expectations (bottom panel). This suggests that worries about global trade tensions and diminished trade activity may have weighed on Canadian business confidence and capital spending – especially coming alongside a big drop in oil prices as was seen last year, which hinders the ability of Canadian energy producers to ramp up investment. Canadian exports accelerated over the final half of 2018 while business confidence was falling. However, oil prices have now stabilized and, more importantly, Canadian exports accelerated over the final half of 2018 while business confidence was falling (Chart 10). That acceleration was seen for both energy and non-energy exports, but was also heavily concentrated in exports to China, which are now growing 24% on a year-over-year basis (a pace that is wildly at odds with the overall growth in Chinese imports, suggesting that Canadian exporters have increased their market share in China). Chart 10Should Canadian Companies Be Worried About Global Trade? Could higher corporate borrowing rates, rather than worries about plunging export demand, be the true reason why Canadian companies have so drastically cut back on capital spending? It is no surprise that the BoC has chosen to take a pause on its rate hiking cycle, given all those conflicting messages from the Canadian economic data. The growth slump could be related to global trade uncertainty, or regulatory changes in the housing market, or past declines in oil prices, or previous interest rate increases. Or all of the above. The BoC can also take some time before considering its next interest rate move given cooling inflation and wage growth (Chart 11). The central bank has reduced its estimate of the Canadian output gap to -0.5%, based off the downside surprises already seen in Canadian economic growth. A closed output gap, combined with accelerating inflation, was the main argument the BoC had been using to justify its interest rate increases over the past two years. Now, neither of those conditions is currently in place, and the BoC can take its time to assess the underlying trend of economic growth without having to worry about above-target inflation. Chart 11Slowing Inflation = More Dovish BoC The Governing Council next meets in April, when a new Monetary Policy Report and updated economic projections will be published. The 2019 growth and inflation forecasts will surely be downgraded, perhaps heavily as the European Central Bank just did in response to the sharp growth slowdown in Europe – which led to a new round of monetary easing measures. What will be more interesting from the point of view of Canadian bond investors will be the Bank’s assessment of the size of Canada’s output gap, the pace of trend growth and, perhaps, even the appropriate neutral range for the BoC policy rate. The lowering of any of those three elements would be supportive of Canadian bond yields staying lower for longer. We have maintained an underweight in Canadian government bonds since July 2017, based on our view that the BoC would follow in the Fed’s footsteps and attempt to normalize interest rates. A strong economy and rising inflation would allow them to do that. Now, both the Fed and BoC are on hold, with small probabilities of rate cuts now priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves (Chart 12). Chart 12BoC Now Less Likely To Follow The Fed Given the BCA view that Fed rate hikes will resume later this year on the back of a rebound in U.S. and global growth, we had been sticking with the bearish view on Canadian government bonds as well. Yet given the stunning drop in Canadian growth that startled the BoC, the odds now favor the BoC staying on hold for longer, even once the Fed begins to hike again. This would also provide additional easing of Canadian financial conditions through a soft Canadian dollar (bottom two panels). We are upgrading our recommended allocation to Canadian bonds to neutral(3 out of 5) this week from underweight (2 out of 5).  In light of this uncertainty over the BoC’s next move given the weak economy, the underlying rationale for our underweight Canada position is no longer applicable. Thus, we are upgrading our recommended allocation to Canadian bonds to neutral (3 out of 5) this week from underweight (2 out of 5). The excess return of Canadian government bonds versus the Global Treasury index since we went to underweight back in July 2017 was -0.83%, so our bearish recommendation did generate positive alpha. In our model bond portfolio, we are funding that additional Canadian allocation from a reduction of the overweight in Japanese government bonds. We are also closing our tactical trade of being long 10-year Canadian Real Return Bonds versus nominal 10-year government debt, at a loss as 10-year inflation breakevens are now 1.6%, or 16bps below the entry level on our trade (Chart 13). Chart 13Upgrade Canadian Government Bonds To Neutral We will contemplate any additional changes to our Canadian allocation after the releases of the latest BoC Business Outlook Survey and Senior Loan Officer Survey on April 15 and the new BoC Monetary Policy Report and economic projections at the April 24 monetary policy meeting. Bottom Line: Much weaker-than-expected Canadian economic growth has surprised the Bank of Canada. Rate hikes are now off the table for at least the rest of 2019, and possibly longer. Upgrade Canadian government debt to neutral (3 out of 5) in global currency-hedged government bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th 2019, available at gfis.bcarsearch.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

An infrastructure bill has been the focus of economists and strategists as the next leg in fiscal easing to sustain the economy. On the face of it, such a thesis appears eminently believable. Despite historically low unemployment, 2018 has seen tremendous fiscal easing, both via the tax cuts at the end of 2017 and through the bipartisan spending agreement in early 2018, implying the current administration fears neither inflation nor deficits in its pursuit of economic growth. The logical investment conclusion from infrastructure stimulus would be to position overweight in infrastructure stocks. We created a basket of such equities to test this hypothesis. When compared to the historic U.S. federal budget deficit (top panel), we found that, while a correlation exists, there are prolonged periods where fiscal largesse has not translated into infrastructure stock outperformance. Drilling down, we found that EM stock performance (second panel) in general and capital spending in China (bottom panel)in particular have taken over as the principal drivers of these stocks. Please see this week’s Special Report for our deep dive into infrastructure stock performance and drivers as well as our sister Geopolitical Strategy Service’s take on why they believe an infrastructure bill worth $200-$400 billion over ten years has a greater than 50% chance of passing.

