Corporate Bonds

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: I have been eagerly looking forward to this meeting given the recent turbulence in financial markets. Our investments have done poorly in the past year and, with hindsight, I wish I had followed my instincts to significantly cut our equity exposure at the end of 2017, although we did follow your advice to move to a neutral stance in mid-2018. I remain greatly troubled by economic and political developments in many countries. I have long believed in open and free markets and healthy political discourse, and this all seems under challenge. As always, there is much to talk about. Ms. X: Let me add that I also am pleased to have this opportunity to talk through the key issues that will influence our investment strategy over the coming year. As I am sure you remember, I was more optimistic than my father about the outlook when we met a year ago but things have not worked out as well as I had hoped. In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to your view that markets and policy were on a collision course as that turned out to be a very accurate prediction. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded my father that we should have a relatively high equity exposure and that was the correct stance. However, this success led us to maintain too much equity exposure in 2018, and my father has done well to resist the temptation to say “I told you so.” So, we are left with a debate similar to last year: Should we move now to an underweight in risk assets or hold off on the hope that prices will reach new highs in the coming year? I am still not convinced that we have seen the peak in risk asset prices as there is no recession on the horizon and equity valuations are much improved, following recent price declines. I will be very interested to hear your views. BCA: Our central theme for 2018 that markets and policy would collide did turn out to be appropriate and, importantly, the story has yet to fully play out. The monetary policy tightening cycle is still at a relatively early stage in the U.S. and has not even begun in many other regions. Yet, although it was a tough year for most equity markets, the conditions for a major bear market are not yet in place. One important change to our view, compared to a year ago, is that we have pushed back the timing of the next U.S. recession. This leaves a window for risk assets to show renewed strength. It remains to be seen whether prices will reach new peaks, but we believe it would be premature to shift to an underweight stance on equities. For the moment, we are sticking with our neutral weighting for risk assets, but may well recommend boosting exposure if prices suffer further near-term weakness. We will need more clarity about the timing of a recession before we consider aggressively cutting exposure. Mr. X: I can see we will have a lively discussion because I do not share your optimism. My list of concerns is long and I hope we have time to get through them all. But first, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: That is always interesting to do, although sometimes rather humbling. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflationary pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets.  The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the probability of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the Euro Area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China’s economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their “dots” projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal have real 10-year government bond yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The Euro Area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. As already noted, the broad theme that policy tightening – especially in the U.S. – would become a problem for asset markets during the year was supported by events. However, the exact timing was hard to predict. The indexes for non-U.S. developed equity markets and emerging markets peaked in late-January 2018, and have since dropped by around 18% and 24%, respectively (Chart 1). On the other hand, the U.S. market, after an early 2018 sell-off, hit a new peak in September, before falling anew in the past couple of months. The MSCI All-Country World index currently is about 6% below end-2017 levels in local-currency terms. Chart 1Our 'Collision Course' Theme For 2018 Played Out We started the year recommending an overweight in developed equity markets but, as you noted, shifted that to a neutral position mid-year. A year ago, we thought we might move to an underweight stance in the second half of 2018 but decided against this because U.S. fiscal stimulus boosted corporate earnings and extended the economic cycle. Our call that emerging markets would underperform was on target. Although it was U.S. financial conditions that tightened the most, Wall Street was supported by the large cut in the corporate tax rate while the combination of higher bond yields and dollar strength was a major problem for many indebted emerging markets. Overall, it was not a good year for financial markets (Table 1). Table 1Market Performance As far as the overall macro environment was concerned, we were correct in predicting that the IMF was too pessimistic on economic growth. A year ago, the IMF forecast that the advanced economies would expand by 2% in 2018 and that has since been revised up to 2.4% (Table 2). This offset a slight downgrading to the performance of emerging economies. The U.S., Europe and Japan all grew faster than previously expected. Not surprisingly, inflation also was higher than forecast, although in the G7, it has remained close to the 2% level targeted by most central banks. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts Despite widespread fears to the contrary, the data have supported our view that Chinese growth would hold above a 6% pace in 2018. Nevertheless, a slowdown currently is underway and downside risks remain very much in place in terms of excessive credit and trade pressures. Another difficult year lies ahead for the Chinese authorities and we will no doubt return to this topic later. As far as our other key forecasts are concerned, we were correct in our views that oil prices and the U.S. dollar would rise and that the market would be forced to revise up its predictions of Fed rate hikes. Of course, oil has recently given back its earlier gains, but we assume that is a temporary setback. On the sector front, our macro views led us to favor industrials, financials and energy, but that did not work out well as concerns about trade took a toll on cyclical sectors. Overall, there were no major macro surprises in 2018, and it seems clear that we have yet to resolve the key questions and issues that we discussed a year ago. At that time, we were concerned about the development of late-cycle pressures that ultimately would undermine asset prices. That story has yet to fully play out. It is hard to put precise timing on when the U.S. economy will peak and, thus, when asset prices will be at maximum risk. Nevertheless, our base case is that there likely will be a renewed and probably final run-up in asset prices before the next recession. Late-Cycle Challenges Mr. X: This seems like déjà-vu all over again. Since we last met, the cycle is one year older and, as you just said, the underlying challenges facing economies and markets have not really changed. If anything, things are even worse: Global debt levels are higher, inflation pressures more evident, Fed policy is moving closer to restrictive territory and protectionist policies have ratcheted up. If it was right to be cautious six months ago, then surely we should be even more cautious now. Ms. X: Oh dear, it does seem like a repeat of last year’s discussion because, once again, I am more optimistic than my father. Obviously, there are structural problems in a number of countries and, at some point, the global economy will suffer another recession. But timing is everything, and I attach very low odds to a downturn in the coming year. Meanwhile, I see many pockets of value in the equity market. Rather than cut equity positions, I am inclined to look for buying opportunities. BCA: We sympathize with your different perspectives because the outlook is complex and we also have lively debates about the view. The global equity index currently is a little below where it was when we met last year, but there has been tremendous intra-period volatility. That pattern seems likely to be repeated in 2019. In other words, it will be important to be flexible about your investment strategy. You both make good points. It is true that there are several worrying problems regarding the economic outlook, including excessive debt, protectionism and building inflation risks. At the same time, the classic conditions for an equity bear market are not yet in place, and may not be for some time. This leaves us in the rather uncomfortable position of sitting on the fence with regard to risk asset exposure. We are very open to raising exposure should markets weaken further in the months ahead, but also are keeping careful watch for signs that the economic cycle is close to peaking. In other words, it would be a mistake to lock in a 12-month strategy right now. Mr. X: I would like to challenge the consensus view, shared by my daughter, that the next recession will not occur before 2020, and might even be much later. The main rationale seems to be that the policy environment remains accommodative and there are none of the usual imbalances that occur ahead of recessions. Of course, U.S. fiscal policy has given a big boost to growth in the past year, but I assume the effects will wear off sharply in 2019. More importantly, there is huge uncertainty about the level of interest rates that will trigger economic problems. It certainly has not taken much in the way of Fed rate hikes to rattle financial markets. Thus, monetary policy may become restrictive much sooner than generally believed. I also strongly dispute the idea that there are no major financial imbalances. If running U.S. federal deficits of $1 trillion in the midst of an economic boom is not an imbalance, then I don’t know what is! At the same time, the U.S. corporate sector has issued large amounts of low-quality debt, and high-risk products such as junk-bond collateralized debt obligations have made an unwelcome reappearance. It seems that the memories of 2007-09 have faded. It is totally normal for long periods of extremely easy money to be accompanied by growing leverage and increasingly speculative financial activities, and I don’t see why this period should be any different. And often, the objects of speculation are not discovered until financial conditions become restrictive. Finally, there are huge risks associated with rising protectionism, the Chinese economy appears to be struggling, Italy’s banks are a mess, and the Brexit fiasco poses a threat to the U.K. economy. Starting with the U.S., please go ahead and convince me why a recession is more than a year away. BCA: It is natural for you to worry that a recession is right around the corner. The current U.S. economic expansion will become the longest on record if it makes it to July 2019, at which point it will surpass the 1990s expansion. Economists have a long and sad history of failing to forecast recessions. Therefore, a great deal of humility is warranted when it comes to predicting the evolution of the business cycle. The Great Recession was one of the deepest downturns on record and the recovery has been fairly sluggish by historic standards. Thus, it has taken much longer than usual for the U.S. economy to return to full employment. Looking out, there are many possible risks that could trip up the U.S. economy but, for the moment, we see no signs of recession on the horizon (Chart 2). For example, the leading economic indicator is still in an uptrend, the yield curve has not inverted and our monetary indicators are not contracting. Our proprietary recession indicator also suggests that the risk is currently low, although recent stock market weakness implies some deterioration. Chart 2Few U.S Recession 'Red Flags' The buildup in corporate debt is a cause for concern and we are not buyers of corporate bonds at current yields. However, the impact of rising yields on the economy is likely to be manageable. The interest coverage ratio for the economy as a whole – defined as the profits corporations generate for every dollar of interest paid – is still above its historic average (Chart 3). Corporate bonds are also generally held by non-leveraged investors such as pension funds, insurance companies, and ETFs. The impact of defaults on the economy tends to be more severe when leveraged institutions are the ones that suffer the greatest losses. Chart 3Interest Costs Not Yet A Headwind We share your worries about the long-term fiscal outlook. However, large budget deficits do not currently imperil the economy. The U.S. private sector is running a financial surplus, meaning that it earns more than it spends (Chart 4). Not only does this make the economy more resilient, it also provides the government with additional savings with which to finance its budget deficit. If anything, the highly accommodative stance of fiscal policy has pushed up the neutral rate of interest, giving the Fed greater scope to raise rates before monetary policy enters restrictive territory. The impetus of fiscal policy on the economy will be smaller in 2019 than it was in 2018, but it will still be positive (Chart 5). Chart 4The U.S. Private Sector Is Helping To Finance The Fiscal Deficit Chart 5U.S. Fiscal Policy Still Stimulative In 2019 The risks to growth are more daunting outside the U.S. As you point out, Italy is struggling to contain borrowing costs, a dark cloud hangs over the Brexit negotiations, and China and most other emerging markets have seen growth slow meaningfully. The U.S., however, is a relatively closed economy – it is not as dependent on trade as most other countries. Its financial system is reasonably resilient thanks to the capital its banks have raised over the past decade. In addition, Dodd-Frank and other legislation have made it more difficult for financial institutions to engage in reckless risk-taking. Mr. X: I would never take a benign view of the ability and willingness of financial institutions to engage in reckless behavior, but maybe I am too cynical. Even if you are right that debt does not pose an immediate threat to the market, surely it will become a huge problem in the next downturn. If the U.S. federal deficit is $1 trillion when the economy is strong, it is bound to reach unimaginable levels in a recession. And, to make matters worse, the Federal Reserve may not have much scope to lower interest rates if they peak at a historically low level in the next year or so. What options will policymakers have to respond to the next cyclical downturn? Is there a limit to how much quantitative easing central banks can do? BCA: The Fed is aware of the challenges it faces if the next recession begins when interest rates are still quite low. Raising rates rapidly in order to have more “ammunition” for counteracting the downturn would hardly be the best course of action as this would only bring forward the onset of the recession. A better strategy is to let the economy overheat a bit so that inflation rises. This would allow the Fed to push real rates further into negative territory if the recession turns out to be severe. There is no real limit on how much quantitative easing the Fed can undertake. The FOMC will undoubtedly turn to asset purchases and forward guidance again during the next economic downturn. Now that the Fed has crossed the Rubicon into unorthodox monetary policy without generating high inflation, policymakers are likely to try even more exotic policies, such as price-level targeting. The private sector tends to try to save more during recessions. Thus, even though the fiscal deficit would widen during the next downturn, there should be plenty of buyers for government debt. However, once the next recovery begins, the Fed may feel increasing political pressure to keep rates low in order to allow the government to maintain its desired level of spending and taxes. The Fed guards its independence fiercely, but in a world of increasingly political populism, that independence may begin to erode. This will not happen quickly, but to the extent that it does occur, higher inflation is likely to be the outcome. Ms. X: I would like to explore the U.S.-China dynamic a bit more because I see that as one of the main challenges to my more optimistic view. I worry that President Trump will continue to take a hard line on China trade because it plays well with his base and has broad support in Congress. And I equally worry that President Xi will not want to be seen giving in to U.S. bullying. How do you see this playing out? BCA: Investors hoping that U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping will reach a deal to end the trade war on the sidelines of the forthcoming G20 leaders' summit in Buenos Aires are likely to be disappointed. President Trump's fiscal policy is completely inconsistent with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus in a full-employment economy will suck in imports. It also forces the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a larger U.S. trade deficit. Trump will not be able to blame Canada or Mexico for a deteriorating trade position because he just signed a trade agreement with them. The new USMCA agreement is remarkably similar to NAFTA, with the notable exception that it contains a clause barring Canada and Mexico from negotiating bilateral trade deals with China. This means Trump needs a patsy who will take the blame for America's burgeoning trade deficit and China will fill that role. For his part, President Xi knows full well that he will still be China’s leader when Trump is long gone. Giving in to Trump’s demands would hurt him politically. All this means that the trade war will persist. Mr. X: I see a trade war as a major threat to the economy, but it is not the only thing that could derail the economic expansion. Let’s explore that issue in more detail. The Economic Outlook Mr. X: You have shown in previous research that housing is often a very good leading indicator of the U.S. economy, largely because it is very sensitive to changes in the monetary environment. Are you not concerned about the marked deterioration in recent U.S. housing data? BCA: Recent trends in housing have indeed been disappointing, with residential investment acting as a drag on growth for three consecutive quarters. The weakness has been broad-based with sales, the rate of price appreciation of home prices, and builder confidence all declining (Chart 6). Even though the level of housing affordability is decent by historical standards, there has been a fall in the percentage of those who believe that it is a good time to buy a home. Chart 6Recent Softness In U.S. Housing There are a few possible explanations for the weakness. First, the 2007-09 housing implosion likely had a profound and lasting impact on the perceived attractiveness of home ownership. The homeownership rate for people under 45 has remained extremely low by historical standards. Secondly, increased oversight and tighter regulations have curbed mortgage supply. Finally, the interest rate sensitivity of the sector may have increased with the result that even modest increases in the mortgage rate have outsized effects. That, in turn, could be partly explained by recent tax changes that capped the deduction on state and local property taxes, while lowering the limit on the tax deductibility of mortgage interest. The trend in housing is definitely a concern, but the odds of a further major contraction seem low. Unlike in 2006, the home vacancy rate stands near record levels and the same is true for the inventory of homes. The pace of housebuilding is below the level implied by demographic trends and consumer fundamentals are reasonably healthy. The key to the U.S. economy lies with business investment and consumer spending and these areas are well supported for the moment. Consumers are benefiting from continued strong growth in employment and a long overdue pickup in wages. Meanwhile, the ratio of net worth-to-income has surpased the previous peak and the ratio of debt servicing-to-income is low (Chart 7). Last year, we expressed some concern that the depressed saving rate might dampen spending, but the rate has since been revised substantially higher. Based on its historical relationship with U.S. household net worth, there is room for the saving rate to fall, fueling more spending. Real consumer spending has grown by 3% over the past year and there is a good chance of maintaining that pace during most of 2019. Chart 7U.S. Consumer Fundamentals Are Healthy Turning to capital spending, the cut in corporate taxes was obviously good for cash flow, and surveys show a high level of business confidence. Moreover, many years of business caution toward spending has pushed up the average age of the nonresidential capital stock to the highest level since 1963 (Chart 8). Higher wages should also incentivize firms to invest in more machinery. Absent some new shock to confidence, business investment should stay firm during the next year. Chart 8An Aging Capital Stock Overall, we expect the pace of U.S. economic growth to slow from its recent strong level, but it should hold above trend, currently estimated to be around 2%. As discussed earlier, that means capacity pressures will intensify, causing inflation to move higher. Ms. X: I share the view that the U.S. economy will continue to grow at a healthy pace, but I am less sure about the rest of the world. BCA: You are right to be concerned. We expected U.S. and global growth to diverge in 2018, but not by as much as occurred. Several factors have weighed on CEO confidence outside of the U.S., including trade wars, a strong dollar, higher oil prices, emerging market turbulence, the return of Italian debt woes, and a slowdown in the Chinese economy. The stress has shown up in the global manufacturing PMI, although the latter is still at a reasonably high level (Chart 9). Global export growth is moderating and the weakness appears to be concentrated in capex. Capital goods imports for the major economies, business investment, and the production of investment-related goods have all decelerated this year. Chart 9Global Manufacturing Slowdown Our favorite global leading indicators are also flashing yellow (Chart 10). BCA’s global leading economic indicator has broken below the boom/bust line and its diffusion index suggests further downside. The global ZEW composite and the BCA boom/bust indicator are both holding below zero. Chart 10Global Growth Leading Indicators Current trends in the leading indicators shown in Chart 11 imply that the growth divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world will remain a key theme well into 2019. Among the advanced economies, Europe and Japan are quite vulnerable to the global soft patch in trade and capital spending. Chart 11Global Economic Divergence Will Continue The loss of momentum in the Euro Area economy, while expected, has been quite pronounced. Part of this is due to the dissipation of the 2016/17 economic boost related to improved health in parts of the European banking system that sparked a temporary surge in credit growth. The tightening in Italian financial conditions following the government’s budget standoff with the EU has weighed on overall Euro Area growth. Softer Chinese demand for European exports, uncertainties related to U.S. trade policy and the torturous Brexit negotiations, have not helped the situation. Real GDP growth decelerated to close to a trend pace by the third quarter of 2018. The manufacturing PMI has fallen from a peak of 60.6 in December 2017 to 51.5, mirroring a 1% decline in the OECD’s leading economic indicator for the region. Not all the economic news has been bleak. Both consumer and industrial confidence remain at elevated levels according to the European Commission (EC) surveys, consistent with a resumption of above-trend growth. Even though exports have weakened substantially from the booming pace in 2017, the EC survey on firms’ export order books remains at robust levels (Chart 12). Importantly for the Euro Area, the bank credit impulse has moved higher.The German economy should also benefit from a rebound in vehicle production which plunged earlier this year following the introduction of new emission standards. Chart 12Europe: Slowing, But No Disaster We interpret the 2018 Euro Area slowdown as a reversion-to-the-mean rather than the start of an extended period of sub-trend growth. Real GDP growth should fluctuate slightly above trend pace through 2019. Given that the Euro Area’s output gap is almost closed, the ECB will not deviate from its plan to end its asset purchase program by year end. Gradual rate hikes should begin late in 2019, assuming that inflation is closer to target by then. In contrast, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) is unlikely to change policy anytime soon. The good news is that wages have finally begun to grow at about a 2% pace, although it required extreme labor shortages. Yet, core inflation is barely positive and long-term inflation expectations are a long way from the 2% target. The inflation situation will have to improve significantly before the BoJ can consider adjusting or removing the Yield Curve Control policy. This is especially the case since the economy has hit a bit of an air pocket and the government intends to raise the VAT in 2019. Japan’s industrial production has stalled and we expect the export picture to get worse before it gets better. We do not anticipate any significant economic slack to develop, but even a sustained growth slowdown could partially reverse the gains that have been made on the inflation front. Ms. X: We can’t talk about the global economy without discussing China. You have noted in the past how the authorities are walking a tightrope between trying to unwind the credit bubble and restructure the economy on the one hand, and prevent a destabilizing economic and financial crisis on the other. Thus far, they have not fallen off the tightrope, but there has been limited progress in resolving the country’s imbalances. And now the authorities appear to be stimulating growth again, risking an even bigger buildup of credit. Can it all hold together for another year? BCA: That’s a very good question. Thus far, there is not much evidence that stimulus efforts are working. Credit growth is still weak and leading economic indicators have not turned around (Chart 13). There is thus a case for more aggressive reflation, but the authorities also remain keen to wean the economy off its addiction to debt. Chart 13China: No Sign Of Reacceleration Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to about 260% of GDP at present (Chart 14). As is usually the case, rapid increases in leverage have been associated with a misallocation of capital. Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, the result has been overcapacity in a number of areas. For example, the fact that 15%-to-20% of apartments are sitting vacant is a reflection of overbuilding. Meanwhile, the rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs. Chart 14China: Debt Still Rising Chinese exports are holding up well so far, but this might only represent front-running ahead of the implementation of higher tariffs. Judging from the steep drop in the export component of both the official and private-sector Chinese manufacturing PMI, exports are likely to come under increasing pressure over the next few quarters as the headwinds from higher tariffs fully manifest themselves (Chart 15). Chart 15Chinese Exports About To Suffer The most likely outcome is that the authorities will adjust the policy dials just enough to stabilize growth sometime in the first half of 2019. The bottoming in China’s broad money impulse offers a ray of hope (Chart 16). Still, it is a tentative signal at best and it will take some time before this recent easing in monetary policy shows up in our credit impulse measure and, later, economic growth. A modest firming in Chinese growth in the second half of 2019 would provide a somewhat stronger demand backdrop for commodities and emerging economies that sell goods to China. Chart 16A Ray Of Hope From Broad Money Ms. X: If you are correct about a stabilization in the Chinese economy next year, this presumably would be good news for emerging economies, especially if the Fed goes on hold. EM assets have been terribly beaten down and I am looking for an opportunity to buy. BCA: Fed rate hikes might have been the catalyst for the past year’s pain in EM assets, but it is not the underlying problem. As we highlighted at last year’s meeting, the troubles for emerging markets run much deeper. Our long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Excessive debt is a ticking time bomb for many of these countries; EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports (Chart 17). Moreover, the declining long-term growth potential for emerging economies as a group makes it more difficult for them to service the debt. The structural downtrend in EM labor force and productivity growth underscores that trend GDP growth has collapsed over the past three decades (Chart 17, bottom panel). Chart 17EM Debt A Problem Given Slowing Supply-Side... Decelerating global growth has exposed these poor fundamentals. EM sovereign spreads have moved wider in conjunction with falling PMIs and slowing industrial production and export growth. And it certainly does not help that the Fed is tightening dollar-based liquidity conditions. EM equities usually fall when U.S. financial conditions tighten (Chart 18). Chart 18...And Tightening Financial Conditions Chart 19 highlights the most vulnerable economies in terms of foreign currency funding requirements, and foreign debt-servicing obligations relative to total exports. Turkey stands out as the most vulnerable, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. In contrast, Emerging Asia appears to be in better shape relative to the crisis period of the late 1990s. Chart 19Spot The Outliers The backdrop for EM assets is likely to get worse in the near term, given our view that the Fed will continue to tighten and China will be cautious about stimulating more aggressively. Our base case outlook sees some relief in the second half of 2019, but it is more of a “muddle-through” scenario than a V-shaped economic recovery. Mr. X: Perhaps EM assets could enjoy a bounce next year if the Chinese economy stabilizes, but the poor macro fundamentals you mentioned suggest that it would be a trade rather than a buy-and-hold proposition. I am inclined to avoid the whole asset class in 2019. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: Let’s turn to fixed income now. I was bearish on bonds in 2018, but yields have risen quite a bit, at least in the United States. The Fed has lifted the fed funds rate by 100 basis points over the past year and I don’t see a lot of upside for inflation. So perhaps yields have peaked and will move sideways in 2019, which would be good for stocks in my view. BCA: Higher yields have indeed improved bond value recently. Nonetheless, they are not cheap enough to buy at this point (Chart 20). The real 10-year Treasury yield, at close to 1%, is still depressed by pre-Lehman standards. Long-term real yields in Germany and Japan remain in negative territory at close to the lowest levels ever recorded. Chart 20Real Yields Still Very Depressed We called the bottom in global nominal bond yields in 2016. Our research at the time showed that the cyclical and structural factors that had depressed yields were at an inflection point, and were shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. Perhaps most important among the structural factors, population aging and a downward trend in underlying productivity growth resulted in lower equilibrium bond yields over the past couple of decades. Looking ahead, productivity growth could stage a mild rebound in line with the upturn in the growth rate of the capital stock (Chart 21). As for demographics, the age structure of the world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging is beginning to drain that pool as people retire and begin to consume their nest eggs (Chart 22). The household saving rates in the major advanced economies should trend lower in the coming years, placing upward pressure on equilibrium global bond yields. Chart 21Productivity Still Has Some Upside Chart 22Demographics Past The Inflection Point Cyclical factors are also turning against bonds. U.S. inflation has returned to target and the Fed is normalizing short-term interest rates. The market currently is priced for only one more rate hike after December 2018 in this cycle, but we see rates rising more than that. Treasury yields will follow as market expectations adjust. Long-term inflation expectations are still too low in the U.S. and most of the other major economies to be consistent with central banks’ meeting their inflation targets over the medium term. As actual inflation edges higher, long-term expectations built into bond yields will move up. The term premium portion of long-term bond yields is also too low. This is the premium that investors demand to hold longer-term bonds. Our estimates suggest that the term premium is still negative in the advanced economies outside of the U.S., which is not sustainable over the medium term (Chart 23). Chart 23Term Premia Are Too Low We expect term premia to rise for two main reasons. First, investors have viewed government bonds as a good hedge for their equity holdings because bond prices have tended to rise when stock prices fell. Investors have been willing to pay a premium to hold long-term bonds to benefit from this hedging effect. But the correlation is now beginning to change as inflation and inflation expectations gradually adjust higher and output gaps close. As the hedging benefit wanes, the term premium should rise back into positive territory. Second, central bank bond purchases and forward guidance have depressed yields as well as interest-rate volatility. The latter helped to depress term premia in the bond market. This effect, too, is beginning to unwind. The Fed is letting its balance sheet shrink by about $50 billion per month. The Bank of England has kept its holdings of gilts and corporate bonds constant for over a year, while the ECB is about to end asset purchases. The Bank of Japan continues to buy assets, but at a much reduced pace. All this means that the private sector is being forced to absorb a net increase in government bonds for the first time since 2014 (Chart 24). Chart 25 shows that bond yields in the major countries will continue to trend higher as the rapid expansion of central bank balance sheets becomes a thing of the past. Chart 24Private Sector To Absorb More Bonds Chart 25QE Unwind Will Weigh On Bond Prices Ms. X: I’m not a fan of bonds at these levels, but that sounds overly bearish to me, especially given the recent plunge in oil prices. BCA: Lower oil prices will indeed help to hold down core inflation to the extent that energy prices leak into non-energy prices in the near term. Nonetheless, in the U.S., this effect will be overwhelmed by an overheated economy. From a long-term perspective, we believe that investors still have an overly benign view of the outlook for yields. The market expects that the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years will only be slightly above today’s spot yield, which itself is still very depressed by historical standards (Chart 26). And that also is the case in the other major bond markets. Chart 26Forward Yields Are Too Low Of course, it will not be a straight line up for yields – there will be plenty of volatility. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to peak sometime in 2019 or early 2020 in the 3.5%-to-4% range, before the next recession sends yields temporarily lower. Duration should be kept short at least until the middle of 2019, with an emphasis on TIPS relative to conventional Treasury bonds. We will likely downgrade TIPS versus conventionals once long-term inflation expectations move into our target range, which should occur sometime during 2019. The ECB and Japan will not be in a position to raise interest rates for some time, but the bear phase in U.S. Treasurys will drag up European and Japanese bond yields (at the very long end of the curve for the latter). Total returns are likely to be negative in all of the major bond markets in 2019. Real 10-year yields in all of the advanced economies are still well below their long-term average, except for Greece, Italy and Portugal (Chart 27). Chart 27Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets Within global bond portfolios, we recommend being underweight bond markets where central banks are in a position to raise short-term interest rates (the U.S. and Canada), and overweight those that are not (Japan and Australia). The first ECB rate hike is unlikely before the end of 2019. However, the imminent end of the asset purchase program argues for no more than a benchmark allocation to core European bond markets within global fixed-income portfolios, especially since real 10-year yields in parts of continental Europe are the furthest below their long-term average. We are overweight gilts at the moment, but foresee shifting to underweight in 2019, depending on how Brexit plays out. Ms. X: What about corporate bonds? I know that total returns for corporates will be poor if government bond yields are rising. But you recommended overweighting corporate bonds relative to Treasurys last year. Given your view that the next U.S. recession is more than a year away, it seems reasonable to assume they will outperform government bonds. BCA: We were overweight corporates in the first half of 2018, but took profits in June and shifted to neutral at the same time that we downgraded our equity allocation. Spreads had tightened to levels that did not compensate investors for the risks. Recent spread widening has returned some value to U.S. corporates. The 12-month breakeven spreads for A-rated and Baa-rated corporate bonds are almost back up to their 50th percentile relative to history (Chart 28). Still, these levels are not attractive enough to justify buying based on valuation alone. As for high-yield, any rise in the default rate would quickly overwhelm the yield pickup in this space. Chart 28Corporate Bond Yields Still Have Upside It is possible that some of the spread widening observed in October and November will reverse, but corporates offer a poor risk/reward tradeoff, even if the default rate stays low. Corporate profit growth is bound to decelerate in 2019. This would not be a disaster for equities, but slowing profit growth is more dangerous for corporate bond excess returns because the starting point for leverage is already elevated. As discussed above, at a macro level, the aggregate interest coverage ratio for the U.S. corporate sector is decent by historical standards. However, this includes mega-cap companies that have little debt and a lot of cash. Our bottom-up research suggests that interest coverage ratios for firms in the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index will likely drop close to multi-decade lows during the next recession, sparking a wave of downgrade activity and fallen angels. Seeing this coming, investors may require more yield padding to compensate for these risks as profit growth slows. Our next move will likely be to downgrade corporate bonds to underweight. We are watching the yield curve, bank lending standards, profit growth, and monetary indicators for signs to further trim exposure. You should already be moving up in quality within your corporate bond allocation. Mr. X: We have already shifted to underweight corporate bonds in our fixed income portfolio. Even considering the cheapening that has occurred over the past couple of months, spread levels still make no sense in terms of providing compensation for credit risk. Equity Market Outlook Ms. X: While we all seem to agree that corporate bonds are not very attractive, I believe that enough value has been restored to equities that we should upgrade our allocation, especially if the next recession is two years away. And I know that stocks sometimes have a powerful blow-off phase before the end of a bull market. Mr. X: This is where I vehemently disagree with my daughter. The recent sell-off resembles a bloodbath in parts of the global market. It has confirmed my worst fears, especially related to the high-flying tech stocks that I believe were in a bubble. Hopes for a blow-off phase are wishful thinking. I’m wondering if the sell-off represents the beginning of an extended bear market. BCA: Some value has indeed been restored. However, the U.S. market is far from cheap relative to corporate fundamentals. The trailing and 12-month forward price-earnings ratios (PER) of 20 and 16, respectively, are still far above their historical averages, especially if one leaves out the tech bubble period of the late 1990s. And the same is true for other metrics such as price-to-sales and price-to-book value (Chart 29). BCA’s composite valuation indicator, based on 8 different valuation measures, is only a little below the threshold of overvaluation at +1 standard deviation because low interest rates still favor equities on a relative yield basis. Chart 29U.S. Equities Are Not Cheap It is true that equities can reward investors handsomely in the final stage of a bull market. Chart 30 presents cumulative returns to the S&P 500 in the last nine bull markets. The returns are broken down by quintile. The greatest returns, unsurprisingly, generally occur in the first part of the bull market (quintile 1). But total returns in the last 20% of the bull phase (quintile 5) have been solid and have beaten the middle quartiles. Chart 30Late-Cycle Blow-Offs Can Be Rewarding Of course, the tricky part is determining where we are in the bull market. We have long viewed financial markets through the lens of money and credit. This includes a framework that involves the Fed policy cycle. The historical track record for risk assets is very clear; they tend to perform well when the fed funds rate is below neutral, whether rates are rising or falling. Risk assets tend to underperform cash when the fed funds rate is above neutral (Table 3). Table 3Stocks Do Well When The Fed Funds Rate Is Below Neutral We believe the fed funds rate is still in easy territory. This suggests that it is too early to shift to underweight on risk assets. We may even want to upgrade to overweight if stocks become cheap enough, as long as Fed policy is not restrictive. That said, there is huge uncertainty about the exact level of rates that constitutes “neutral” (or R-star in the Fed’s lingo). Even the Fed is unsure. This means that we must watch for signs that the fed funds rate has crossed the line into restrictive territory as the FOMC tightens over the coming year. An inversion of the 3-month T-bill/10-year yield curve slope would be a powerful signal that policy has become tight, although the lead time of an inverted curve and declining risk asset prices has been quite variable historically. Finally, it is also important to watch U.S. profit margins. Some of our research over the past couple of years focused on the late-cycle dynamics of previous long expansions, such as the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s. We found that risk assets came under pressure once U.S. profit margins peaked. Returns were often negative from the peak in margins to the subsequent recession. Mr. X: U.S. profit margins must be close to peak levels. I’ve seen all sorts of anecdotal examples of rising cost pressures, not only in the labor market. BCA: We expected to see some margin pressure to appear by now. S&P 500 EPS growth will likely top out in the next couple of quarters, if only because the third quarter’s 26% year-over-year pace is simply not sustainable. But it is impressive that our margin proxies are not yet flagging an imminent margin squeeze, despite the pickup in wage growth (Chart 31). Chart 31U.S. Margin Indicators Still Upbeat Margins according to the National Accounts (NIPA) data peaked in 2014 and have since diverged sharply with S&P 500 operating margins. It is difficult to fully explain the divergence. The NIPA margin is considered to be a better measure of underlying U.S. corporate profitability because it includes all companies (not just 500), and it is less subject to accounting trickery. That said, even the NIPA measure of margins firmed a little in 2018, along with the proxies we follow that correlate with the S&P 500 measure. The bottom line is that the macro variables that feed into our top-down U.S. EPS model point to a continuing high level of margins and fairly robust top-line growth, at least for the near term. For 2019, we assumed slower GDP growth and incorporated some decline in margins into our projection just to err on the conservative side. Nonetheless, our EPS model still projects a respectable 8% growth rate at the end of 2019 (Chart 32). The dollar will only be a minor headwind to earnings growth unless it surges by another 10% or more. Chart 32EPS Growth Forecasts The risks to EPS growth probably are to the downside relative to our forecast, but the point is that U.S. earnings will likely remain supportive for the market unless economic growth is much weaker than we expect. None of this means that investors should be aggressively overweight stocks now. We trimmed our equity recommendation to benchmark in mid-2018 for several reasons. At the time, value was quite poor and bottom-up earnings expectations were too high, especially on a five-year horizon. Also, sentiment measures suggested that investors were overly complacent. As you know, we are always reluctant to chase markets into highly overvalued territory, especially when a lot of good news has been discounted. As we have noted, we are open to temporarily shifting back to overweight in equities and other risk assets. The extension of the economic expansion gives more time for earnings to grow. The risks facing the market have not eased much but, given our base-case macro view, we would be inclined to upgrade equities if there is another meaningful correction. Of course, our profit, monetary and economic indicators would have to remain supportive to justify an upgrade. Mr. X: But you are bearish on bonds. We saw in October that the equity market is vulnerable to higher yields. BCA: It certainly won’t be smooth sailing through 2019 as interest rates normalize. Until recently, higher bond yields reflected stronger growth without any associated fears that inflation was a growing problem. The ‘Fed Put’ was seen as a key backstop for the equity bull market. But now that the U.S. labor market is showing signs of overheating, the bond sell-off has become less benign for stocks because the Fed will be less inclined to ease up at the first sign of trouble in the equity market. How stocks react in 2019 to the upward trend in yields depends a lot on the evolution of actual inflation and long-term inflation expectations. If core PCE inflation hovers close to or just above 2% for a while, then the Fed Put should still be in place. However, it would get ugly for both bonds and stocks if inflation moves beyond 2.5%. Our base case is that this negative dynamic won’t occur until early 2020, but obviously the timing is uncertain. One key indicator to watch is long-term inflation expectations, such as the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 33). It is close to 2% at the moment. If it shifts up into the 2.3%-2.5% range, it would confirm that inflation expectations have returned to a level that is consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% inflation target on a sustained basis. This would be a signal to the Fed that it is must become more aggressive in calming growth, with obvious negative consequences for risk assets. Chart 33Watch For A Return To 2.3%-2.5% Range Mr. X: I am skeptical that the U.S. corporate sector can pull off an 8% earnings gain in 2019. What about the other major markets? Won’t they get hit hard if global growth continues to slow as you suggest? BCA: Yes, that is correct. It is not surprising that EPS growth has already peaked in the Euro Area and Japan. The profit situation is going to deteriorate quickly in the coming quarters. Industrial production growth in both economies has already dropped close to zero, and we use this as a proxy for top-line growth in our EPS models. Nominal GDP growth has decelerated sharply in both economies in absolute terms and relative to the aggregate wage bill. These trends suggest that profit margins are coming under significant downward pressure. Even when we build in a modest growth pickup and slight rebound in margins in 2019, EPS growth falls close to zero by year-end according to our models. Both the Euro Area and Japanese equity markets are cheap relative to the U.S., based on our composite valuation indicators (Chart 34). However, neither is above the threshold of undervaluation (+1 standard deviation) that would justify overweight positions on valuation alone. We think the U.S. market will outperform the other two at least in the first half of 2019 in local and, especially, common-currency terms. Chart 34Valuation Of Nonfinancial Equity Markets Relative To The U.S. Ms. X: It makes sense that U.S. profit growth will outperform the other major developed countries in 2019. I would like to circle back to emerging market assets. I understand that many emerging economies have deep structural problems. But you admitted that the Chinese authorities will eventually stimulate enough to stabilize growth, providing a bounce in EM growth and asset prices next year. These assets seem cheap enough to me to warrant buying now in anticipation of that rally. As we all know, reversals from oversold levels can happen in a blink of an eye and I don’t want to miss it. BCA: We are looking for an opportunity to buy as well, but are wary of getting in too early. First, valuation has improved but is not good enough on its own to justify buying now. EM stocks are only moderately undervalued based on our EM composite valuation indicator and the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (Chart 35). EM currencies are not particularly cheap either, outside of Argentina, Turkey and Mexico (Charts 36A and 36B). Valuation should only play a role in investment strategy when it is at an extreme, and this is not the case for most EM countries. Chart 35EM Stocks Are Not At Capitulation Levels...   