Correlations

Highlights So What? China’s January credit data suggest that stimulus is here. Why? January credit growth was a blowout number. Trade uncertainty is likely to be prolonged with an extension of talks. Equity bourses in South Korea and Russia are the most likely to benefit from Chinese stimulus. Industrial metals such as copper will also benefit – with a delay. Feature New credit data for China in January improves the chances that Beijing’s stimulus measures will overshoot this year, causing China’s economy to bottom in 2019 and jumpstart global growth. In our annual outlook for this year we argued that while China was stimulating the economy, the magnitude of stimulus would be the decisive factor for the global macro environment in 2019. We argued that the type of stimulus would remain primarily fiscal – tax cuts for households and small and medium-sized enterprises – and hence that it would be modest as fiscal easing would merely offset relatively weak credit growth. This view stemmed from our assessment of the Xi Jinping administration, highlighted in April 2017, as an “elitist” (not populist) administration. Its policy priorities are to discipline the Chinese economy, and in particular to contain systemic financial risk, which President Xi has cited as a national security threat. This view is not wrong, but the latest data clearly show that Xi has decided to pause these painful efforts at limiting leverage and rebalancing China’s economy. Witness January’s decisive uptick in both total social financing (total private credit) and local government bond issuance (Chart 1). Chart 1Higher Risk Of An Overshoot Higher Risk Of An Overshoot Higher Risk Of An Overshoot A massive spike in new credit is the single most important criterion in our “Checklist For A Stimulus Overshoot.” Thus, from a policy perspective, we are now at higher risk of an overshoot (Table 1). Not only credit as a whole but also informal lending saw a surge in January, implying that the government is relenting in its crackdown on the shadow banks. The approval of local government bond issuance for early in the year – and the People’s Bank of China’s announcement of a “Central Bank Bills Swap” program – reinforce this policy shift.1 Table 1Checklist For A Chinese Stimulus Overshoot In 2019 China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks   A stimulus overshoot is positive for Chinese demand in the short run but negative for potential GDP in the long run. A “traditional” credit surge of this nature cannot be surgically targeted at SMEs or households. It will go to state-owned enterprises, privileged corporations, property developers, and the like, which have always had the advantage in China’s financial system. SOEs have taken a much larger share of new loans than private companies in recent years,2 and the only silver lining of this trend was the possibility that tighter credit controls would discipline the SOEs. That silver lining is now fading, barring some new and surprising development on the reform front. China needs to create 26 trillion renminbi in new credit over the course of the year to avoid a corporate earnings contraction. These January numbers put China on track to do just that (Chart 2), assuming that President Xi and U.S. President Donald Trump agree to a short-term, framework trade deal this year. Chart 2On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction Of course, a few caveats are in order. First, January’s credit number is only one data point and credit growth is always abnormally strong in the first month of the year. Early in the year, banks seek to expand their assets rapidly in a bid to get as much market share as possible before administrative credit quotas kick in. Because of Chinese New Year, it is best to combine January and February data to get a sense of the rate of credit expansion in the first part of the year. To do that, investors will have to wait for mid-March when the February data is out. This year’s January numbers are very strong relative to previous Januaries (Chart 3) and the context is more accommodative than the 2017 January credit surge, when authorities were beginning to tighten rather than ease macroprudential policy. Still a rapid rate of credit expansion will have to be sustained in the coming months in order to meet the 26 trillion RMB requirement highlighted above. Chart 3 Second, there is some risk that China’s households and private businesses will not respond as positively today as in the past. The intensification of Communist Party control over the society and economy, President Xi’s cancellation of term limits, and the strategic confrontation with the United States have created a bearish sentiment in the private sector. Our Emerging Markets Strategy would point out that if the propensity to consume, and money velocity,3 do not accelerate, then a surge in new credit may fail to ignite a reacceleration in China (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Still, what we now know is that Xi Jinping and his top economic adviser, Vice Premier Liu He, are not initiating the “assault phase of reform” that their predecessors initiated in the late 1990s in order to cleanse China’s economy of bad loans and zombie companies. Instead, they are likely reestablishing the “Socialist Put” in order to reverse the current deceleration, demonstrate China’s continued economic might and face down the United States’ threat of tariffs. Bottom Line: China’s stimulus measures are increasingly likely to overshoot, with positive implications for both Chinese and global growth. China is still facing a corporate earnings recession, but the odds of averting it are increasing.    Trade Deadline More Likely To Be Extended What of the trade war? First, we would warn clients that China’s annual credit origination is a much bigger factor for the global economy than China’s exports to the United States (Chart 5). The trade war can escalate from here and yet, if China’s stimulus works as it has in the past, the results will be manageable for China’s economy save for Chinese companies expressly exposed to the U.S. economy through exports. In reality, both the U.S. and China are now effectively stimulating their economies and in this sense global trade as a whole will benefit regardless of bilateral tariffs. Chart 5Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War But it is possible that just as global equity markets ignored China’s economic slowdown and only sold off when the tariffs were levied (Chart 6), they may not continue to rally much on China’s credit data. Given the already considerable rally in global risk assets since October, markets may not be satisfied merely with one or two months of solid credit data out of China without a clear resolution to the trade conflict. After all, if a collapse in U.S.