Feature An infrastructure bill has been the focus of economists and strategists as the next leg in fiscal easing to sustain the economy. On the face of it, such a thesis appears eminently believable. Despite historically low unemployment, 2018 has seen tremendous fiscal easing (Chart 1), both via the tax cuts at the end of 2017 and through the bipartisan spending agreement in early 2018, implying the current administration fears neither inflation nor deficits in its pursuit of economic growth. Further, after the Republicans’ shellacking in the midterm elections, it is also logical to expect the GOP to double down on their Trump card through the 2020 presidential election cycle. Chart 1An Already-Strong Fiscal Thrust As such, much hope has been placed in the passage of an infrastructure bill, which began in late 2016 following the election of the Trump administration and its promise “to invest $550 billion to ensure we can export our goods and move our people faster and safer”. The excitement surrounding infrastructure diminished following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the implied much lower probability of an infrastructure bill in light of the debt implications of the unfunded tax cut. Further, the White House released their infrastructure plan in February, 2018 which sought only $200 billion in funding, but planned to stimulate $1.5 trillion in new investment via the multiplicative effect of public-private partnerships (PPP). However, the midterm elections have made infrastructure a hot topic once again for our clients. Is passage of an infrastructure bill likely? Would such a bill prolong the business cycle? At first glance, the market’s dimmed hopes of an infrastructure bill seem justified, in the context of the already-powerful fiscal thrust. Still, our sister Geopolitical Strategy service believes the odds of passage are above 50%.   BOX 1 Will Trump And The Democrats Pass An Infrastructure Bill? President Donald Trump, laser focused on reelection in 2020, faces a big decision about how to conduct domestic policy in the wake of the midterm election. Will he negotiate and compromise with the opposition in the House, like President Bill Clinton did after 1994? Or will he become mired in disagreements, like President Barack Obama after 2010? Infrastructure spending is one of the few areas where Trump and the Democrats have a clear basis for passing a major piece of legislation. It is much harder for these two to agree on immigration – given Trump’s demand for funding the border wall – or health care – given Trump’s opposition to Obama’s Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). By contrast, Trump campaigned vociferously on the need for more infrastructure and proposed a $1.5 trillion spending plan ($200 billion in federal funds) in February.1 Democrats are fully in support of infrastructure investment. The likeliest next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has been saying “build, build, build” both before and after the midterms, and her lieutenant, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), has recently emphasized his eagerness to work with Trump on this issue. There is no doubt whether the public will approve – infrastructure spending always receives high levels of support, and it is one of the few policy areas unaffected by partisanship and polarization (Chart 2). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Pelosi have begun negotiations and Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), likely the next head of the House Transportation Committee, has already outlined a plan. Chart 2U.S. Public Wants Infrastructure Spending The chief constraint is funding, obviously. Republicans want to use a limited amount of federal seed money in order to spur public-private partnerships but Democrats want direct federal funding sourced through indexing the federal fuel tax to inflation and issuing government bonds. There will have to be a new Democratic-authored bill, which may or may not merge with aspects of Trump’s plan.  How much money are we talking about? Trump’s plan called for $1.5 trillion over 10 years, of which $200 billion would be federal. Hence $20 billion in federal spending per year, but with cuts to existing programs. Some analysts have argued that Trump’s plan would actually have seen a net reduction in federal infrastructure spending over the long run due to its cuts to existing federal programs (which happen to be infrastructure-oriented) in order to offset his proposed spending increases. Democrats will insist on no cuts to existing programs, plus funding for new building.2   The mainstream Democrats are proposing $100 billion in new spending per year for 10 years, but this number includes zero cuts to existing programs. Mainstream Democrats are therefore asking for less in actual new spending than meets the eye, but are unlikely to go for less than Trump’s $20 billion. As a reference, President Obama’s last budget proposal was looking at $32 billion in federal infrastructure increases per year.3 An agreement on $20-$40 billion per year in new spending is not insurmountable given that both sides agree that they could raise the $0.18 per gallon tax on gasoline, which has not been raised since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation. Trump has proposed raising it by $0.25 per gallon, and this is more than other proposals (at $0.15 per gallon) or than merely indexing to inflation. This would raise an estimated $375 billion over 10 years.4 In addition, the Democrats are looking to revise aspects of Trump’s tax cuts to fund infrastructure. While Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin says no one in the administration is considering paring back the recent sharp reductions in the corporate rate, Trump has already signaled willingness to negotiate on the corporate rate to provide for a middle-class tax cut. This suggests that modifications to his 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act are not out of the question as infrastructure funding. Signature pieces of major legislation help presidents get reelected. The tax cuts were a product of traditional conservative policy, with limited popularity, whereas a populist compromise to the tax cuts in order to fund an infrastructure package (as long as it is still a net tax cut from pre-2017) could produce a signature piece of legislation from Trump “the builder” going into 2020. In other words, Trump can refrain from vetoing a federal gasoline tax hike or an adjustment to his own corporate tax cuts in order to pass a popular infrastructure initiative. The Democratic opposition will have written the bill, so both parties would “share the blame.” And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given popular and presidential support, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget spending blowout in early 2018, we think that more than enough Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. The bill will come at a time when other major legislative options are on ice and when both Trump and the Democrats will need at least one achievement to sell to voters in 2020. Might the Democrats sabotage such a bill in order to deny the president any fiscal help ahead of the 2020 election? Possibly. But they would have to pretend to negotiate before pulling out of the deal. It could backfire mightily. Whereas passing a big infrastructure bill would demonstrate their ability to govern and would help them win over voters in the vital Midwestern battleground states, where collapsing bridges and poisonous water systems have made headlines. Bottom Line: There is a greater than 50% chance that a bill will pass. As a baseline estimate, a bill worth $200-$400 billion over ten years is a reasonable estimate for a bill that could pass in late 2019 or (less likely) early 2020. Needless to say, $200-$400 billion over 10 years is a far cry from headline numbers like $1.5 trillion. It is an even farther cry from the progressive Democrats’ “People’s Infrastructure Plan” which calls for $2 trillion over ten years. Net new spending of $20-$40 billion per year is about 10%-20% of existing annual infrastructure spending and only 0.1%-0.20% of American GDP.   In our examination, we will frequently reference the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the most recent major infrastructure bill aimed at stimulating the economy. This bill cost $787 billion, of which $500 billion was cash outlays (the remainder was tax incentives). However, only $105 billion of the ARRA was targeted at infrastructure spending ($20 billion per year). Still using the 2009 ARRA as an analogy, the midpoint of high and low estimates from the CBO’s post-mortem of the ARRA’s efficacy, the ARRA added 1.1% to real GDP in 2009, followed by 2.4% in 2010. If we assume the goal of this bill is truly to prolong the business cycle to align with the election cycle, it stands to reason that time is of the essence. Further, the PPP requirements to achieve the $1.5 trillion in new investment envisaged by the White House raise a host of issues. Buy-in from private partners, the associated incremental planning and an assumed dearth of shovel-ready PPP-appropriate projects lead us to believe that a Q1 passage of a bill would be necessary for it to achieve its goals. Lastly, when the 2009 ARRA became effective, the unemployment rate was 8.3%. It is 3.7% now (Chart 3). We would anticipate an inflation-fearing Fed to deliver a monetary response to this fiscal slack in the form of interest rate hikes that would at least partially offset the stimulus. With two opposing forces pushing on the economy, it is ambiguous to us whether the stimulus would, in fact, stimulate. Chart 3Historically Low Unemployment What Drives Domestic Infrastructure Stocks Anyway? As equity strategists, our role is to offer clients insights into the best way to play the anticipated fiscal largesse. Accordingly, we have created an index from a range of industrials and materials GICS3&4 indexes that should see a positive reaction to a spur in infrastructure demand; we present the BCA Infrastructure Basket in Chart 4 with details of its constituents included in an appendix following this report. Chart 4BCA's Infrastructure Basket… Much like the initial excitement surrounding the prospect of an infrastructure bill following Trump’s election, our infrastructure basket leapt in November 2016. However the diminishing hopes of a bill, especially of the size discussed on the campaign trail, are reflected in the basket’s mostly steady decline from its late 2016 peak. This decline accelerated following the passage of the tax cuts at the end of 2017. A reasonable assumption would be that the price of our basket of equities would track in line, by and large, with most leading economic indicators as they are broadly a reflection of the industrial economy. Testing this hypothesis over the past 30 years is revealing: we found no material correlation between domestic leading indicators, even capital expenditures and planned capital expenditures that should be significant top line drivers (Chart 5). The upshot is that domestic private sector sentiment is unrelated to infrastructure stock performance. Chart 5...Is Not Correlated With Leading Indicators When plotted