Chart 36A…And Neither Are EM Currencies Chart 36B…And Neither Are EM Currencies Second, corporate earnings growth has plenty of downside potential in the near term. Annual growth in EM nonfinancial EBITDA, currently near 10%, is likely to turn negative next year, based on our China credit and fiscal impulse indicator (Chart 37). And, as we emphasized earlier, China is not yet pressing hard on the gas pedal. Chart 37EM Earnings Growth: Lots Of Downside Third, it will take time for more aggressive Chinese policy stimulus, if it does occur, to show up in EM stocks and commodity prices. Trend changes in money growth and our credit and fiscal impulse preceded the trough in EM stocks and commodity prices in 2015, and again at the top in stocks and commodities in 2017 (Chart 38). However, even if these two indicators bottom today, it could take several months before the sell-off in EM financial markets and commodity prices abates. Chart 38Chinese Money And Credit Leads EM And Commodities Finally, if Chinese stimulus comes largely via easier monetary policy rather than fiscal stimulus, then the outcome will be a weaker RMB. We expect the RMB to drift lower in any event, because rate differentials vis-à-vis the U.S. will move against the Chinese currency next year. A weaker RMB would add to the near-term headwinds facing EM assets. The bottom line is that the downside risks remain high enough that you should resist the temptation to bottom-fish until there are concrete signs that the Chinese authorities are getting serious about boosting the economy. We are also watching for signs outside of China that the global growth slowdown is ending. This includes our global leading economic indicator and data that are highly sensitive to global growth, such as German manufacturing foreign orders. Mr. X: Emerging market assets would have to become a lot cheaper for me to consider buying. Debt levels are just too high to be sustained, and stronger Chinese growth would only provide a short-term boost. I’m not sure I would even want to buy developed market risk assets based solely on some Chinese policy stimulus. BCA: Yes, we agree with your assessment that buying EM in 2019 would be a trade rather than a buy-and-hold strategy. Still, the combination of continued solid U.S. growth and a modest upturn in the Chinese economy would alleviate a lot of investors’ global growth concerns. The result could be a meaningful rally in pro-cyclical assets that you should not miss. We are defensively positioned at the moment, but we could see becoming more aggressive in 2019 on signs that China is stimulating more firmly and/or our global leading indicators begin to show some signs of life. Besides upgrading our overall equity allocation back to overweight, we would dip our toes in the EM space again. At the same time, we will likely upgrade the more cyclical DM equity markets, such as the Euro Area and Japan, while downgrading the defensive U.S. equity market to underweight. We are currently defensively positioned in terms of equity sectors, but it would make sense to shift cyclicals to overweight at the same time. Exact timing is always difficult, but we expect to become more aggressive around the middle of 2019. We also think the time is approaching to favor long-suffering value stocks over growth stocks. The relative performance of growth-over-value according to standard measures has become a sector call over the past decade: tech or financials. The sector skew complicates this issue, especially since tech stocks have already cracked. But we have found that stocks that are cheap within equity sectors tend to outperform expensive (or growth) stocks once the fed funds rate moves into restrictive territory. This is likely to occur in the latter half of 2019. Value should then have its day in the sun. Currencies: Mr. X: We don’t usually hedge our international equity exposure, so the direction of the dollar matters a lot to us. As you predicted a year ago, the U.S. dollar reigned supreme in 2018. Your economic views suggest another good year in 2019, but won’t this become a problem for the economy? President Trump’s desire to lower the U.S. trade deficit suggests that the Administration would like the dollar to drop and we could get some anti-dollar rhetoric from the White House. Also, it seems that the consensus is strongly bullish on the dollar which is always a concern. BCA: The outlook for the dollar is much trickier than it was at the end of 2017. As you highlighted, traders are already very long the dollar, implying that the hurdle for the greenback to surprise positively is much higher now. However, a key driver for the dollar is the global growth backdrop. If the latter is poor in the first half of 2019 as we expect, it will keep a bid under the greenback. Interest rates should also remain supportive for the dollar. As we argued earlier, current market expectations – only one more Fed hike after the December meeting – are too sanguine. If the Fed increases rates by more than currently discounted, the dollar’s fair value will rise, especially if global growth continues to lag that of the U.S. Since the dollar’s 2018 rally was largely a correction of its previous undervaluation, the currency has upside potential in the first half of the year (Chart 39). Chart 39U.S. Dollar Not Yet Overvalued A stronger dollar will dampen foreign demand for U.S.-produced goods and will boost U.S. imports. However, do not forget that a rising dollar benefits U.S. consumers via its impact on import prices. Since the consumer sector represents 68% of GDP, and that 69% of household consumption is geared toward the (largely domestic) service sector, a strong dollar will not be as negative for aggregate demand and employment as many commentators fear, unless it were to surge by at least another 10%. In the end, the dollar will be more important for the distribution of U.S. growth than its overall level. Where the strong dollar is likely to cause tremors is in the political arena. You are correct to point out that there is a large inconsistency between the White House’s desires to shore up growth, while simultaneously curtailing the trade deficit, especially if the dollar appreciates further. As long as the Fed focuses on its dual mandate and tries to contain inflationary pressures, the executive branch of the U.S. government can do little to push the dollar down. Currency intervention cannot have a permanent effect unless it is accompanied by shifts in relative macro fundamentals. For example, foreign exchange intervention by the Japanese Ministry of Finance in the late 1990s merely had a temporary impact on the yen. The yen only weakened on a sustained basis once interest rate differentials moved against Japan. This problem underpins our view that the Sino-U.S. relationship is unlikely to improve meaningfully next year. China will remain an easy target to blame for the U.S.’s large trade deficit. What ultimately will signal a top in the dollar is better global growth, which is unlikely until the second half of 2019. At that point, expected returns outside the U.S. will improve, causing money to leave the U.S., pushing the dollar down. Mr. X: While 2017 was a stellar year for the euro, 2018 proved a much more challenging environment. Will 2019 be more like 2017 or 2018? BCA: We often think of the euro as the anti-dollar; buying EUR/USD is the simplest, most liquid vehicle for betting against the dollar, and vice versa. Our bullish dollar stance is therefore synonymous with a negative take on the euro. Also, the activity gap between the U.S. and the Euro Area continues to move in a euro-bearish fashion (Chart 40). Finally, since the Great Financial Crisis, EUR/USD has lagged the differential between European and U.S. core inflation by roughly six months. Today, this inflation spread still points toward a weaker euro. Chart 40Relative LEI's Moving Against Euro It is important to remember that when Chinese economic activity weakens, European growth deteriorates relative to the U.S. Thus, our view that global growth will continue to sputter in the first half of 2019 implies that the monetary policy divergence between the Fed and the ECB has not yet reached a climax. Consequently, we expect EUR/USD to trade below 1.1 in the first half of 2019. By that point, the common currency will be trading at a meaningful discount to its fair value, which will allow it to find a floor (Chart 41). Chart 41Euro Heading Below Fair Value Before Bottoming Mr. X: The Bank of Japan has debased the yen, with a balance sheet larger than Japan’s GDP. This cannot end well. I am very bearish on the currency. BCA: The BoJ’s monetary policy is definitely a challenge for the yen. The Japanese central bank rightfully understands that Japan’s inability to generate any meaningful inflation – despite an economy that is at full employment – is the consequence of a well-established deflationary mindset. The BoJ wants to shock inflation expectations upward by keeping real rates at very accommodative levels well after growth has picked up. This means that the BoJ will remain a laggard as global central banks move away from accommodative policies. The yen will continue to depreciate versus the dollar as U.S. yields rise on a cyclical horizon. That being said, the yen still has a place within investors’ portfolios. First, the yen is unlikely to collapse despite the BoJ’s heavy debt monetization. The JPY is one of the cheapest currencies in the world, with its real effective exchange rate hovering at a three-decade low (Chart 42). Additionally, Japan still sports a current account surplus of 3.7% of GDP, hardly the sign of an overstimulated and inflationary economy where demand is running amok. Instead, thanks to decades of current account surpluses, Japan has accumulated a positive net international investment position of 60% of GDP. This means that Japan runs a constant and large positive income balance, a feature historically associated with strong currencies. Chart 42The Yen Is Very Cheap Japan’s large net international investment position also contributes to the yen’s defensive behavior as Japanese investors pull money back to safety at home when global growth deteriorates. Hence, the yen could rebound, especially against the euro, the commodity currencies, and EM currencies if there is a further global growth scare in the near term. Owning some yen can therefore stabilize portfolio returns during tough times. As we discussed earlier, we would avoid the EM asset class, including currency exposure, until global growth firms. Commodities: Ms. X: Once again, you made a good call on the energy price outlook a year ago, with prices moving higher for most of the year. But the recent weakness in oil seemed to come out of nowhere, and I must admit to being confused about where we go next. What are your latest thoughts on oil prices for the coming year? BCA: The fundamentals lined up in a very straightforward way at the end of 2017. The coalition we have dubbed OPEC 2.0 – the OPEC and non-OPEC producer group led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – outlined a clear strategy to reduce the global oil inventory overhang. The producers that had the capacity to increase supply maintained strict production discipline which, to some analysts, was still surprising even after the cohesiveness shown by the group in 2017. Outside that core group output continued to fall, especially in Venezuela, which remains a high-risk producing province. The oil market was balanced and prices were slowly moving higher as we entered the second quarter of this year, when President Trump announced the U.S. would re-impose oil export sanctions against Iran beginning early November. The oft-repeated goal of the sanctions was to reduce Iranian exports to zero. To compensate for the lost Iranian exports, President Trump pressured OPEC, led by KSA, to significantly increase production, which they did. However, as we approached the November deadline, the Trump Administration granted the eight largest importers of Iranian oil 180-day waivers on the sanctions. This restored much of the oil that would have been lost. Suddenly, the market found itself oversupplied and prices fell. As we move toward the December 6 meeting of OPEC 2.0 in Vienna, we are expecting a production cut from the coalition of as much as 1.4mm b/d to offset these waivers. The coalition wishes to keep global oil inventories from once again over-filling and dragging prices even lower in 2019. On the demand side, consumption continues to hold up both in the developed and emerging world, although we have somewhat lowered our expectations for growth next year. We are mindful of persistent concerns over the strength of demand – particularly in EM – in 2019. Thus, on the supply side and the demand side, the level of uncertainty in the oil markets is higher than it was at the start of 2018. Nonetheless, our base-case outlook is on the optimistic side for oil prices in 2019, with Brent crude oil averaging around $82/bbl, and WTI trading $6/bbl below that level (Chart 43). Chart 43Oil Prices To Rebound In 2019 Ms. X: I am skeptical that oil prices will rebound as much as you expect. First, oil demand is likely to falter if your view that global growth will continue slowing into early 2019 proves correct. Second, U.S. shale production is rising briskly, with pipeline bottlenecks finally starting to ease. Third, President Trump seems to have gone from taking credit for high equity prices to taking credit for low oil prices. Trump has taken a lot flack for supporting Saudi Arabia following the killing of The Washington Post journalist in Turkey. Would the Saudis really be willing to lose Trump’s support by cutting production at this politically sensitive time? BCA: Faltering demand growth remains a concern. However, note that in our forecasts we do expect global oil consumption growth to slow down to 1.46mm b/d next year, somewhat lower than the 1.6mm b/d growth we expect this year.  In terms of the U.S. shale sector, production levels over the short term can be somewhat insensitive to changes in spot and forward prices, given the hedging activity of producers. Over the medium to longer term, however, lower spot and forward prices will disincentivize drilling by all but the most efficient producers with the best, lowest-cost acreage. If another price collapse were to occur – and were to persist, as the earlier price collapse did – we would expect a production loss of between 5% and 10% from the U.S. shales.  Regarding KSA, the Kingdom needs close to $83/bbl to balance its budget this year and next, according to the IMF’s most recent estimates. If prices remain lower for longer, KSA’s official reserves will continue to fall, as its sovereign wealth fund continues to be tapped to fill budget gaps. President Trump’s insistence on higher production from KSA and the rest of OPEC is a non-starter – it would doom those economies to recession, and stifle further investment going forward. The U.S. would also suffer down the road, as the lack of investment significantly tightens global supply. So, net, if production cuts are not forthcoming from OPEC at its Vienna meeting we – and the market – will be downgrading our oil forecast. Ms. X: Does your optimism regarding energy extend to other commodities? The combination of a strong dollar and a China slowdown did a lot of damage to industrial commodities in 2018. Given your view that China’s economy should stabilize in 2019, are we close to a bottom in base metals? BCA: It is too soon to begin building positions in base metals because the trade war is going to get worse before it gets better. Exposure to base metals should be near benchmark at best entering 2019, although we will be looking to upgrade along with other risk assets if Chinese policy stimulus ramps up. Over the medium term, the outlook for base metals hinges on how successfully China pulls off its pivot toward consumer- and services-led growth, away from heavy industrial-led development. China accounts for roughly half of global demand for these base metals. Commodity demand from businesses providing consumer goods and services is lower than that of heavy industrial export-oriented firms. But demand for commodities used in consumer products – e.g., copper, zinc and nickel, which go into stainless-steel consumer appliances such as washers and dryers – will remain steady, and could increase if the transition away from heavy industrial-led growth is successful. Gasoline and jet fuel demand will also benefit, as EM consumers’ demand for leisure activities such as tourism increases with rising incomes. China is also going to be a large producer and consumer of electric vehicles, as it attempts to reduce its dependence on imported oil. Although timing the production ramp-up is difficult, in the long term these trends will be supportive for nickel and copper. Mr. X: You know I can’t let you get away without asking about gold. The price of bullion is down about 5% since the end of 2017, but that is no worse than the global equity market and it did provide a hedge against economic, financial or political shocks. The world seems just as risky as it did a year ago, so I am inclined to hold on to our gold positions, currently close to 10% of our portfolio. That is above your recommended level, but keeping a solid position in gold is one area where my daughter and I have close agreement regarding investment strategy. BCA: Gold did perform well during the risk asset corrections we had in 2018, and during the political crises as well. The price is not too far away from where we recommended going long gold as a portfolio hedge at the end of 2017 ($1230.3/oz). We continue to expect gold to perform well as a hedge. When other risk assets are trading lower, gold holds value relative to equities and tends to outperform bonds (Chart 44). Likewise, when other risk assets are rising, gold participates, but does not do as well as equities. It is this convexity – outperforming on the downside but participating on the upside with other risk assets – that continues to support our belief that gold has a role as a portfolio hedge. However, having 10% of your portfolio in gold is more than we would recommend – we favor an allocation of around 5%. Chart 44Hold Some Gold As A Hedge Geopolitics Ms. X: I’m glad that the three of us agree at least on one thing – hold some gold! Let’s return to the geopolitical situation for a moment. Last year, you correctly forecast that divergent domestic policies in the U.S. and China – stimulus in the former and lack thereof in the latter – would be the most investment-relevant geopolitical issue. At the time, I found this an odd thing to highlight, given the risks of protectionism, populism, and North Korea. Do you still think that domestic policies will dominate in 2019? BCA: Yes, policy divergence between the U.S. and China will also dominate in 2019, especially if it continues to buoy the U.S. economy at the expense of the rest of the world. Of course, Beijing may decide to do more stimulus to offset its weakening economy and the impact of the trade tariffs. A headline rate cut, cuts to bank reserve requirements, and a boost to local government infrastructure spending are all in play. In the context of faltering housing and capex figures in the U.S., the narrative over the next quarter or two could be that the policy divergence is over, that Chinese policymakers have “blinked.” We are pushing back against this narrative on a structural basis. We have already broadly outlined our view that China will not be pressing hard to boost demand growth. Many of its recent policy efforts have focused on rebalancing the economy away from debt-driven investment (Chart 45). The problem for the rest of the world is that raw materials and capital goods comprise 85% of Chinese imports. As such, efforts to boost domestic consumption will have limited impact on the rest of the world, especially as emerging markets are highly leveraged to “old China.” Chart 45Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Meanwhile, the Trump-Democrat gridlock could yield surprising results in 2019. President Trump is becoming singularly focused on winning re-election in 2020. As such, he fears the “stimulus cliff” looming over the election year. Democrats, eager to show that they are not merely the party of “the Resistance,” have already signaled that an infrastructure deal is their top priority. With fiscal conservatives in the House all but neutered by the midterm elections, a coalition between Trump and likely House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could emerge by late 2019, ushering in even more fiscal stimulus. While the net new federal spending will not be as grandiose as the headline figures, it will be something. There will also be regular spending increases in the wake of this year’s bipartisan removal of spending caps. We place solid odds that the current policy divergence narrative continues well into 2019, with bullish consequences for the U.S. dollar and bearish outcomes for EM assets, at least in the first half of the year. Mr. X: Your geopolitical team has consistently been alarmist on the U.S.-China trade war, a view that bore out throughout 2018. You already stated that you think trade tensions will persist in 2019. Where is this heading? BCA: Nowhere good. Rising geopolitical tensions in the Sino-American relationship has been our premier geopolitical risk since 2012. The Trump administration has begun tying geopolitical and strategic matters in with the trade talks. No longer is the White House merely asking for a narrowing of the trade deficit, improved intellectual property protections, and the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade. Now, everything from surface-to-air missiles in the South China Sea to Beijing’s “Belt and Road” project are on the list of U.S. demands. Trade negotiations are a “two-level game,” whereby policymakers negotiate in parallel with their foreign counterparts and domestic constituents. While Chinese economic agents may accept U.S. economic demands, it is not clear to us that its military and intelligence apparatus will accept U.S. geopolitical demands. And Xi Jinping himself is highly attuned to China’s geopolitical position, calling for national rejuvenation above all. We would therefore downplay any optimistic news from the G20 summit between Presidents Trump and Xi. President Trump could freeze tariffs at current rates and allow for a more serious negotiating round throughout 2019. But unless China is willing to kowtow to America, a fundamental deal will remain elusive in the end. For Trump, a failure to agree is still a win domestically, as the median American voter is not asking for a resolution of the trade war with China (Chart 46). Chart 46Americans Favor Being Tough On China Ms. X: Could trade tensions spill into rising military friction? BCA: Absolutely. Minor military skirmishes will likely continue and could even escalate. We believe that there is a structural bull market in “war.” Investors should position themselves by being long global defense stocks. Mr. X: That is not encouraging. What about North Korea and Iran? Could they become geopolitical risks in 2019? BCA: Our answer to the North Korea question remains the same as 12 months ago: we have seen the peak in the U.S.’ display of a “credible military threat.” But Iran could re-emerge as a risk mid-year. We argued in last year’s discussion that President Trump was more interested in playing domestic politics than actually ratcheting up tensions with Iran. However, in early 2018 we raised our alarm level, particularly when staffing decisions in the White House involved several noted Iran hawks joining the foreign policy team. This was a mistake. Our initial call was correct, as President Trump ultimately offered six-month exemptions to eight importers of Iranian crude. That said, those exemptions will expire in the spring. The White House may, at that point, ratchet up tensions with Iran. This time, we will believe it when we see it. Intensifying tensions with Iran ahead of the U.S. summer vacation season, and at a time when crude oil markets are likely to be finely balanced, seems like folly, especially with primary elections a mere 6-to-8 months away. What does President Trump want more: to win re-election or to punish Iran? We think the answer is obvious, especially given that very few voters seem to view Iran as the country’s greatest threat (Chart 47). Chart 47Americans Don’t See Iran As A Major Threat Ms. X: Let’s turn to Europe. You have tended to dismiss Euroskeptics as a minor threat, which has largely been correct. But don’t you think that, with Brexit upon us and Chancellor Angela Merkel in the twilight, populism in continental Europe will finally have its day? BCA: Let’s first wait to see how Brexit turns out! The next few months will be critical. Uncertainty is high, with considerable risks remaining. We do not think that Prime Minister May has the votes in the House of Commons to push through any version of soft Brexit that she has envisioned thus far. If the vote on the U.K.