-China trade talks portends a new Cold War, then institutional investors may be justified in taking a wait-and-see approach despite China’s credit cycle upswing. Chart 6Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? In the past, we have highlighted that the U.S. and China are not economically prohibited from engaging in a trade war – the export exposure is too small – and China’s new stimulus reinforces this point. However, President Trump is concerned about causing a sell-off in the tech sector and hence the broad equity market which could translate into a bear market and raise the probability of a recession occurring prior to November 2020. Meanwhile, in China, given Beijing’s reported trade concessions, there is apparently a desire to pacify the relationship and discourage U.S. unilateral tariffs and sanctions that could become seriously destabilizing for the Chinese economy and society. The need to have a happy 2021 centenary celebration for the Communist Party may factor into policymakers’ thinking. The latest news flow is mildly positive for the odds of getting a framework deal sometime this year. President Trump visited the Chinese negotiators in Washington, D.C. while President Xi reciprocated with the American negotiators in Beijing. Trump has signaled that an extension of the March 1 deadline is possible, and a two-month extension is being bandied about in the press. China’s National People’s Congress is likely to pass a new Foreign Investment Law that ostensibly guarantees many of the American demands on forced tech transfer, intellectual property theft, and discriminatory treatment of U.S. companies (Table 2). Even the second Trump summit with Kim Jong Un, this time in Vietnam, should be seen as a mild positive for U.S.-China negotiations. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks However, Presidents Trump and Xi have yet to schedule a new summit, which is probably necessary for a final deal. And there are murmurs from the press suggesting that China’s new law and other concessions are not going to satisfy the U.S. negotiators on the critical point of “structural changes” and a verification process. This leaves us inclined to change our trade war probabilities to increase the odds of an extension (Table 3). The improvement in U.S. financial conditions and China’s stimulus, if anything, make it more likely that negotiations will be extended, as both sides feel their economic and financial constraints less acutely. Table 3Updated Trade War Probabilities China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks Bottom Line: Global and Chinese risk assets should rally on China’s credit uptick, but the lack of resolution of the trade war could continue to inhibit animal spirits – and the odds of a March 1 resolution are declining. Who Are The Equity Winners Of China’s Stimulus? China’s strong January credit number is supportive of global equity markets. That much is obvious. But which equity markets will benefit the most? In what follows we examine the relationship between Chinese credit and MSCI equity returns of various countries. We find that Malaysian, Australian, South Korean, and Indonesian equities are the most highly correlated with Chinese credit growth and are thus most likely to benefit from the recent upturn (Chart 7). On the other hand, France and Italy stand out as countries whose bourses are more insulated. Chart 7 Out of the markets that are positively correlated, South Korea and Russia stand out as relatively cheap (Chart 8). Thus we expect these equities to do especially well. By contrast, while Indonesia and the Philippines are highly leveraged to China, these markets are currently relatively expensive. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy is currently overweight Korean and Russian equities within the EM space, neutral Turkey (although recently upgraded from underweight), and underweight Indonesia and the Philippines. Chart 8 In addition to credit stimulus, we expect Chinese household consumption to also gain support going forward. This will likely be driven by policy stimulus targeting the consumer specifically and is best exemplified by the recently announced tax cuts (Chart 9), which we expect to trickle down to greater consumer demand and growth in retail sales. Our base case calls for 8%-10% growth in household consumption over the coming 12 months, up from the current 3.5%. Chart 9 However, consumer sentiment in China is weak. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy’s proxy for household marginal propensity to spend ticked up recently, after falling since early last year (see Chart 4 above). A resumption in the decline would highlight that households are increasingly unwilling to spend, which would translate into weaker retail sales despite policy efforts to boost consumption. Such a scenario – in which credit growth accelerates without a substantial uptick in consumer spending – is plausible, given that it occurred between mid-2015 and mid-2016 (Chart 10). In any case, whether Chinese stimulus comes in the form of the traditional credit channel, or instead in the form of fiscal stimulus to household consumption, the same equity markets will generally benefit the most (Chart 11). Chart 10...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility ...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility ...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility Chart 11 Indeed, global equity markets react the same way regardless of the type of stimulus implemented. For instance, MSCI returns for the Philippines, Sweden, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey are more closely correlated to both Chinese credit growth and retail sales growth compared to Italy, Japan, and France.  