against the historic budget deficit and government debt levels, a better picture emerges (Chart 6). Our inference is that public spending and the infrastructure basket tend to move together, which is corroborated by the aforementioned recent moves around rising and falling hopes for a Trump infrastructure bill. Still, this analysis is incomplete as the infrastructure basket and fiscal growth were inversely correlated between 2004 and 2009 before reestablishing a positive relationship and even then the relationship is relatively loose. Chart 6Fiscal Expansion And Infrastructure Stocks Mostly In Sync Accordingly, we widened our analysis to global indicators excluding the U.S., where we found a significantly tighter correlation (Chart 7), though only post-2001. We ascribe the close post-2001 relationship to China’s joining of the WTO and their resulting ascendency in driving equity returns in the emerging market space. Chart 8 confirms our hypothesis; our infrastructure basket and the EM equity index overlap. Chart 7Global Leading Indicators Are Better Chart 8EM And Infrastructure Go Hand In Hand Drilling down on China seems appropriate in this context and further corroborates our assertion that China is increasingly the driver of U.S. domestic infrastructure stock performance. Particularly in the post-GFC era, the slowdown in Chinese capex and money supply growth appear to be the principal drivers of these stocks (second and bottom panels, Chart 9). This message is echoed when we compare the infrastructure basket to the Chinese credit growth impulse and the Keqiang index (Chart 10). Chart 9Chinese Growth Drives Domestic Infrastructure Stocks Chart 10Slowing Growth In China Points To A Down Leg Bottom Line: Domestic private sector sentiment has little impact on the BCA Infrastructure Basket, though U.S. government spending clearly has a significant impact on the performance of the stocks. Still, it appears that Chinese growth is at least as important as domestic government spending to the relative performance of the infrastructure basket. In light of BCA’s view of flat or slowing growth in China, at least for the year ahead, we would wait for a positive catalyst before adding this basket as a holding.  A Value Trap In The Making Investors may correctly point out that our infrastructure basket has already been beaten up and the stage may be set for a relief rally. In fact, the basket has already notched two months of outperformance, lifting it off its decade low relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 11). However, as shown in the middle panel of Chart 12, this rally has come while forward EPS growth estimates have trailed the broad market, meaning that the rally has been exclusively a valuation rerating rather than a fundamental turning point in earnings (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Fairly Valued Over Long Term... Chart 12...And A Value Trap In The Short Term Further, while the bear market for this basket of stocks is set to enter its second year, we would caution that a turning point may be further off in the distance than optimists may hope. Witness the six year period from 1995 to 2001 when the infrastructure basket dramatically underperformed the market (Chart 11). Valuations in the infrastructure basket were only a third of the broad market before a rally occurred, a far cry from where they are now. As well, the relative rally likely had more to do with the souring of the tech sector than a particular affection for infrastructure stocks; it took another five years for the basket to reach its average valuation. We would further note that on a longer-term basis, while still a discount to the broad market, valuations remain roughly in line with their historical average (Chart 11). Bottom Line: History has shown bear markets for infrastructure stocks can be deep and prolonged. Thus while the infrastructure basket is relatively cheap compared to the recent past, looking further back in history tells us that this may not be the case. Accordingly, we think the BCA Infrastructure Basket has all the markings of a value trap. So What Does It All Mean The passage of an infrastructure bill seems likely, though the form it will take remains subject to debate. As well, the timing and efficacy of such a bill may mean that it both undershoots expectations with respect to its size and eventual economic impact. The BCA Infrastructure Basket has tended to trade off of domestic fiscal expansion but EM in general and China in particular appear to have taken over as the core drivers of relative stock performance. While bearishness has reigned in this basket for the past year, we caution that this still looks like the early stages of underperformance. We would wait for a positive catalyst in the EM and/or China before chasing the BCA Infrastructure Basket. Details on the composition of this basket are in an appendix that follows.   Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Footnotes 1      Please see the White House, “Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America,” 2018, available at www.politico.com. 2      Please see Jacob Leibenluft, “Three Key Questions About The Trump Infrastructure Plan,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 30, 2018, available at www.cbpp.org. 3      Please see Senate Democratic Caucus, “Senate Democrats’ Jobs & Infrastructure Plan For America’s Workers,” March 7, 2018, available at www.democrats.senate.gov. 4      Please see Lauren Gardner, Tanya Snyder, and Brianna Gurciullo, “Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say,” Politico, February 14, 2018, available at www.politico.com.