-EU exit deal falls through, a new election could be possible. This will require an extension of the exit process under Article 50 and a prolonged period of uncertainty. The probability of a no-deal Brexit is lower than 10%. It is simply not in the interest of anyone involved, save for a smattering of the hardest of hard Brexit adherents in the U.K. Conservative Party. Put simply, if the EU-U.K. deal falls through in the House of Commons, or even if PM May is replaced by a hard-Brexit Tory, the most likely outcome is an extension of the negotiation process. This can be easily done and we suspect that all EU member states would be in favor of such an extension given the cost to business sentiment and trade that would result from a no-deal Brexit. It is not clear that Brexit has emboldened Euroskeptics. In fact, most populist parties in the EU have chosen to tone down their Euroskepticism and emphasize their anti-immigrant agenda since the Brexit referendum. In part, this decision has to do with how messy the Brexit process has become. If the U.K. is struggling to unravel the sinews that tie it to Europe, how is any other country going to fare any better? The problem for Euroskeptic populists is that establishment parties are wise to the preferences of the European median voter. For example, we now have Friedrich Merz, a German candidate for the head of the Christian Democratic Union – essentially Merkel’s successor – who is both an ardent Europhile and a hardliner on immigration. This is not revolutionary. Merz simply read the polls correctly and realized that, with 83% of Germans supporting the euro, the rise of the anti-establishment Alternative for Germany (AfD) is more about immigration than about the EU. As such, we continue to stress that populism in Europe is overstated. In fact, we expect that Germany and France will redouble their efforts to reform European institutions in 2019. The European parliamentary elections in May will elicit much handwringing by the media due to a likely solid showing by Euroskeptics, even though the election is meaningless. Afterwards, we expect to see significant efforts to complete the banking union, reform the European Stability Mechanism, and even introduce a nascent Euro Area budget. But these reforms will not be for everyone. Euroskeptics in Central and Eastern Europe will be left on the outside looking in. Brussels may also be emboldened to take a hard line on Italy if institutional reforms convince the markets that the core Euro Area is sheltered from contagion. In other words, the fruits of integration will be reserved for those who play by the Franco-German rules. And that could, ironically, set the stage for the unraveling of the European Union as we know it. Over the long haul, a much tighter, more integrated, core could emerge centered on the Euro Area, with the rest of the EU becoming stillborn. The year 2019 will be a vital one for Europe. We are sensing an urgency in Berlin and Paris that has not existed throughout the crisis, largely due to Merkel’s own failings as a leader. We remain optimistic that the Euro Area will survive. However, there will be fireworks. Finally, a word about Japan. The coming year will see the peak of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s career. He is promoting the first-ever revision to Japan’s post-war constitution in order to countenance the armed forces. If he succeeds, he will have a big national security success to couple with his largely effective “Abenomics” economic agenda – after that, it will all be downhill. If he fails, he will become a lame duck. This means that political uncertainty will rise in 2019, after six years of unusual tranquility. Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that 2019 could be even more turbulent for financial markets than the past has been. I accept your opinion that a major global economic downturn is not around the corner, but with valuations still stretched, I feel that it makes good sense to focus on capital preservation. I may lose out on the proverbial “blow-off” rally, but so be it – I have been in this business long enough to know that it is much better to leave the party while the music is still playing! Ms. X: I agree with my father that the risks surrounding the outlook have risen as we have entered the late stages of this business-cycle expansion. Yet, if global growth does temporarily stabilize and corporate earnings continue to expand, I fear that being out of the market will be very painful. The era of hyper-easy money may be ending, but interest rates globally are still nowhere near restrictive territory. This tells me that the final stages of this bull market could be very rewarding. A turbulent market is not only one where prices go down – they can also go up a lot! BCA: The debate you are having is one we ourselves have had on numerous occasions. There is always a trade-off between maximizing short-term returns and taking a longer-term approach. Valuations are the ultimate guidepost for long-term returns. While most assets have cheapened over the past year, prices are still fairly elevated. Table 4 shows our baseline calculations of what a balanced portfolio will earn over the coming decade. We estimate that such a portfolio will deliver average annual returns of 4.9% over the next ten years, or 2.8% after adjusting for inflation. That is an improvement over our inflation-adjusted estimate of 1.3% from last year, but still well below the 6.6% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1982 and 2018. Table 410-Year Asset Return Projections Our return calculations for equities assume that profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if underlying changes in the economy keep corporate profits elevated as a share of GDP. Structurally lower real interest rates may also justify higher P/E multiples, although this would be largely offset by the prospect of slower economic growth, which will translate into slower earnings growth. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot hinges on our view that monetary policy in the main economies stays accommodative. This seems like a safe assumption in the Euro Area and Japan, where rates are near historic lows, as well as in China, where the government is actively loosening monetary conditions. It is not such a straightforward conclusion for the U.S., where the Fed is on track to keep raising rates. If it turns out that the neutral interest rate is not far above where rates are already, we could see a broad-based slowdown of the U.S. economy that ripples through to the rest of the world. And even if U.S. monetary policy does remain accommodative, many things could still upset the apple cart, including a full-out trade war, debt crises in Italy or China, or a debilitating spike in oil prices. As the title of our outlook implies, 2019 is likely to be a year of increased turbulence. Ms. X: As always, you have left us with much to think about. My father has looked forward to these discussions every year and now that I am able to join him, I understand why. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That would be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The collision between policy and markets that we discussed last year finally came to a head in October. Rather than falling as they normally do when stocks plunge, U.S. bond yields rose as investors reassessed the willingness of the Fed to pause hiking rates even in the face of softer growth. Likewise, hopes that China would move swiftly to stimulate its economy were dashed as it became increasingly clear that the authorities were placing a high emphasis on their reform agenda of deleveraging and capacity reduction. The ongoing Brexit saga and the stalemate between the populist Italian government and the EU have increased uncertainty in Europe at a time when the region was already beginning to slow. We expect the tensions between policy and markets to be an ongoing theme in 2019. With the U.S. unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it will take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. Despite the deterioration in economic data over the past month, real final domestic demand is still tracking to expand by 3% in the fourth quarter, well above estimates of the sustainable pace of economic growth. Ultimately, the Fed will deliver more hikes next year than discounted in the markets. This will push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. The dollar should peak midway next year. China will also become more aggressive in stimulating its economy, which will boost global growth. However, until both of these things happen, emerging markets will remain under pressure. For the time being, we continue to favor developed market equities over their EM peers. We also prefer defensive equity sectors such as health care and consumer staples over cyclical sectors such as industrials and materials. Within the developed market universe, the U.S. will outperform Europe and Japan for the next few quarters, especially in dollar terms. A stabilization in global growth could ignite a blow-off rally in global equities. If the Fed is raising rates in response to falling unemployment, this is unlikely to derail the stock market. However, once supply-side constraints begin to fully bite in early 2020 and inflation rises well above the Fed’s target of 2%, stocks will begin to buckle. This means that a window exists next year where stocks will outperform bonds. We would maintain a benchmark allocation to stocks for now, but increase exposure if global bourses were to fall significantly from current levels without a corresponding deteriorating in the economic outlook. Corporate credit will underperform stocks as government bond yields rise. A major increase in spreads is unlikely as long as the economy is still expanding, but spreads could still widen modestly given their low starting point. U.S. shale companies have been the marginal producers in the global oil sector. With breakeven costs in shale close to $50/bbl, crude prices are unlikely to rise much from current levels over the long term. However, over the next 12 months, we expect production cuts in Saudi Arabia will push prices up, with Brent crude averaging around $82/bbl in 2019. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 2.8% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.6% a year between 1982 and 2018. We would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 26, 2018 ​​​​​​

Special Report

Highlights Structurally, EM corporate leverage is elevated and the interest coverage ratio is low. Cyclically, China/EM growth slowdown will lead to corporate spread widening. Rising U.S. dollar corporate bond yields in EM herald lower share prices. The recent underperformance in Mexican financial markets versus their EM peers is not sustainable. We reiterate our overweight position in Mexico. In Indonesia, the central bank is attempting to fight the Impossible Trinity, a battle that by definition cannot be won. Investors should keep underweighting this market. Feature This report focuses on the corporate health of emerging market (EM) companies, as well as the outlook for corporate bonds. We review the key drivers behind credit spreads and provide an up-to-date snapshot of overall corporate health. We also illustrate the travails in China's offshore corporate bond market, which are of high importance to the broad EM outlook. With respect to scope of coverage and data comparability, please refer to Box 1. BOX 1 Data Relevance And Its Application As there is no aggregate financial dataset for EM corporate bond issuers, we use corporate financial data provided by Worldscope for the EM equity universe - the constituents of the MSCI EM equity index. While from an individual country perspective this makes a difference, from an EM sector perspective the differences are not substantial. Excluding the technology sector, it is often the case that the same companies have both publicly traded stocks and bonds. This is especially true in sectors such as basic materials, energy, industrials, telecom, utilities and financials. This is why, in this report, we focus our attention on sectors rather than countries, and why we examine the EM companies' financial health excluding technology and banks. Banks' relevant financial ratios vary greatly from those of non-banks. For the technology sector, the largest tech names in the equity space have minimal bonds outstanding, so using financial data from the equity space for credit analysis is inappropriate. In short, the analysis below on corporate health is pertinent to both equity and corporate bond investors. However, its emphasis is on creditworthiness and ability to service debt, which is more attuned to credit investors. Drivers Of EM Credit Spreads Cyclical swings in EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads are driven by changes in borrowers' revenues, cash flow and profits. Hence, the business cycle is one of the important drivers of corporate creditworthiness. When global and EM growth accelerate, revenue and free cash flow improve, causing credit spreads to narrow (Chart I-1). The EM business cycle drives EM sovereign spreads too (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Corporates: Cash Flow From Operations And Credit Spreads Chart I-2EM Sovereign Spreads Move In Tandem With Business Cycle This is why we spend a lot of time gauging the global business cycle outlook and cover this topic extensively in our reports. For now, the growth outlook for China/EM and global trade remains gloomy: Chart I-3China Is A Major Risk For EM Profits China's credit and fiscal spending impulse projects further weakness in the mainland's business cycle and EM corporate earnings (Chart I-3). China's slowdown is no longer limited to the industrial sector - household spending growth has downshifted considerably since early this year, as we discussed in last week's report.1 Weakening sales of consumer goods and autos in China are one of the primary reasons behind the ongoing slump in the global technology and semiconductor sectors. Consistently, plunging growth in Taiwanese electronics exports points to both weaker global trade and EM tech earnings in the months ahead (Chart I-4). In short, even though we have excluded technology from our analysis of corporate financial health, hardware tech companies' profits remain at risk. The latter is not relevant for EM corporate bond investors, but it is critical for the EM equity space. Chart I-4Taiwanese Shipments Foreshadow A Relapse In EM Tech Earnings Other pertinent financial market indicators for EM credit spreads are commodities prices, EM exchange rates and EM local rates. The basis is as follows: (1) Energy and materials make up 25% of the J.P. CEMBI EM corporate bond index, and commodities prices drive their revenues and in turn credit spread fluctuations (Chart I-5, top panel); (2) Outside the resource sector, corporate bond issuers by and large do not feature exporters, and their capacity to service foreign currency debt is greatly affected by exchange rate movements (Chart I-5, bottom panel); (3) Financials make up 30% of the J.P. CEMBI EM corporate bond index, and their credit spreads are greatly influenced by domestic interest rates and banking system health (Chart I-6). We exclude financials from our corporate health analysis because their financial ratios differ vastly from those of non-financials. Chart I-5Drivers Of Credit Spreads: Commodities And Currencies Chart I-6EM Bank Credit Spreads Will Widen If Local Bond Yields Rise Overall, we expect global trade to weaken, commodities prices to drop further and EM currencies to depreciate. The latter will push up local interest rates. In turn, several EM banking systems remain saddled with bad assets from previous credit booms that have not been recognized, and banks have not been recapitalized. These factors point to a widening in bank credit spreads. All in all, EM corporate and sovereign spreads will widen further. A Snapshot Of EM Corporate Health The following financial ratios - which are calculated for EM companies excluding technology and financials - do not justify currently tight corporate spread. Leverage measured as net debt (total debt minus cash assets) divided either by EBITDA or cash flow from operation2 (CFO) remains elevated (Chart I-7, top panel). Among 9 sectors, only energy, basic materials and consumer discretionary have seen their leverage fall over the past two years. Chart I-7EM Corporate Health: Leverage And Interest Coverage Ratios Interest coverage ratios computed as EBITDA- or CFO- to- interest expense are well below their 2007 and 2011 levels (Chart I-7, middle panel). These figures corroborate that neither EM corporate indebtedness nor companies' ability to service debt using cash from operations is back to levels that prevailed before the global financial crisis in 2008 when EM financial markets were in a secular uptrend. Crucially, this is inconsistent with presently still-tight EM corporate spreads (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This mispricing, in our opinion, reflects the global search for yield that was induced by the crowding out of investors from DM bond markets by global central banks' QE programs. A contraction in corporate profits and cash flows from operation - for the reasons discussed above - will cause issuers' credit matrixes to deteriorate. With respect to cross-sectional analysis, Table I-1 presents interest coverage ratios (computed as an average of EBITDA- and CFO-to-interest expense ratios) for mainstream countries and all sectors. The cells in red present pockets of distress where the interest coverage ratio is below 3. The cells in blue illustrate segments where moderate financial stress is present: these are sectors with an interest coverage ratio of above 3 but below 5.5. Table I-1Interest Coverage Ratios On a positive note, the rally in commodities and cutbacks in capex have allowed energy and basic materials companies to drastically improve their leverage and interest coverage ratios in the past 2 years. However, even though their present financial health is great, their cash flow from operations is set to deteriorate again as commodities prices continue to relapse. The key motive behind our negative view on credit markets in Latin America, Russia, the Middle East and Africa - which is de facto the EM universe excluding emerging Asia - is because with the exception of Turkey, they are very exposed to commodities prices. As commodities prices drop and these nations' currencies depreciate, their sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen. We are not implying that these issuers are facing default risks. Simply, lower revenues from commodities and higher debt servicing costs due to currency depreciation warrant a re-pricing of risk. Within credit portfolios, we recommend favoring defensive low-beta credit, excluding banks, versus riskier high-beta ones. We are underweight EM banks within the EM equity space and recommend the same strategy for the EM credit universe. Based on the matrix in Table I-1, credit portfolios should overweight consumer services, tech, energy and basic materials and underweight industrials, utilities and healthcare. China's Corporate Health And Credit Market There has been little deleveraging among Chinese companies. On the contrary, the country's massive credit and fiscal stimulus in 2016 bailed out many indebted companies, lifting corporate debt levels and augmenting the misallocation of capital. In particular: Chart I-8China's Corporate Debt Is Enormous China's corporate debt remains enormous, at $19.5 trillion, or RMB 140 trillion. It is the highest in the history of any country (Chart I-8). Some 95% of corporate debt is in local currency terms. My colleague Jonathan LaBerge from China Investment Strategy has calculated that Chinese state-owned enterprises' adjusted return on assets, has fallen below the cost of capital (Chart I-9). This indicates that these companies have for now exhausted profitable investment opportunities and should arguably scale back on their investment expenditures. Further borrowing and investing by these enterprises will augment the amount of bad assets held by Chinese banks and reduce the country's overall productivity and hence, potential growth. Yet, denying these debtors financing will result in a major slump in capex, and probably labor market weakness. Chart I-9Chinese SOEs: Capital Misallocation Chart I-10Leverage And Interest Coverage For Chinese Companies Dissecting sectoral data, indebtedness is elevated for industrials, utilities and property developers. Consistently, the interest coverage ratio is extremely low for industrials, utilities and property developers (Chart I-10). Financial health of Chinese materials has improved tremendously due to de-capacity reforms - the shutdown of excess capacity that has boosted both steel and coal prices. Interestingly, this has occurred at the expense of utilities and some other heavy consumers of steel and coal. Notably, steel and coal prices are beginning to relapse (Chart I-11). For reasons discussed in our previous report,3 these commodities prices will drop further and will hurt producers' cash flow and profits, causing their creditworthiness to deteriorate. Chart I-11Steel And Thermal Coal Prices Offshore corporate bond yields and spreads are surging, foreshadowing rising borrowing costs and reduced availability of financing (Chart I-12A). The problem is especially acute for property developers (Chart I-12B). In a nutshell, Chinese corporate U.S. dollar bond yields are at their highest levels of the past five-six years. The same is true for emerging Asian corporate bond issuers. Chart I-12AChinese Offshore Aggregate Corporate Bonds Chart I-12BChinese Offshore Property Developers Not only do Chinese corporate bonds now account for 32.5% of EM and 56% of emerging Asian corporate bond indexes, but investment expenditures by Chinese companies are also critical to companies elsewhere in Asia and globally. Chinese gross fixed capital formation accounts for 6% and 5.4% of global GDP in nominal and real terms, respectively. By contrast, these numbers are 4.6% and 4.3% for the U.S. We have deliberated at great length on why China's growth will likely continue to downshift, despite the policy stimulus, and we will not repeat our arguments today.4 The financial health of Chinese companies will worsen due to dwindling sales and cash generation. This, along with less credit/financing available onshore and offshore, will erode their capacity to undertake large investment expenditures. Consequently, capital expenditures in general and construction in particular will suffer substantially. This is the main rationale behind our negative view on resources, raw materials and industrials worldwide. Investment Observations And Conclusions Apart from Turkey and Argentina, there has been no liquidation and capitulation in EM assets in general and the credit space in particular. It would be unusual if this extended selloff ends without capitulation. EM credit markets appear technically vulnerable. In particular, the excess returns on EM sovereign and corporate bonds are splintering below their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-13). Odds are there will be more downside. Chart I-13A Bad Signal Rising U.S. dollar corporate bond yields in both EM overall and in emerging Asia herald lower share prices (Chart I-14). So long as the drop in U.S. Treasury yields is offset by widening EM credit spreads, EM corporate bond yields will continue to rise and EM share prices will sell off. However, as and when EM corporate (or sovereign) yields start falling, irrespective of whether because of declining U.S. Treasury yields or narrowing EM credit spreads, EM equity prices will rally. EM sovereign and corporate bond yields are an imperative indicator to watch for equity investors. Chart I-14Rising Corporate Yields = Lower Share Prices We continue to recommend defensive positioning in EM sovereign and corporate bonds. In terms of asset allocation, EM dollar-denominated sovereign and corporate bonds should not be compared with EM local currency bonds or equities or U.S. Treasurys.5 These are credit instruments, and they should be a part of a credit portfolio with U.S. and European corporate bonds. Credit portfolios should presently be underweight EM sovereign and corporate bonds relative to U.S. corporate bonds (Chart I-15A & Chart I-15B). Chart I-15AEM Sovereign Credit Versus U.S. Credit: Relative Excess Returns Chart I-15BEM Corporate Credit Versus U.S. Credit: Relative Excess Returns Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Is The Underperformance Overdone? Despite having a sound macroeconomic backdrop,6 Mexican financial markets have lately substantially underperformed their emerging market peers due in large part to domestic politics. Odds are that Mexican risk assets will continue to sell off in absolute terms, especially given the broad turmoil in the EM universe, which we expect to continue. That said, the recent underperformance of Mexican markets versus their EM peers is overdone, and odds are that Mexican stocks, local bonds and sovereign credit will outperform their EM peers over the coming six to 12 months: First, the Mexican authorities have been pursuing orthodox macro policies, including very tight monetary and fiscal policies. The central bank hiked its policy rate again last week in the face of a currency relapse, and the fiscal stance has been tight. Currently, the real policy rate is 4% and the 10-year local currency government bond yield is 5.5%, both deflated by core consumer price inflation (Chart II-1, top and middle panel). Real rates are very high by historical standards and are now above most other EMs. Chart II-1Mexico: Tight Monetary And Fiscal Policies The government's non-interest expenditures deflated by core consumer price inflation have been contracting (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Such a tight monetary and fiscal policy mix will not change considerably with AMLO taking the office and it should benefit the currency. We expect the peso to start outperforming its EM peers on a total-return basis. Second, the Mexican peso is very cheap - close to one standard deviation below fair value, according to the unit labor cost-based real effective exchange rate (Chart II-2). The latter is our favorite currency valuation measure. Chart II-2The Mexican Peso Is Cheap Third, economic growth is improving, as the effects from monetary and fiscal tightening are diminishing (Chart II-3). This should at the margin support Mexican financial markets versus their EM peers where growth is slowing. Chart II-3Mexico: A Moderate Cyclical Recovery Fourth, Mexico's business cycle is much more leveraged to the U.S. economy than to China's. In line with our view that U.S. growth will fare better than China's growth, the Mexican economy will likely outperform other EMs that are more leveraged to China. Finally, an important rationale behind our recommendation to maintain an overweight stance on Mexico is that Mexican risk assets are defensive plays within the broad EM universe. In other words, whenever there is broad EM turbulence and an ensuing flight to quality, Mexican risk assets tend to outperform their EM peers. This is even more likely to happen now that Mexican sovereign spreads are already elevated and local currency government bonds offer a very attractive yield relative to other EMs (Chart II-4). Chart II-4Mexican Domestic And U.S. Dollar Bonds Offer Value Still, a few words are warranted on the recent domestic political developments. Our view is that the latest measures announced by the incoming administration regarding the new airport and banking fees are more indicative of a strategy to test the markets before the AMLO administration takes office, rather than declaring war against both markets and investors. It is noteworthy how fast the AMLO government came out after each of these announcements to calm investors. This suggests to us that fears of Mexico taking an irreversible sharp political turn to the left are overblown. AMLO is likely to be pragmatic and deliberate in the way he pushes forward his policies. In a nutshell, our bias is that these announcements represent an attempt by the AMLO administration to promote competition and reduce rent-seeking activities in the economy. This can be negative for shareholders of incumbent large companies, as it will hurt corporate profits of oligopolies. However, in the long term these polices will be positive for overall economic growth as they will reduce the cost of doing business, appease structural inflation and boost the nation's competitiveness. From a structural perspective, these policies are positive for the currency and local bonds. One way to play this theme is to favor small-cap over large-cap companies. Given the oligopolistic structure of some industries, Mexican large-cap companies are much more likely to be hurt by the incoming administration's open competition policies than small-cap companies. As such, small-caps will likely outperform large-caps in Mexico over at least the next six to 12 months (Chart II-5). Moreover, small-caps are currently trading at a significant discount compared to large-caps, with the former trading at multiples that are half of the latter. Chart II-5Mexico: Small-Caps Will Outperform Large-Caps Investment Conclusion Dedicated EM investors should overweight Mexican equities, local currency bonds and sovereign credit within their respective universes. Concerning the exchange rate, we are maintaining our long MXN / short ZAR position. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Defying The Impossible Trinity? Indonesian stocks are attempting to rally and have lately outperformed the EM equity benchmark. The outlook for this bourse remains negative and we recommend investors to fade this rally and outperformance. Critically, Indonesian domestic interbank rates and corporate U.S. dollar bond yields are rising. Historically, this is a negative signal for share prices (Chart III-1, rates and yields are shown inverted). Chart III-1Rising Rates/Yields = Falling Stocks Weakening rupiah and rising interest rates are forcing the central bank (BI) into a policy dilemma: Should it defend the currency and allow interest rates to rise further or should it cap interest rates and let the currency find a market equilibrium? It appears the BI is trying to do both - to stop the currency from depreciating, while also capping or bringing down interbank rates simultaneously. This defies the Impossible Trinity thesis which stipulates that a central bank of a country with an open capital account has to choose between controlling either the exchange rate or interest rates. On the surface, it would seem that the BI has been focused on targeting a stable rupiah. The monetary authorities have sold foreign exchange reserves (Chart III-2, top panel), and raised the key policy rate. Chart III-2Aggressive Monetary Policy Tightening... Selling of foreign exchange reserves is a form of tightening as it drains the banking system's excess reserves at the central bank. Shrinking interbank liquidity, however, pushes up interbank rates and borrowing costs (Chart III-2, bottom panel). Higher borrowings costs not only make the currency more appealing to investors, but they also curb domestic demand and, thereby, improve the current account balance. This is an ultimate mechanism of how policy tightening leads to exchange rate stability. Yet the full picture of BI's policies is a lot murkier. While on the one hand, the central bank has sold its foreign exchange reserves and hiked policy rates to defend the rupiah, it has also offset some of the tightening by injecting local currency reserves into the banking system. Chart III-3 shows that the BI purchased/redeemed back central bank certificates from commercial banks, which has led to a sharp increase in commercial banks' excess reserves. Chart III-3... And Liquidity Injections By Central Bank Central bank liquidity injections are akin to monetary easing aimed at capping or even bringing down interbank rates. Hence, they come as a contradiction to the central bank's restrictive policies. If the BI chooses to stabilize the rupiah, then interbank rates and borrowing costs in general will have to rise and the economy will take a hit. Corporate earnings will then contract which will be bearish for the equity market. If the central bank opts to cap interbank rates, it has to inject as much liquidity (excess reserves) into the banking system as required. In this scenario, the currency could depreciate triggering capital flight and selloffs in equity and local bond markets. The BI can continue the muddle-through policy - offsetting or sterilizing its foreign exchange interventions by turning the backdoor liquidity taps on. These injections of local currency liquidity into the banking system could encourage speculation against the rupiah and allow banks to lend more, maintaining robust imports and a large current account deficit. It is not certain, but if the market perceives that interest rates are lower than warranted, the currency could very well depreciate amid this policy mix. In this scenario, the result could be a mix of gradual currency depreciation and somewhat higher interest rates. Financial markets will still do poorly in dollar terms. Overall, odds are high that the rupiah will resume its depreciation and interest rates will move higher. Indonesia's balance of payment dynamics remain a risk to the exchange rate. The current account deficit is still large and exports are heading south (Chart III-4). Chart III-4Current Account Deficit Is Large First, Chart III-5 illustrates that the sharp slowdown in the average manufacturing PMIs of Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Germany are pointing to an imminent contraction in Indonesian export volumes. Chart III-5Exports Are Heading South Second, thermal coal prices seem to be breaking down. Chart III-6 shows that the stock price of Adaro - a large Indonesian coal producing company - has already fallen by 45% in U.S. dollar terms since January, and is heralding a dismal outlook for coal prices. Chart III-6Coal Prices Are To Break Down Lower coal prices will shrink Indonesia's coal export revenues. The latter accounts for 12% of total Indonesian exports. In terms of the outlook for banks, which is a key equity sector, their share prices have been surprisingly resilient. Rising interest rates, however, will cause their NPLs to move higher hurting banks' profits, and pulling their share prices down (Chart III-7). Chart III-7Bank Stocks Are At Risk Finally, overall Indonesian equity valuations are still not attractive either in absolute terms or relative to the EM benchmark. Meanwhile, foreigners own 32% of the equity market and 37% of local currency bonds. As the rupiah slides, foreigners will rush to the exits, amplifying the currency depreciation. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for the rupiah is down. Continue underweighting Indonesian equities and bonds and continue shorting the rupiah versus the U.S. dollar. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows," dated November 15, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Cash flow from operations represents net cash flow from operating activities & excludes net cash flow financing and investing activities. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms," dated October 17, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Stimulus, Deleveraging And Growth," dated October 25, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Emering Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Strategic Asset Allocation For Emerging Markets," dated May 7 2013, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO," dated June 28 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration: The Fed will need to see further significant tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions before backing away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. With only 54 bps of rate hikes priced into the curve for the next 12 months, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Credit Spreads: A likely deceleration in U.S. economic growth during the next few quarters is a near-term risk for credit spreads, while waning demand for C&I loans could signal that the market's default outlook is too benign. We see a high risk of spread widening during the next few months, and would advocate only a neutral allocation to spread product on a 6-12 month horizon. TIPS: Breakeven inflation rates remain low because investors are much less fearful of high inflation than in the past. This will change over time as inflation continues to print near the Fed's target and expectations slowly shift to price more two-way risk into the inflation market. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Feature More Pain Required Fed Chairman Jerome Powell spoke at the Dallas Fed last week, amidst some expectation that he might try to assuage financial market concerns about the pace of monetary tightening. Instead, the Chairman struck a balanced tone that the market took as slightly dovish. A rate hike next month remains fully discounted, but investors are now split on whether the Fed will move again in March (Chart 1). The April 2019 fed funds futures contract implies a funds rate of 2.525% by next April, just barely above the lower-end of the 2.5% - 2.75% target band consistent with two more rate hikes. Chart 1Markets Doubt The Gradual Pace Of Hikes Chairman Powell's remarks did not alter our view of the Fed's reaction function, which we expect will result in continued quarterly rate hikes until a preponderance of evidence is consistent with a significant slow-down in U.S. economic activity. As we discussed in last week's report, it is highly likely that the combination of a waning fiscal impulse and a stronger U.S. dollar will cause U.S. growth to slow during the next few quarters.1 What remains uncertain is whether the slow-down will be severe enough for the Fed to pause its +25 bps per quarter tightening cycle. With only 54 bps of rate hikes priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, we do not anticipate a significant move higher in yields during the next few months. We also think credit spreads can widen further in the near-term as growth slows, and we recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon, given the less attractive risk/reward trade-off in corporate credit. Another reason to get defensive on credit spreads before increasing portfolio duration is that further spread widening and tighter financial conditions are likely a necessary pre-condition for the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes. Chairman Powell noted last week that financial conditions are an important input to the Fed's assessment of future economic growth, and also stressed that the Fed takes a broad view of financial conditions - encompassing not just the stock market but also the level of rates, credit spreads and other factors. With that in mind, we observe that there has been very little tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions during the past few months. In fact, the Chicago Fed's National Financial Conditions Index shows that financial conditions remain far more accommodative than when the Fed started hiking rates in December 2015 (Chart 2). Chart 2More Pain Needed For The Fed To Pause We conclude that much more financial market pain will be required before the Fed takes a dovish turn. As such, we are inclined to get more defensive with respect to credit, but to remain bearish on rates for now. Last week's release of the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey provided one more negative datapoint for corporate credit. While banks continue to ease standards on commercial & industrial loans, respondents reported that demand for such loans waned during the past three months (Chart 3). If the demand slow-down continues, then lending standards will eventually start to tighten and we will see more corporate defaults. For now, the slow-down in loan demand is a tentative signal that could be reversed next quarter, but it bears close monitoring as a potential warning that we are moving into the late stages of the credit cycle. Stay tuned. Chart 3Tighter Lending Standards Ahead? Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth will decelerate from a high level during the next few quarters, but the Fed will need to see further significant tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions before backing away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Investors should get more defensive on credit spreads, but maintain below-benchmark duration. Stick With TIPS We have been recommending overweight positions in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for some time, targeting a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. This range is consistent with prior periods when core inflation was well-anchored around the Fed's target.2 This recommendation suffered a set-back last week when long-maturity breakevens finally capitulated to the trend in other financial market indicators that have been pointing to weakness in global demand for several months (Chart 4). In fact, for most of this year falling commodity prices and a strengthening dollar have been signaling that global demand is on the decline. But until last week, TIPS breakevens had mostly bucked the trend. Chart 4Held Down By Global Demand The reason is that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain under the influence of two competing forces. Signals of waning global demand on the one hand, and rapidly rising U.S. inflation on the other. Last December, the 12-month rate of change in core PCE inflation stood at 1.64%. As of September it stands at 1.97%, within a hair of the Fed's 2% target. Likewise, year-over-year core CPI inflation has increased from 1.76% as of last December to 2.15% as of October. Survey measures of realized and expected price changes have similarly strengthened (Chart 5). Chart 5Pulled Up By U.S. Inflation The combination of strong U.S. inflation and waning global growth has left long-dated breakevens relatively trendless for most of the year. And although we think year-over-year U.S. core inflation will flatten-off during the next few months (see Box), we would remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month investment horizon. BOX Core Inflation: Grappling With Base Effects Year-over-year core CPI inflation was 2.15% in October, down slightly from 2.17% in September. Meanwhile, our Base Effects Indicator ticked up from 3 to 4 but it remains below the critical 5.5 level (Chart 6). Chart 6Expect Year-Over-Year Core CPI To Flatten-Off In our Weekly Report from September 4, 2018, we showed that when our Base Effects Indicator - an indicator derived from near-term rates of change in core CPI - is below 5.5, 12-month core inflation is much more likely to fall than rise during the next six months. While pipeline inflation measures and the tightness of the labor market both suggest that the uptrend in core inflation will remain intact, we expect that year-over-year core inflation will flatten-off during the next six months, at levels close to the Fed's target. Our view is that as long as inflation remains sufficiently close to the Fed's target, over time, investors will start to price two-way risk back into the inflation market. It simply takes time for expectations to fully adapt to the new economic reality. Expectations Are Slow To Adapt To illustrate why we remain optimistic that TIPS breakevens have further upside, we created what we call our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year breakeven rate (Chart 7). The model combines both forward-looking and backward-looking measures of inflation, and is premised on the idea that investors are slow to fully adapt their expectations to a changing environment. Chart 7Adaptive Expectations Model For example, even though core inflation is now close to the Fed's target on a 12-month rate of change basis, investors remain scarred by the past decade when it was stubbornly low. The long period of low inflation makes it much more difficult for investors to believe that the regime is finally shifting. Our Adaptive Expectations Model includes three variables: The 120-month rate of change in core CPI inflation (annualized) The 12-month rate of change in headline CPI inflation The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (full data set measure) The 120-month rate of change is included to capture the impact from investors' long memories when it comes to inflation. The 12-month rate of change is included to capture the more recent trend in prices and the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge is included to provide a forward-looking measure of inflationary pressures in the economy. Notice in Table 1 that the 120-month rate of change in core CPI carries much greater importance in our model than the other two variables. Table 1Adaptive Expectations Model Regression Output (2003 To Present) Turning back to Chart 7, we see that the current 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is more or less in line with our model's fair value. We also see that two of the model's three variables (12-month headline CPI and the Underlying Inflation Gauge) have returned to pre-crisis levels. It is only the 120-month rate of change in core CPI that is preventing breakevens from reaching our target range. In other words, even though inflation is more or less back to target levels, investors still doubt whether we have transitioned out of the prior low-inflation regime. The Fear Of High Inflation Is Missing Digging further into the data, we see that the real difference between today and the pre-crisis period is that investors are now much less worried about significantly higher inflation. A break-down of individual responses from the Survey of Professional Forecasters shows that, as in 2004, most forecasters think inflation will average between 2.01% and 2.5% during the next 10 years. But today, only 7% of forecasters think inflation will average above 2.51%. In 2004, 32% of forecasters thought inflation would average above 2.51% over the next 10 years (Chart 8). Chart 8High Inflation Is Less Of A Worry This assessment of likely inflation outcomes is backed-up by the economic data. The St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure is a macro model designed to output the probability that inflation falls into different ranges over the next year.3 Here again, we see that the probability of inflation being between 1.5% and 2.5% is similar to its pre-crisis level, but the probability of inflation exceeding 2.5% is much lower (Chart 9). Chart 9Price Pressures Even looking at only the post-crisis period shows that it is the upper-tail of the inflation expectations distribution that is lagging. The Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers has been asking respondents to place probabilities on different long-run inflation outcomes since 2011. Chart 10 shows how the most recent responses - from September - compare to the post-2011 range. It shows that respondents are more certain than at any time since 2011 that inflation will be between 2.01% and 2.5% on average during the next 10 years, but are also more doubtful that inflation will be 2.51% or higher. Chart 10Primary Dealer Inflation Expectations Bottom Line: Even though 12-month inflation has more or less returned to the Fed's target, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below levels that have been historically consistent with that target. Breakevens remain low because investors are much less fearful of elevated inflation (> 2.5%) than in the past. This will change over time as inflation continues to print near the Fed's target and expectations slowly adapt to the new regime. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Sweet Spot On The Yield Curve", dated November 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we arrive at that range please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/introducing-the-st-louis-fed-price-pressures-measure/   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Falling Oil Prices & Bond Yields: Murky trends in global growth data, at a time of tight labor markets and gently rising inflation, are preventing a full recovery of risk assets after the October correction. A new concern is the falling price of oil, although this looks more corrective than a true change in trend. For now, maintain a cautious stance within global fixed income portfolios - neutral on corporate credit, below-benchmark on duration exposure. ECB Corporate Bond Purchases: The ECB is set to end the new buying phase of its Asset Purchase Program next month. This suggests that the best days in this cycle for European corporate credit are behind us, as the ECB will not treat its corporate bond purchases any differently than its government bond purchases. Both are going to stop. Remain underweight euro area corporate debt, both investment grade & high-yield. Feature Are Falling Oil Prices Telling Us Something About Global Growth? Thus far in November, global financial markets have reversed some of the steep losses incurred during the "Red October" correction. This has occurred for U.S. equities (the S&P 500 fell -8% last month but has risen +4% so far this month), U.S. corporate bonds (high-yield spreads widened +71bps last month and have tightened -19bps this month) and emerging market hard currency debt (USD-denominated sovereign spreads widened +27bps last month and have tightened -9bps this month). One market that has not rebounded, however, is oil. The benchmark Brent oil price fell -11% in October, but has fallen another -7% in November. This has been enough to nearly wipe out the entire +20% run-up seen in August and September. Global government bond yields have been very sensitive to swings in oil markets in recent years. Such a large decline in the oil price as has been seen of late would typically result in sharp drop in government bond yields, driven by falling inflation expectations. That correlation has been holding up in the major economies outside the U.S., where nominal yields and inflation expectations are lower than the levels seen before the October peak in oil prices. Nominal U.S. Treasury yields, by contrast, remain resilient, despite the fall in TIPS breakevens (Chart of the Week). This is because real Treasury yields have been climbing higher as investors acquiesce to the steady hawkish message from the Fed by making upward revisions to the expected path of U.S. policy rates. Chart of the WeekShifting Correlations The biggest impediment holding back a full recovery of the October losses for global risk assets is uncertainty over the global growth outlook. While the U.S. economy continues to churn along at an above-trend pace, there are signs that tighter monetary policy is starting to have an impact. Both housing and capital spending have cooled, although not yet by enough to pose a terminal threat to the current long business cycle expansion. The outlook for growth outside the U.S. is far more muddled, adding to investor confusion. China has seen a clear growth deceleration throughout 2018, but the recent reads from imports and the Li Keqiang index suggest that growth may be stabilizing or even modestly re-accelerating (Chart 2). Our China strategists are not convinced that this is anything more than a ramping up of imports and production in advance of the full imposition of U.S. trade tariffs, especially with Chinese policymakers reluctant to deploy significant fiscal or monetary stimulus to boost growth. Chart 2Mixed Messages On Growth A similar mixed read is evident in overall global trade data. World import growth has also slowed throughout 2018, but has shown some stabilization of late (second panel). A similar pattern can be seen in capital goods imports within the major developed economies. Our global leading economic indicator (LEI) continues to contract, but the pace of the decline has been moderating and our global LEI diffusion index - which measures the number of countries with a rising LEI versus those with a falling LEI - may be bottoming out (third panel). There are also large, and growing, divergences within the major developed economies. The manufacturing purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) for the euro area and the U.K. have been falling steadily since the start of the year, but the PMIs have recently ticked up in the U.S. and Japan (Chart 3). A similar pattern can be seen in the OECD LEIs, which have retreated from the latest cyclical peaks by far more in the U.K. (-1.6%) and euro area (-1.2%) than in the U.S. (-0.3%) and Japan (-0.6%). Chart 3Diverging Growth, Diverging Bond Yields With such mixed messages from the macro data, investors understandably lack conviction. The backdrop does not look soft enough yet to threaten global profit growth and justify sharply lower equity prices and wider corporate bond spreads. Yet the growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world are intensifying, creating a backdrop of rising U.S. real interest rates and a stronger U.S. dollar. That combination is typically toxic for emerging markets, but the impact of that would be muted this time if China were to indeed see a genuine growth reacceleration. This macro backdrop lines up with our current major fixed income investment recommendations. We suggest only a neutral allocation to global corporate bonds given the uncertainty over growth, but favoring the U.S. over Europe and emerging markets given the clearer evidence of a strong U.S. economy. At the same time, we continue to recommend below-benchmark overall portfolio duration exposure, but with regional allocations favoring countries where central banks will have difficulty raising interest rates (Japan, Australia, core Europe, the U.K.) versus nations where policymakers are likely to tighten monetary policy (U.S., Canada). However, the latest dip in oil should not be ignored. A more sustained breakdown of oil prices could force us to downgrade corporate bonds and raise duration exposure - if it were a sign that global growth was slowing and inflation expectations had peaked. The current pullback in oil has occurred alongside a decelerating trend in global economic data surprises, after speculators had ramped up long positions in oil and prices were stretched relative to the 200-day moving average (Chart 4). This suggests that the latest move has been corrective, and not a change in trend, although the burden of proof now falls on the evolution of global growth, both in absolute terms and relative to investor expectations. Chart 4Oil Correction Or Growth Scare? Bottom Line: Murky trends in global growth data, at a time of tight labor markets and gently rising inflation, are preventing a full recovery of risk assets after the October correction. A new concern is the falling price of oil, although this looks more corrective than a true change in trend. For now, maintain a cautious stance within global fixed income portfolios - neutral on corporate credit, below-benchmark on duration exposure. European Corporates Are About To Lose A Major Buyer Last week, we published a Special Report discussing the ECB's options at next month's critical monetary policy meeting.1 One of our conclusions was that the central bank will deliver on its commitment to end the new purchases phase of its Asset Purchase Program (APP) at year-end. The bulk of the assets in the APP are government bonds, but the ECB has also been buying corporate debt in the APP since June 2016. The ECB is set to end those purchases at the end of December, to the likely detriment of euro area corporate bond returns. The Corporate Sector Purchase Program (CSPP), as it is formally known, has been a targeted tool used by the ECB to ease financial conditions for euro area companies. This has occurred through three main channels: tighter corporate bond spreads, greater access for companies to issue debt in the corporate primary market, and increased bank lending to non-financial corporations. The CSPP was intended to complement the ECB's other monetary stimulus measures, like negative interest rates and the buying of government debt. The first CSPP purchases were made on June 8, 2016. The euro area corporate bond market responded as expected, with investment grade spreads tightening from 128bps to 86bps by the end of 2017. There were spillovers into high-yield bonds, as well, with spreads falling -129bps over the same period (Chart 5). Since then, however, spreads have steadily widened and European corporates have underperformed their U.S. equivalents. This suggests that some of the relative performance of euro area credit may have simply reflected the relative strength of the euro area economy compared to the U.S. The greater acceleration of euro area growth in 2017 helped euro area corporates outperform U.S. equivalents, while the opposite has held true in 2018. Chart 5ECB Buying Does Not Control European Credit Spreads The CSPP has operated with a defined set of rules governing the purchases. Bank debt was excluded, as were bonds rated below investment grade. Only debt issued by corporations established in the euro area were eligible for the CSPP, although bonds from euro-based companies with parents who were not based in the euro area were also eligible. The latest update on the holdings data from the ECB shows that there are just under 1,200 bonds in the CSPP portfolio. Yet despite the ECB's best efforts to maintain some degree of portfolio diversification, the impact of the CSPP on euro area corporate bond markets was fairly consistent across countries and sectors (Chart 6). Italy is the notable diverging country this year, as the rising risk premiums on all Italian financial assets have pushed corporate bond yields and spreads well above the levels seen in core Europe, even with the ECB owning some Italian names in the CSPP. Chart 6Spread Convergence During CSPP There was also convergence of yields and spreads among credit tiers during the first eighteen months of the CSPP, with valuations on BBB-rated debt falling towards the levels on AA-rated and A-rated bonds (Chart 7). That convergence has gone into reverse in 2018, with BBB-rated spreads widening by +55bps year-to-date (this compares to a smaller +25bps increase in U.S. BBB-rated corporate spreads). A surge in the available supply of BBB-rated euro area bonds is a likely factor in that spread widening, as evidenced by the sharp rise in the market capitalization of the BBB segment of the Bloomberg Barclays euro area corporate bond index (top panel). Chart 7A Worsening Supply/Demand Balance For European BBBs? More broadly, the CSPP has helped the ECB's goal of boosting the ability of European companies to issue debt in primary bond markets. Traditionally, European firms have used bank loans as their main source of borrowed funds, with only the largest firms being able to issue debt in credit markets. That has changed during the CSPP era. According to data from the ECB, gross debt issuance by euro area non-financial companies (NFCs) has risen by €104bn since the start of the CSPP, taking issuance back to levels not seen since 2014 (Chart 8). The bulk of the issuance has been in shorter-maturity bonds, but there has been a notable increase in the issuance of longer-dated debt since the CSPP began. Chart 8Bank Funding Versus Bond Funding The ECB's role as a marginal buyer of bonds in the primary, or newly-issued, market has helped boost that gross issuance figure. The share of bonds that the ECB owns in the CSPP that was issued in the primary market has gone from 6% soon after the CSPP started to the current 18% (Chart 9). The growth in euro area non-financial corporate debt went from 6% to over 10% during the peak of the CSPP buying between mid-2016 and end-2017, but has since decelerated to 7%. At the same time, the annual growth in loans to NFCs, which was essentially zero during the first eighteen months of the CSPP, has accelerated to 2% over the course of 2018. Chart 9More Bank Loans, Less Debt Issuance In other words, euro area companies had been substituting bank financing for bond financing in the CSPP "era", but have since shifted back towards bank loans in 2018. That shift in financing was most notable among CSPP-eligible companies, particularly those smaller firms that had not be able to issue debt in the primary market pre-CSPP, according to an ECB analysis conducted earlier this year.2 From the point of view of the investible euro area corporate bond market, however, even larger companies that have done that shift in bank financing to bond financing have seen no noticeable increase in aggregate corporate leverage. In Chart 10, we show our bottom-up version of our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the euro area. This indicator is designed to measure the aggregate financial health of euro area companies using financial ratios incorporating actual data from individual companies. We separated out the list of companies used in that CHM that are currently held in the CSPP portfolio and created a "CSPP-only" version of the CHM (the blue lines in all panels). All issuers that were eligible for inclusion in the CSPP, but whose bonds were not actually purchased by the ECB, are used to create a "non-CSPP" CHM (the black dotted lines). Chart 10No Fundamental Changes From CSPP As can be seen in the chart, there is no material difference in any of the ratios for bonds within or outside the CSPP. The one notable exception is short-term liquidity, where the ratios were much lower for names purchased by the ECB than for those that were not. This lends credence to the idea that the CSPP most helped firms that were more liquidity-constrained, likely smaller companies. The biggest change in any of the ratios has been in interest coverage, but that has been for both CSPP and non-CSPP issuers, suggesting a common factor outside of ECB buying - zero/negative ECB policy rates, ECB purchases of government bonds that helped reduce all European borrowing rates - has been the main driver of lowering interest costs. Looking ahead, the ECB is likely to stop the net new purchases of its CSPP program when it does the same for the full APP next month. All of which is occurring for the same reason - the euro area economy is deemed by the central bank to no longer need the support of large-scale asset purchases given a full employment labor market and gently rising inflation. As we discussed in our Special Report last week, the ECB has other options available to them if there is a reduction in euro area banks' capacity or willingness to lend, such as introducing a new Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operation (TLTRO). Continuing with unconventional measures involving direct ECB involvement in financial markets, like buying corporate debt, is no longer necessary. Our euro area CHM suggests that there are no major problems with European corporate health that require a wider credit risk premium. We still have our reservations, however, about recommending significant euro area corporate bond exposure while the ECB is set to end its asset purchase program. New buyers will certainly come in to replace the lost demand from the elimination of CSPP purchases, but private investors will likely require higher yields and spreads than the central bank - especially if the current period of slowing euro area growth were to continue. Bottom Line: The ECB is set to end the new buying phase of its Asset Purchase Program next month. This suggests that the best days for European corporate debt for the current cycle are behind us, as the ECB will not treat its corporate bond purchases any different than its government bond purchases. Both are going to stop. Remain underweight euro area corporate debt, both investment grade and high-yield. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Evaluating The ECB's Options In December", dated November 6th 2018, available at gfis.bcareserach.com and fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 The ECB report on its CSPP program was published in the March 2018 edition of the ECB Economic Bulletin, which can be found here. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/html/eb201804.en.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

As is tradition, during client visits in Europe last week, I had the pleasure of reconnecting with Ms. Mea, a long-term BCA client.1 It was our third encounter and, as always, Ms. Mea was eager to delve into our reasoning, challenge our views and strategy, as well as gauge our conviction level. We devote this week's report to key parts of our dialogue. I hope clients find it insightful and beneficial. Ms. Mea: Isn't the EM selloff and underperformance already overextended? I am afraid you will overstay your negative view on EM risk assets as happened in 2016. What are you watching to ensure you alter your stance as and when appropriate? Answer: I am very cognizant of not overstaying my negative stance on EM. I viewed the EM/China rally from their 2016 lows as a mid-cycle outperformance in a structural downtrend.2 Consequently, I argued the rally was not sustainable and that it was a matter of time before EMs and China-plays entered into a new bear market. Barring perfect timing, it was difficult to make money during that rally. Investors who averaged in EM stocks and local bonds over the past three years (including late 2015/early 2016 lows) and did not sell early this year have not made money. The current down-leg in EM financial markets may be the last phase of the bear market/underperformance that began in 2011, and it will eventually create a major buying opportunity. That said, this bear market will likely last much longer and be larger in magnitude than many investors expect. In the recent report titled EMs Are In A Bear Market, I elaborated on why this is a bear market and not just a correction. We also discussed how much further it might go.3 Big-picture macro themes - such as China/EM credit excesses and misallocation of capital - have informed my core views in recent years. Notwithstanding, I am watching various market signals that often lead economic data and are typically early in signaling a reversal in financial markets. Just a few examples of market signals and indicators I am following closely: Turns in EM corporate bond yields often coincide with reversals in EM stocks. For now, EM corporate bond yields are rising, and hence they do not signal a bottom in EM share prices (Chart I-1, top panel). Chart I-1EM/Asian Corporate Bonds Signal Downside Risks To Share Prices The same holds true for Emerging Asian markets: surging corporate bond yields are heralding further declines in Asian share prices (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Our Risk-on versus Safe-Haven (RSH) currency ratio positively correlates with EM equity prices. The RSH ratio has recently rebounded but has not broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Hence, there is no meaningful buy signal as of yet. Chart I-2Our Market Risk Indicator The annual rate of change of this indicator leads the global trade cycles and entails further slowdown in global trade (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Global Trade Slowdown Is Not Over Finally, a number of EM equity indexes - small-caps and an equal-weighted index - have broken below their 3-year moving averages (Chart I-4). This entails that the selloff in EM stocks is very broad-based. It could also entail that the overall EM index will likely break below its 3-year moving average as well (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-4EM Equity Selloff Has Been Broad-Based Apart from market signals, I am also monitoring economic data, and so far, there are few signs of a revival in global trade or EM growth. The EM manufacturing PMI is falling (Chart I-5, top panel). Manufacturing output growth in Asia and Germany are decelerating sharply (Chart I-5, bottom panel). When global trade growth underwhelms, EM risk assets and currencies fare poorly. Chart I-5Global Growth And EM Credit Spreads Remarkably, both panels of Chart I-5 corroborate that the key reason for the EM selloff this year has not been the Federal Reserve tightening but the deceleration in global trade. We do not foresee a reversal in global trade and China/EM growth deceleration in the coming months. This heralds maintaining our negative view on EM risk assets and currencies for now. Ms. Mea: It is true that China is slowing, but policymakers are also stimulating and a lot of bad news may already be priced into China-related markets. Why do you believe there is more downside in China-related markets and EM risk assets from today's levels? Answer: Indeed, China is easing policy, but policy stimulus has so far been limited. It also works with a time lag. First, the bottoms in the money and the combined credit and fiscal spending impulses preceded the trough in EM and commodities by 6 months at the bottom in 2015 and by about 15 months at the top in 2017 (Chart I-6). Even if the money as well as credit and fiscal impulses bottom today it could take several more months before the selloff in EM financial markets and commodities prices abates. Chart I-6China: Money, Credit And Fiscal Impulses And Financial Markets Second, the stimulus has so far been limited. The recently increased issuance of special bonds by local governments was already part of this year's budget. Simply, it was delayed early this year and has been pushed into the third quarter. In addition, there are reports that 42% of this recent special bond issuance will be used for rural land purchases rather than infrastructure spending.4 The former will not boost economic activity and demand for raw materials and industrial goods. Additionally, the ongoing regulatory tightening of banks and non-bank financial institutions will hinder these institutions' willingness and ability to extend credit, despite lower interest rates. We discussed in a recent report5 that both the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism and the time lag between policy easing and a bottom in the business cycle are contingent on the money multiplier (creditors' willingness to lend and borrowers' readiness to borrow) and the velocity of money (marginal propensity to spend among households and companies). On both accounts, odds are that the transmission mechanism will be slower and somewhat impaired this time around than in the past. Chart I-7 illustrates that the marginal propensity to spend/invest by companies is diminishing, and it has historically defined the primary trend in industrial metals prices. Chart I-7China: Companies Are Turning More Cautious On Capex Third, most of the fiscal stimulus - tax cuts and income tax deductions - are designed to raise household incomes. This will primarily help spending on some consumer goods and services. Yet, there will be little help for property sales, construction and infrastructure spending. These three types of spending drive most of the demand for commodities, materials and industrial goods. In turn, industrial goods, machinery, commodities and materials account for about 80% of total Chinese imports. Hence, the channels by which China affects the rest of the world are via imports of capital goods, materials and commodities. Overall, China's tax reforms will have little bearing on its imports from other countries. The latter are heavily exposed to the mainland's construction and infrastructure spending, which in turn are driven by the Chinese credit cycle. This is why we spend so much time analyzing mainland money and credit cycles. Finally, the significance of U.S. import tariffs for the Chinese economy should be put into perspective. China's exports to the U.S. make up only 3.6% of its GDP. This compares with the mainland's total exports of 20% and capital spending of 42% of GDP (Chart I-8). Chart I-8What Drives China's Growth Consequently, capital spending is much more important to the Middle Kingdom's growth than its shipments to the U.S. That said, the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China is likely already negatively affecting overall business and consumer confidence in China (Chart I-9). Chart I-9China: Service Sector Is Moderating In addition, Chart I-10 illustrates that China's manufacturing PMI for export orders have plunged, signifying an imminent slump in its exports. This could be due to its shipments not only to the U.S. but also to developing economies, which account for a larger share of total exports than shipments to the U.S. and EU combined. Considerable depreciation in EM currencies has made their imports more expensive, dampening their capacity to import. Chart I-10Chinese Exports Are At Risk In brief, China's growth will continue to disappoint, weighing on China plays in financial markets. Ms. Mea: Why has strong U.S. growth not helped global trade, China and EM in general? How do U.S. economic and financial markets enter into your analysis about the world and EM? Answer: One common mistake that many commentators make is to form a view on the U.S. growth outlook and then extrapolate it to the rest of the world. The U.S. economy is still the largest, but it is no longer the sole dominant force in the global economy. Chart I-11 shows that U.S. and EU annual imports are equal to $2.5 and $2.2 trillion, respectively. Combined annual imports of China and the rest of EM amount to $6 trillion - hence, they are much larger than the aggregate imports of U.S. and EU. This is why global trade can deviate from time to time from U.S. domestic demand cycles. Chart I-11EM Imports Are Larger Than U.S. And EU Imports Together That said, due to their sheer size, U.S. financial markets have a much larger impact on global markets than U.S. imports do on global trade. EM financial markets are greatly influenced by their counterparts in the U.S. In this respect, we have a few observations: U.S. growth is robust, the labor market is tight and core inflation is rising. Barring a major deflation shock from EM, the path of least resistance for U.S. bond yields and the fed funds rate is up. Continued rate hikes by the Fed constitute a major menace to EM risk assets. For now, the growth divergence between the U.S. and rest of the world will continue to be manifested in a stronger U.S. dollar. This is a bad omen for EMs. Chart I-12A Risk To U.S. Share Prices Rising U.S. corporate bond yields have historically been associated with lower U.S. share prices, and presently portend a further drop in American equities (Chart I-12). Finally, the surge in equity market leaders - specifically, new economy stocks - has been on par with previous bubbles, as shown in Chart I-13. Chart I-13History Of Financial Bubbles It is impossible to know whether or not this is a bubble that has already reached its top. But the magnitude and speed of the rally, at minimum, warrant a consolidation phase. On the whole, Fed tightening, rising corporate bond yields, a strong dollar and elevated valuations warrant further correction in U.S. share prices. This will reinforce the downtrend in EM risk assets. Ms. Mea: Are fundamentals in many EM countries not better today than they were amid the taper tantrum in 2013? Specifically, current account balances in many developing nations have improved and their currencies have cheapened. Answer: Your observation is correct - current account deficits have improved and currencies have become much cheaper than before. Nevertheless, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions to turn bullish: First, marginal shifts in balance of payments drive exchange rates. Even though current account deficits are currently smaller and currencies are moderately cheap in many EMs, a deterioration in their current accounts due to weakening exports in general and falling commodities prices in particular will depress their currencies. In this context, China's imports are critical. As they decelerate, EM ex-China's current account balances will deteriorate and their exchange rates will depreciate. Second, current account surpluses do not always preclude currency depreciation. Chart I-14 shows that the Korean won, the Taiwanese dollar and the Malaysian ringgit experienced bouts of depreciation, despite running current account surpluses. Chart I-14Current Account Surpluses And Exchange Rates Third, emerging Asian currencies are at a risk from another spell of RMB depreciation. Chart I-15 illustrates that CNY/USD exchange rate correlates with the interest rate differential between China and the U.S. As the Fed hikes rates further and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) keep interest rates stable, the yuan will likely depreciate against the greenback. Chart I-15CNY/USD And Interest Rates Despite capital controls, it seems the interest rate differential affects the exchange rate in China too. Given the ongoing growth slowdown and declining return on capital in China, there are rising pressures for capital to exit the country. If the authorities push up interest rates to make the yuan attractive to hold, it will hurt the already overleveraged and weak economy. If the PBoC reduces interest rates further to help the real economy, the RMB will come under depreciation pressure. Given the constraints Chinese policymakers are facing, reducing interest rates and allowing the yuan to depreciate further is the least-worst outcome for the nation. Yet, this will rattle Asian currencies and risk assets. Finally, EM currency valuations are but particularly cheap, except Argentina, Turkey and Mexico as depicted in Chart I-16A & Chart I-16B. When currency valuations are not at an extreme, they usually do not matter for the medium-term outlook. Chart I-16AEM Currency Valuations Chart I-16BEM Currency Valuations As to the EM fixed-income market, exchange rates are the key driver of their performance. Currencies depreciation causes a selloff in high-yielding local currency bonds and typically leads to credit spread widening. The latter occurs because U.S. dollar debt becomes more difficult to service when the value of local currency declines. Besides, EM currencies usually weaken amid a global trade slowdown and falling commodities prices. The latter two undermine issuers' revenues and their capacity to service debt, warranting wider credit spreads. Ms. Mea: What about equity valuations? Aren't they cheap? Chart I-17EM Equity Multiples Answer: EM stocks are not very cheap. Our composite valuation indicator based on a 20% trimmed mean of trailing and forward P/Es, PBV, price-to-cash earnings and price-to-dividend ratios denotes a slightly attractive valuation (Chart I-17). According to our cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM equities are also moderately cheap (Chart I-18). Chart I-18EM Equities: Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio In short, EM equity valuations are modestly cheap. As with currencies, however, unless valuations are at an extreme (say, one or two-standard deviations from their mean), they may not matter for a while. Barring extreme over- or undervaluation, share prices are typically driven by profit cycles. Importantly, EM corporate earnings are set to decelerate further and probably contract in the first half of 2019 (Chart I-19). If this scenario transpires, share prices will drop further, regardless of valuations. Chart I-19EM Corporate Earnings Are At Risk Ms. Mea: Why don't you write about risks to your view? And, I would like to use this opportunity to ask what are the risks to your view presently? Answer: The basis of why I do not write about the risks to my view is as follows: The risks to a view are often the cases when the key pillars of analysis do not play out. It follows that in these cases, the risks to the view are obvious and there is no need to write about them. To sum up our discussion today, the key pillars of my view are: China's policy stimulus has so far been moderate and the stimulus usually works with a time lag. Additionally, the combination of the regulatory tightening on banks and non-bank financial organizations and the lingering credit and property market excesses in China will generate a growth slowdown that will be longer and deeper than the markets currently expect. The Fed will continue ratcheting up rates as U.S. core inflation is grinding higher. The combination of the above three will produce weaker global growth, a stronger U.S. dollar, and lower commodities prices. All in all, these are bearish for EM risk assets. It is evident that if these themes and assumptions are incorrect, the view will be wrong. Hence, writing that the risks to my view are that my assumptions and themes are mistaken is nothing other than tautology. That said, there are seldom cases when the underlying economic themes and the assumptions are valid, yet the investment recommendations are amiss. These are, in fact, true risks to the view and they are worthy of discussion. Yet, identifying in advance what could go wrong when the analysis and assumption are accurate is very difficult. Presently, I can think of one reason why my investment recommendations could be erroneous even if my economic themes end up being largely valid: It is the shortage of investable assets worldwide relative to capital that is looking to be invested. Quantitative easing programs in the advanced economies have shrunk the size of investable assets. As a result, too much money is chasing too few assets. Consequently, the risk to my view is that EM assets never become sufficiently cheap and that fundamentals do not matter that much. In other words, investors could rush back into EM risk assets despite the poor growth backdrop and not-so-cheap valuations. This is akin to a game of musical chairs where the number of participants is greater than the number of chairs. To complicate things, some chairs are broken, i.e., some assets are of bad quality. As a result, game participants (i.e., investors) are now facing a tough choice between (1) being somewhat prudent and risking being left without a chair; or (2) rushing in and getting either a good chair or a broken chair (depending on luck). Applying this musical chairs analogy, buying EM risk assets at the current juncture is similar to rushing in and hoping to get a good chair. It is a very high-risk bet and success is contingent on luck. In my subjective assessment, there is about a 30% chance that this strategy - buying EM risk now - will be successful with 70% odds favoring being risk averse for the time being. The latter entails staying with a defensive strategy in EM and underweighting/shorting EM versus DM. Ms. Mea: What is your recommended country allocation currently? Answer: In the EM equity space, our overweights are Korea, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Russia, and central Europe. Our underweights, on the other hand, are India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, South Africa and Peru. Chart I-20 demonstrates the performance of our fully invested EM equity portfolio versus the EM MSCI benchmark. This portfolio is constructed based on our country recommendations. Hence, it is a measure of alpha that clients could derive from our country calls and geographical equity allocations. Chart I-20EMS's Fully-Invested Model Equity Portfolio Performance This fully invested equity model portfolio has outperformed the MSCI EM equity benchmark by about 65% with very low volatility since its initiation in May 2008. This translates into 500-basis-points of compounded outperformance per year. In the currency space, we continue recommending shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the dollar: ZAR, IDR, MYR, KRW and CLP. The full list of our country recommendations for equity, local fixed-income, credit and currency markets are available below. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, "Where Are EMs In The Cycle?" dated May 3, 2018 and "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," dated July 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 18, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-21/china-s-195-billion-debt-splurge-has-less-bang-than-you-think 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 25, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Chart 12015 Repeat?   Credit spreads widened as Treasury yields rose in October, bringing to mind the experience of 2015 when tight monetary policy and flagging global growth combined to cause a large drawdown in spread product excess returns. Chart 1 shows the familiar pattern. The market's rate hike expectations held constant throughout most of 2015. Meanwhile, falling commodity prices signaled weakness in global demand. Eventually, the combination of tight money and slowing growth was too much for the market to bear. Junk sold off in late-2015 and didn't recover until after the Fed scaled back its rate hike plans. It's hard to ignore today's similar set-up. Commodity prices are once again falling and the Fed appears committed to lifting rates. Unless global demand rebounds, we could be in for a repeat of late-2015's ugly price performance. The best way to position U.S. bond portfolios for this risk is to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration, and to scale back exposure to credit risk. We advocate nothing more than a neutral allocation to spread product, with an up-in-quality bias. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 82 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -98 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 12 bps on the month, and currently sits at 117 bps. Recent spread widening has returned some value to the corporate bond space. The 12-month breakeven spread for Baa-rated corporate bonds is back up to its 36th percentile relative to history, while the same spread for A-rated securities is at its 18th percentile (Chart 2). Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Though spreads are somewhat more attractive, caution remains warranted in the corporate bond space. Corporate profit growth has only just managed to keep pace with debt growth during the past few quarters (bottom panel). In other words, even a mild deceleration in profits will be enough for leverage to resume its uptrend (panel 4). As we observed in last week's report, Q3's sharp decline in non-residential investment spending might signal that weak foreign growth is finally starting to weigh on profits.1 The possibility of rising leverage in the coming quarters leads us to recommend an up-in-quality bias within our neutral allocation to corporate bonds. To pick up extra spread we prefer a strategy of favoring long-maturity credits over short maturities. In last week's report we showed that the long-end of the credit curve outperforms (in excess return terms) when Treasury yields rise. High-Yield: Neutral High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 159 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +161 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 55 bps on the month, and currently sits at 363 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for default losses is currently 259 bps, above the long-run mean of 247 bps (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses are in line with our expectations during the next 12 months and junk spreads remain constant, we should expect high-yield returns of 259 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. If we assume that spreads tighten enough to bring our default-adjusted spread back to its long-run average, we would expect an excess return of 306 bps. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview The main reason for continued caution on junk bonds is that the default loss expectation embedded in our excess spread calculation is extremely low relative to history (panel 4). Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.04% during the next 12 months. Default losses have rarely come in below that level. Further, the recent trend in job cut announcements makes it even more likely that default losses surprise to the upside during the next 12 months. Job cut announcements are highly correlated with the default rate, and while they remain low relative to history, they have clearly formed a trough this year (bottom panel). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation*   Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread increased 2 bps on the month. A 4 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was partially offset by a 2 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The OAS has widened in recent months, though it remains tight compared to its average pre-crisis level (Chart 4). The overall nominal MBS spread remains very low, but for good reason (panel 4). Chart 4MBS Market Overview The two most important drivers of MBS excess returns are: (i) mortgage refinancing activity and (ii) bank lending standards. Refi activity is already depressed and will stay muted as interest rates rise. Bank lending standards eased in Q2 for the 17th consecutive quarter, but remain tight relative to history. In response to a special question from the Fed's July Senior Loan Officer Survey, respondents noted that mortgage lending standards are in the tighter end of the range since 2005. This suggests that further gradual easing is likely going forward. With lending standards easing and refi activity low, the macro environment is consistent with tight MBS spreads. We maintain only a neutral allocation to the sector for now, but will look to upgrade when it comes time to further pare exposure to corporate credit risk. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 55 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -16 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 184 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -118 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed by 94 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -60 bps. Local Authorities underperformed by 28 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +63 bps. Supranationals underperformed Treasuries by 3 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +13 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +5 bps. Sovereign debt has underperformed this year, but spreads remain expensive compared to U.S. corporate credit. In a recent report we looked at USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt by country and found that only a few nations offer excess spread compared to equivalently-rated U.S. corporates.2 Those countries being Argentina, Turkey, Lebanon and Ukraine at the low-end of the credit spectrum and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE at the upper-end. We continue to view the Local Authority sector as very attractive. Not only does the sector offer elevated spreads (Chart 5), but it is dominated by taxable municipal securities which are insulated from weak foreign growth and U.S. dollar strength. Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +105 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 1% in October, and currently sits at 87% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly above the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview But despite the low yield ratio, we see tax-exempt municipal yields as quite attractive, especially at the long-end of the curve. For example, we observe that a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond carries a yield of 2.55% versus a yield of 3.62% for a comparable corporate bond index. This implies that an investor with an effective tax rate of 30% should be indifferent between the two bonds. Moving further out the curve, the breakeven tax rate falls to 23% at the 10-year maturity point and is even lower at the 20-year maturity point. Further, unlike the corporate sector, state & local government balance sheets are relatively insulated from weakening foreign economic growth and a rising U.S. dollar. While our Municipal Health Monitor has bounced in recent quarters, it remains below zero, consistent with ratings upgrades outpacing downgrades (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Favor The 7-Year Bullet Over The 1/20 Barbell The Treasury curve bear-steepened in October. The 2/10 slope steepened 4 bps and the 5/30 slope steepened 16 bps. As a result of the large curve steepening, our position long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell returned +67 bps on the month, and is now up +107 bps since inception. However, the curve steepening also means that steepener trades focused on the belly (5-7 year) of the curve are no longer attractive according to our models (see Tables 4 & 5). The 7-year bullet is now fairly valued relative to the 1/20 barbell, meaning that the butterfly spread is priced for an unchanged 1/20 slope during the next six months (Chart 7). Our baseline macro assessment is that the yield curve slope will remain near current levels during that timeframe. As such, we close our position long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Absent attractive value, the only reason to focus curve exposure on the 5-7 year maturity point is as a hedge against an unexpected pause in Fed rate hikes. In prior research we showed that the belly of the curve performs best when the 12-month discounter falls.3 But with our discounter priced for only 61 bps of rate hikes for the next 12 months, this risk may not be worth hedging. Instead, we prefer to go long the 2-year bullet and short a duration-matched 1/5 barbell. This trade is attractively priced on our model (bottom panel) and should outperform in a rising yield environment. The 1/5 slope tends to steepen when our 12-month discounter rises, and vice-versa. TIPS: Overweight TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 61 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +76 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.06%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate also fell 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.21%. Both the 10-year and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. We think it is only a matter of time before inflation expectations adjust higher into that range, and we therefore maintain an overweight position in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. The catalyst for wider TIPS breakevens will be persistent inflation readings near the Fed's 2% target. Trimmed mean inflation has only just returned to the Fed's 2% target (Chart 8), but will probably remain close to that level for the next six months. While base effects will pose a higher hurdle for year-over-year inflation during this time, pipeline inflation pressures are also building, as evidenced by the prices paid component of the ISM Manufacturing survey (panel 4).4 Chart 8Inflation Compensation ABS: Neutral Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +23 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 5 bps on the month and now stands at 38 bps, 4 bps above its pre-crisis low. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that consumer ABS offer attractive return potential compared to both Supranationals and Domestic Agencies, but carry a substantially higher risk of losses. Agency CMBS appear much more attractive than consumer ABS on a risk/reward basis, offering approximately the same expected return with less risk. From a credit quality perspective, the consumer credit delinquency rate remains low by historical standards but has clearly put in a bottom (Chart 9). The household interest coverage ratio has been rising for 10 consecutive quarters, suggesting that the delinquency rate will continue to increase. Chart 9ABS Market Overview We remain neutral on consumer ABS for now, but prefer Local Authorities, Municipal Bonds and Agency-backed CMBS when it comes to high-quality spread product. If consumer credit delinquencies continue to rise without a commensurate increase in ABS spreads, then our next move will likely be a reduction to underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +120 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 10 bps on the month and currently sits at 94 bps (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Market Overview A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards on commercial real estate loans as well as falling demand. The Fed's Q2 Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that both lending standards and demand are close to unchanged. In other words, the macro picture for CMBS is decidedly mixed. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 31 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +23 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 51 bps. The Bond Maps on page 15 show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of November 2, 2018)   Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of November 2, 2018)   Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of September 28, 2018)   Table 5Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "What Kind Of Correction Is This?", dated October 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk", dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For details on our base effects indicator for PCE inflation, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Powell Doctrine Emerges", dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

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

Special Report

The Great Recession and financial crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for years to come. The roots of the crisis are already well known. The first of a two-part series looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. First, the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) the Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. This reflects a low interest coverage ratio, poor market liquidity, the downward trend in credit quality and covenant erosion. Second, the shock of the Great Recession and its aftermath appears to have affected the relationship between economic slack and inflation. Firms have been extra reluctant to grant wage gains. However, we argue that the "shell shock" effect will wane. The fact that inflation has been depressed for so long may actually cultivate the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years. Investors should hold inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market, or by overweighting inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues. Third, the events of the last decade have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. They will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target in the major economies, despite signs of financial froth. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the current fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. Central bankers will have no trouble employing unorthodox policies again in the future, and will be willing to push the boundaries even further during the next recession. Expect aggressive manipulation of the long-end of the yield curve when the time arrives to ease policy. We may also observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies. Fourth, global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels, reflecting both structural and cyclical headwinds to demand growth. A dismal productivity performance is another culprit. Productivity growth is poised to recover to some extent, while some of the growth headwinds have reached an inflection point. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even fall back to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. The 10-year anniversary of the Lehman shock this autumn sparked an avalanche of analysis on the events and underlying causes of the Great Recession and financial crisis. It is a woeful story of greed, a classic bubble, inadequate regulation, new-fangled financial instruments, and a globalized financial system that spread the shock around the world. The crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for many years to come. The roots of the crisis are well known, so we will not spend any time going over well-trodden ground. Rather, this Special Report looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. In Part I, we cover the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. Part II will look at the debt overhang, systemic risk in the financial sector, asset correlations, the cult of equity and the rise of populism. While not an exhaustive list, we believe these are the key areas of structural change. (1) Corporate Bond Market: Leverage And Downgrade Risk The financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. An extraordinarily long period of extremely low interest rates was too much for corporate CEOs to pass up. However, because the durability of the economic recovery was so uncertain, it seemed more attractive to hand over the borrowed cash to shareholders than to use it to aggressively expand productive capacity. The ongoing equity bull market rewarded CEOs for the financial engineering, serving to create a self-reinforcing feedback loop. And so far, corporate bondholders have not policed this activity. The result is that the U.S. corporate bond market has grown in leaps and bounds since 2009 (Chart II-1A and Chart II-1B). The average duration of the Bloomberg Barclays index has also risen as firms locked in attractive financing rates. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the Eurozone. Chart II-1AU.S. BBB-Rated Share Rising... Chart II-1B...Same In The Eurozone Balance sheet health is obviously not the key driver of corporate bond relative returns at the moment. Nonetheless, investors will begin to worry about the growth outlook if interest rates continue to rise. The U.S. national accounts data suggest that interest coverage remains relatively healthy, but this includes large companies such as some of the FAANGs that have little debt and a lot of cash. The national accounts data are unrepresentative of the companies that are included in the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index, which are heavy debt issuers. To gain a clearer picture, we calculated a bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for a sample of U.S. companies that provides a sector and credit-quality composition that roughly matches the Bloomberg Barclay's index. The CHM is the composite of six critical financial ratios. Chart II-2 highlights that the investment-grade (IG) CHM has improved over the past two years due to the profitability sub-components. However, the debt/equity ratio has been in a steep uptrend. Interest coverage does not appear alarming by historical standards at the moment, but one can argue that it should be much higher given the extremely low average coupon on corporate bonds, and given that profit margins are extraordinarily high in the U.S. The rapid accumulation of debt has overwhelmed these other factors. Evidence of rising leverage is broadly based across sectors and ratings. Chart II-2U.S. IG Corporate Health Unfortunately, the profit tailwind won't last forever. At some point, earnings growth will stall and this cycle's debt accumulation will start to bite in the context of rising interest rates. To gauge the risk, we estimate the change in the interest coverage ratio over the next three years for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt.1 For our universe of Investment-grade U.S. companies, the interest coverage ratio would drop from a little over 7 to under 6, which is close to the lows of the Great Recession (denoted as "x" in Chart II-3). Of course, the decline in interest coverage will be much worse if the Fed steps too far and monetary tightening sparks a recession. The "o" in Chart II-3 denotes the combination of a 100 basis-point interest rate shock and a mild recession in which the S&P 500 suffers a 25% peak-to-trough decline in EPS. The overall interest coverage ratio plunges close to all-time lows at 4½. Chart II-3Interest Coverage To Plunge... These simulations imply that, for any given size of recession, the next economic downturn will have a larger negative impact on corporate health than in the past. Rating agencies have undertaken some downgrading related to shareholder-friendly activity, but downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning and the profit boom is over (Chart II-4). Banks will belatedly tighten lending standards, adding to funding pressure for the corporate sector. Chart II-4...And Ratings To Be Slashed Fallen Angels The potential for a large wave of fallen angels means that downgrade activity will be particularly painful for corporate bond investors. The surge in lower-quality issuance has led to a downward trend in the average credit rating and has significantly raised the size of the BBB-rated bonds relative to the IG index and relative to the broader universe of corporate bonds including high yield (Chart II-5, and Chart II-1A).2 The downward trend in credit quality predates Lehman, but events since the Great Recession have likely reinforced the trend. Chart II-5Lower Ratings And Longer Duration Studies show that bonds that get downgraded into junk status can perform well for a period thereafter, suggesting that investors holding a fallen angel should not necessarily sell immediately. Nonetheless, the process of transitioning from investment-grade to high-yield involves return underperformance as the spread widens. Poor market liquidity and covenant erosion will intensify pressure for corporate spreads to widen when the bear market arrives. Market turnover has decreased substantially since the pre-Lehman years, especially for IG (Chart II-6). The poor liquidity backdrop appears to be structural, reflecting regulation that has curtailed banks' market-making activity and prop trading, among other factors. Chart II-6Poor Market Liquidity The Eurozone corporate bond market has also seen rapid growth and a deterioration in the average credit rating. Liquidity is an issue there as well. That said, the Eurozone corporate sector is less advanced in the leverage cycle than the U.S. Interest coverage ratios will fall during the next recession, but this will be concentrated among foreign issuers - domestic issuers are much less at risk to rising interest rates and/or an economic downturn.3 Bottom Line: Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. Current spreads do not compensate for this risk. (2) Inflation Undershoot Breeds Overshoot Inflation in the U.S. and other developed economies has been sticky since the financial crisis. First, inflation did not fall as much in the recession and early years of the recovery as many had predicted, despite the worst economic contraction in the post-war period. Subsequently, central banks have had trouble raising inflation back to target. In the U.S., core PCE inflation has only recently returned to 2%. Several structural factors have been blamed, but continuing tepid wage growth in the face of a very tight labor market raises the possibility that the inflation-generating process has been fundamentally altered by the Great Recession. In other words, the relationship between slack in the labor market (or market for goods and services) and inflation has changed. In theory, inflation should rise when the economy's output is above its potential level or when the unemployment rate is below its full-employment level. Inflation should fall when the reverse is true. This means that the change (not the level) in inflation should be positively correlated with the level of the output gap or the labor market gap. Chart II-7 presents the change in U.S. core inflation with the output gap. Although inflation appears to have become less responsive to shifts in the output gap after 1990, it has been particularly insensitive in the post-Lehman period. Chart II-7The U.S. Phillips Curve: RIP? One reason may be that the business sector was shell-shocked by the Great Recession and financial crisis to such an extent that business leaders have been more reluctant to grant wage gains than in past cycles. Equally-unnerved workers felt lucky just to have a job, and have been less willing to demand raises. Dampened inflation expectations meant that low actual inflation became self-reinforcing. We have some sympathy with this view. Long-term inflation expectations have been sticky at levels that are inconsistent with the major central banks meeting their inflation targets over the long term. This suggests that people believe that central banks lack the tools necessary to overwhelm the deflationary forces. The lesson for investors and policymakers is that, while unorthodox monetary policies helped to limit the downside for inflation and inflation expectations during and just after the recession, these policies have had limited success in reversing even the modest decline that did occur. That said, readers should keep in mind a few important points: One should not expect inflation to rise much until economies break through their non-inflationary limits. The major advanced economies have only recently reached that point to varying degrees; Inflation lags the business cycle (Chart II-8). This is especially the case in long 'slow burn' economic expansions, as we have demonstrated in previous research; and The historical relationship between inflation and economic slack has been non-linear. As shown in Chart II-9, U.S. inflation has tended to accelerate quickly when unemployment drops below 4½%. Chart II-8U.S. Inflation Lags The Cycle Chart II-9A Kinked Phillips Curve Shell Shock Is Fading We believe that the "shell shock" effect of the Great Recession on inflation will wane over time. Indeed, my colleague Peter Berezin has made the case that the fact that inflation has been depressed for so long actually cultivates the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years.4 Central bankers have been alarmed by the economic and financial events of the last decade. They also cast a wary eye on Japan's inability to generate inflation even in the face of massive and prolonged monetary stimulus. Policymakers at the FOMC are determined to boost inflation and inflation expectations before the next economic downturn strikes. They are also willing to not only tolerate, but actively encourage, an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to ensure that long-term inflation expectations return "sustainably" to a level consistent with meeting the 2% target over the long term. In other words, the Fed is going to err on the side of too much stimulus rather than too little. This is an important legacy of the last recession (see below). Meanwhile, other structural explanations for low inflation are less powerful than many believe. For example, globalization has leveled off and rising tariff and non-tariff barriers will hinder important global supply chains. Our research also suggests that the rising industrial use of robots and the e-commerce effect on retail prices have had only a small depressing effect on U.S. inflation. Bottom Line: The Phillips curve relationship has probably not changed in a permanent way since Lehman went down. It is quite flat when the labor market is not far away from full employment, but the relationship is probably non-linear. As the unemployment rate drops further, the business sector will have no choice but to lift wages as labor becomes increasingly scarce. The kinked nature of the Phillips curve augments the odds that the Fed will eventually find itself behind the curve, and inflation will rise more than the market is expecting. The same arguments apply to the Bank of England and possibly even the European Central Bank. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk, but the precious metal is still quite expensive in real terms. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market or overweighting inflation-linked bonds over conventional issues. (3) Monetary Policy: Destined To Fight The Last War There are several reasons to believe that the shocking events of the crisis and its aftermath have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. Several factors suggest that they will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target: Inflation Persistence: As discussed above, there is a greater awareness that it is difficult to lift both actual inflation and inflation expectations once they have fallen. Some FOMC members believe that long-term inflation expectations are still too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% inflation target over the long term. A modest inflation overshoot in this cycle would be beneficial, according to this view, in the sense that it would boost inflation expectations and thereby raise the probability that the FOMC will indeed meet its goals over the long term. It might also encourage some discouraged workers to re-enter the labor market. Some policymakers also believe that the Fed is not taking much of a risk by pushing the economy hard, because the Phillips curve is so flat. Zero Bound: Low inflation expectations, among other factors, have combined to dramatically reduce the level of so-called r-star - the short-term rate of interest that is neither accommodative nor restrictive in terms of growth and inflation. R-star is thought to be rising now, at least for the U.S., but it is probably still low by historical standards across the major economies. This increases the risk that policy rates will again hit the lower bound during the next recession, making it difficult for central banks to engineer a real policy rate that is low enough to generate faster growth.5 Fighting the Last War: Memories of the crisis linger in the minds of policymakers. The global economy came dangerously close to a replay of the Great Depression, and policymakers want to ensure that it never happens again. Some monetary officials have argued that a risk-based approach means that it is better to take some inflation risks to limit the possibility of making a deflationary policy mistake down the road. Fears that the major economies are now more vulnerable to deflationary shocks seem destined to keep central banks too-easy-for-too-long. Central bankers will also be quicker and more aggressive in responding when negative shocks arrive in the future. This applies more to the U.S., the U.K. and Japan than the European Central Bank, but even for the latter there has been a clear change in the monetary committee's reaction function since Mario Draghi took over the reins. Financial Stability Concerns Policymakers are also more concerned about financial stability. Pre-crisis, the consensus among the monetary elite was that financial stability should play second fiddle to the inflation target. It was felt that central banks should focus on the latter, and pay attention to signs of financial froth only when they affect the inflation outlook. In practice, this meant paying only lip service to financial excess until it was too late. It was difficult to justify rate increases when inflation was not threatening. It was thought that macro-prudential regulation on its own was enough to contain financial excesses. Today, policymakers see financial stability as playing a key role in meeting the inflation target. It is abundantly clear that a burst bubble can be highly deflationary. Some policymakers still believe that aggressive macro-prudential policies can be effective in directly targeting financial excesses. However, others feel there is no substitute for higher interest rates; as ex-Governor Jeremy Stein stated, interest rates get "in all the cracks". Moreover, the Fed does not regulate the shadow banking sector. The Fed is thus balancing concerns over signs of financial froth against the zero-bound problem and fears of the next deflationary shock. We believe that the latter will dominate their policy choices, because it will still be difficult to justify rate hikes to the public when there is no obvious inflation problem. In the U.S., this implies that the economic risks are skewed toward a boom/bust scenario in which the FOMC is slow to respond to a fiscally-driven late cycle mini-boom. Inflation and inflation expectations react with a lag, but a subsequent acceleration in both forces the Fed to aggressively choke off growth. Policy Toolkit Central bankers will be quite willing to employ their new-found policy tools again in the next recession. The new toolbox includes asset purchases, aggressive forms of forward guidance, negative interest rates, and low-cost direct lending to banks and non-banks in some countries. Policymakers generally view these tools as being at least somewhat effective, although some have argued that the costs of using negative interest rates have outweighed the benefits in Europe and Japan. The debate on how to deal with the zero-bound problem in the U.S. has focused on lifting r-star, including raising the inflation target, adopting a price level target, policies to boost productivity, and traditional fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, ex-Fed Chair Yellen's comments at the Jackson Hole conference in 2016 underscored that it will be more of the same in the event that the zero bound is again reached - quantitative easing and forward guidance.6 No doubt, the major central banks will rely heavily on both of these tools in order to manipulate yields far out the curve. Forward guidance may be threshold-based. For example, policymakers could promise to keep the policy rate frozen until unemployment or inflation reaches a given level. Now that central bankers have crossed the line into unorthodox monetary policy and inflation did not surge, future policymakers will be willing to stretch the boundaries even further in the event of a recession. For example, they may consider price-level targeting, which would institutionalize inflation overshoots to make up for past inflation undershoots. It is also possible that we will observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies in the next recession. The combination of fiscal stimulus and a cap on bond yields would be highly stimulative in theory, in part by driving the currency lower. Japan has gone half way in this direction by implementing a yield curve control (YCC) policy. However, it has failed so far to provide any meaningful fiscal stimulus since the yield cap has been in place. It also appears likely that central bank balance sheets will not return to levels as a percent of GDP that existed before the crisis. An abundance of bank deposits at the central bank will help to satisfy a structural increase in the demand for cash-like risk-free assets. Maintaining a bloated balance sheet will also allow central banks to provide substantial amounts of reverse repos (RRPs) into the market, which should improve the functioning of money markets that have been impaired to some degree by regulation. We do not expect that a structural increase in central bank balance sheets will have any material lasting impact on asset prices or inflation. We believe that inflation will surprise on the upside, but not because central banks will continue to hold significant amounts of government bonds on their balance sheets over the medium term. Bottom Line: The implication is that the monetary authorities will have a greater tolerance for an overshoot of the inflation target than in the past. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. During the next recession, policymakers will rely heavily on quantitative easing and forward guidance to manipulate the yield curve (after the policy rate reaches the lower bound). (4) Bond Prices: Structural Factors Turning Less Bullish Perhaps the most dramatic and lasting impact of the GFC has been evident in the global bond market. Government yields fell to levels never before observed across the developed countries and have remained extremely depressed, even as the expansion matured and economic slack was gradually absorbed. Real government bond yields are still negative even at the medium and long parts of the curve in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart II-10). It is tempting to conclude that there has been a permanent shift down in global bond yields. Chart II-10Real Yields Still Depressed Equilibrium bond yields are tied to the supply side of the economy. Potential GDP growth is the sum of trend productivity growth and the pace of expansion of the labor force. Equilibrium bond yields may fall below the potential growth rate for extended periods to the extent that aggregate demand faces persistent headwinds. The headwinds in place over the past decade include fiscal austerity, demographics, household deleveraging, increased regulation and lingering problems in the banking sector that limited the expansion of credit, among others. These headwinds either affect the desire to save or the desire to invest, the interplay of which affects equilibrium bond yields. Some of these economic headwinds predate 2007, but the financial crisis reinforced the desire to save more and invest less. Space limitations prevent a full review of the forces that depressed bond yields, but a summary is contained in Appendix 1 and we encourage interested readers to see our 2017 Special Report for full details.7 The Great Supply-Side Shortfall Falling potential output growth in the major advanced economies also helped to drag down equilibrium bond yields. The pace of expansion in the global labor force has plunged from 1¾% in 2005, to under 1% today (Chart II-11). The labor force has peaked in absolute terms in the G7, and is already shrinking in China. Chart II-11Slower Labor Force Expansion... Productivity growth took a dramatic turn for the worst after 2007 (Chart II-12). The dismal productivity performance is not fully understood, but likely reflected the peaking in globalization, increased regulation and the dramatic decline in capital spending relative to GDP. The latter was reflected in a collapse in the growth rate of the global capital stock (Chart II-13). In the U.S., for which we have a longer history of data, growth in the capital stocks has lead shifts in productivity growth with a 3-year lag. Firms have also been slower to adopt new technologies over the past decade. Chart II-12...And Lower Productivity Chart II-13Productivity And Investment The resulting impact on the level of GDP today has been nothing short of remarkable. The current IMF estimate for the level of potential GDP in 2018 is 10% lower than was projected by the IMF in 2008 (Chart II-14). There has been a similar downgrading of capacity in Europe, Japan and the U.K. Actual GDP has closed the gap with potential GDP to varying degrees in the major countries, but at a much lower level than was projected a decade ago. Paul Krugman has dubbed this the "Great Shortfall". Chart II-14A Permanent Loss Of Output The Great Shortfall was even greater with respect to capital spending. For 2017, the IMF estimates that global investment was more than 20% below the level implied by the pre-crisis trend (Chart II-15). Reduced credit intermediation, from a combination of supply and demand factors, was a significant factor behind the structural loss of economic capacity according to the IMF study.8 Chart II-15Permanent Scars On Capital Spending By curtailing the business investment relative to GDP for a prolonged period, major economic slumps can have a permanent effect on an economy's long-term prospects. The loss of output since the financial crisis will never be regained. That said, bond yields in theory are related to the growth rate of productivity, not its level. The IMF report noted that there may even be some long-lasting effects on the growth rate of productivity. The crisis left lingering scars on future growth due to both reduced global labor force migration and fertility rates. The latter rose in the decade before the crisis in several advanced economies, only to decline afterward. Households postponed births in the face of the economic and financial upheaval. The IMF argues that not all of the decline in fertility rates will be reversed. An Inflection Point In Global Bond Yields On a positive note, the pickup in business capital spending in the major countries in recent years implies an acceleration in the growth rate of the capital stock and, thus, productivity. In the U.S., this relationship suggests that productivity growth could rise by a percentage point over the coming few years (Chart II-13). This should correspond to a roughly equivalent rise in equilibrium bond yields. Moreover, some of the other structural factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. For example, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool as people retire and begin to deplete their nest eggs. Household savings rates will trend sharply lower in the coming years. Again, we encourage readers to read the 2017 Special Report for a full account of the structural factors that are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. QE Reversal To Weigh On Bond Prices And let's not forget the unwinding of central bank balance sheets. The idea that central bank asset purchases on their own had a significant depressing effect on global bond yields is controversial. Some argue that the impact on yields occurred more via forward guidance; quantitative easing was a signal to markets that the central bank would stay on hold for an extended period, which pulled down yields far out the curve. This publication believes that QE had a meaningful impact on global bond yields on its own (Chart II-16). Nonetheless, either way, the Fed is now shrinking its balance sheet and the European Central Bank will soon end asset purchases. This means that the private sector this year is being forced to absorb a net increase in government bonds available to the private sector for the first time since 2014 (Chart II-17). Investors may demand juicier yields in order to boost their allocation to fixed-income assets. Chart II-16Reverse QE To Weigh On Bonds Chart II-17Private Investors Will Have To Buy More We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors still have an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2027 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-18). The implied path of real rates in the U.S. looks more reasonable, but there is still upside potential. Moreover, there is room for the inflation expectations component of nominal yields to shift up, as discussed above. Chart II-18Real Yields Still Too Low Another way of making this point is shown in Chart II-19. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is still very low by historical standards. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year/5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-19Market Expectations Still Low Bottom Line: Global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels due to a combination of cyclical and structural factors. The bond-bullish structural factors were reinforced by shifts in desired savings and business investment as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Some of these structural factors will linger in the coming years, but others are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even return close to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix 1: Key Factors Behind The Decline In Equilibrium Global Bond Yields The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. A key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. China became a major source of global savings after it joined the WTO, and its large trade surplus was recycled into the global pool of savings. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. The increase in ex-ante savings and reduction in ex-ante capital spending resulted in a substantial drop in equilibrium global interest rates. The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie. A positive labor supply shock should benefit global living standards in the long run, but the adjustment costs related to China's integration into the global economy imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. Moreover, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners. This represents a headwind to growth that requires lower interest rates all along the curve. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. 1 We make the simplifying assumptions that companies do not issue any more debt over the three years, and that EBIT is unchanged, in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. 2 The average credit rating for the U.S. is unavailable before 2000 in the Bloomberg Barclays index. However, other data sources confirm the long-term downward trend. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector," dated May 31, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Reports "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018 and "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The lower bound is zero in the U.S., but is in negative territory for those central banks willing to impose negative rates on the banking sector. 6 For more background on the zero bound debate, the usefulness of a large central bank balance sheet and ways to lift r-star, please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Herding Cats At the Fed," dated October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," dated April 27, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8 The Global Economic Recovery 10 Years After the 2008 Financial Meltdown. IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2018.