The same conclusion is reached when we look at the correlations between Chinese credit growth or consumption growth and individual MSCI sectors such as industrials and consumer discretionary (Chart 12). Chart 12 The relatively stronger correlation between Chinese credit growth and equity returns – as opposed to Chinese retail sales and equity returns – can be put down to the nature of Chinese imports. While industrial goods account for the bulk of China’s purchases of foreign goods, consumer goods excluding autos make up only 15% of China’s imports (Table 4). However, as Chart 12 illustrates, the relationship between China’s retail sales growth and global equities is much tighter in the case of the consumer discretionary sector, whether the latter is compared to global industrials sectors or the overall MSCI index. Table 4Import Composition Of Chinese Imports China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks Equity market exposure to China is not always in line with the extent of each country’s trade exposure to China (Chart 13). Chart 13 There are some clear exceptions – most notably Mexico, which has the highest correlation coefficient with Chinese credit and consumption variables since 2010. However, this is likely due to idiosyncratic factors.4 Correlation does not imply causation, and we cannot conclude with certainty that Mexican equities will outperform amid China’s new round of stimulus. Nevertheless, given that Mexico is a very deeply liquid market that benefits amid EM bull markets, this may not be entirely coincidental. The correlations between global equity markets and Chinese credit peak two months after the stimulus measures are first implemented (Chart 14). This is more or less in line with adjusted total social financing’s correlation versus industrial metals. However BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy has shown that copper’s correlations versus other measures of Chinese money and credit peak after roughly three quarters (Chart 15).5 This is evident in both the 2012 and 2015-16 stimulus episodes in which the bottom in copper prices lagged the bottom in China’s credit growth. Thus we may witness a rebound in equity markets on the back of China’s credit splurge before we see an improvement in annual returns on copper prices.  Chart 14 Chart 15Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Bottom Line: South Korean and Russian equities are best positioned to benefit from the positive surprise in China’s credit data. France and Italy are the worst positioned. Copper prices will rebound with a delay.  Investment Implications BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors stay long Chinese equities ex-tech relative to the emerging market benchmark. This is a tactical call initiated in August 2018 that is now becoming a cyclical call on the basis of the credit upswing. We also remain long the “China Play Index,” a basket of China-sensitive assets, and long China’s “Big Five” banks relative to other banks. A rebound in China’s credit data and stronger global growth will support copper demand. Prices are still 15% below the mid-2018 peak and are poised to benefit in this environment, especially given that global inventories are already falling. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors go long copper. Meanwhile, BCA’s China Investment Strategy recommends (for now) staying only tactically overweight Chinese equities relative to the global benchmark, pending higher conviction that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overwhelm the negative ramifications of a continued deceleration in actual activity over the coming few months on sentiment and 12-month forward earnings expectations. Over the long run, Geopolitical Strategy would look to underweight Chinese equities, as we are not optimistic about China’s productivity and potential GDP. This is because of the negative structural consequences of continuing the Socialist Put (i.e., bad loans, zombie companies, trade protectionism).  We would expect CNY/USD to remain relatively buoyant in the context of both trade negotiations with the U.S. and fiscal-and-credit stimulus. The trade talks can hardly succeed if CNY/USD is falling. Depending on whether and how soon China’s stimulus results in a durable economic bottom, global growth could stabilize and the USD could see a substantial countertrend selloff.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled “China: Prepping A Bazooka?” dated February 14, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Nicholas Lardy, “The State Strikes Back: The End Of Economic Reform In China?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, January 29, 2019, available at piie.com. 3          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “Dissecting China’s Stimulus,” dated January 17, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4       The 2012 election of President Enrique Peña Nieto caused Mexican equities to outperform their EM counterparts. Similarly in 2015-16, U.S. outperformance relative to EM also supported Mexico relative to EM because Mexico’s economy is highly leveraged to its northern neighbor. In both periods Mexico’s outperformance was not caused by – but instead coincided with – Chinese credit stimulus. These idiosyncratic events biased the correlation between Mexico’s equity markets and Chinese credit growth to the upside. 5      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets,” dated June 21, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.                  

Highlights The current trajectory in global share prices resembles what took place in 2000 and early 2001. The early 2001 rebound in global and EM stocks lasted several weeks only, despite ongoing easing by the Federal Reserve. Corporate profits – not the Fed – was the key driver in 2001 and remains the principal driver of global and EM stocks today. EM corporate profits are set to contract this year due to China’s continuing slowdown and weakening global trade. This suggests the current EM rally is unsustainable; continue underweighting EM. In Chile, bet on lower swap rates. Continue shorting the peso but overweight the local bourse within an EM equity portfolio. Feature The dovish shift by the U.S. Federal Reserve in the past month has boosted EM risk assets and currencies. Yet, we find that in the medium and long term there is a very low correlation between Fed policy and U.S. interest rates, on the one hand, and EM financial markets on the other. Instead, EM risk assets and currencies correlate with EM/China business cycles and global trade (Chart I-1). We have not detected any improvement in China/EM growth, nor in global trade (Chart I-1). What’s more, we expect Chinese growth and world trade to continue to weaken in the coming six months. Therefore, the EM rebound and outperformance will be reversed sooner than later. Chart I-1Global Growth Indicators Do No Confirm EM Rally Global Growth Indicators Do No Confirm EM Rally Global Growth Indicators Do No Confirm EM Rally Please note this is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team. BCA’s house view is presently positive on global risk assets and global growth. The basis for this difference between our current position and that of the majority of our colleagues is the outlook for China’s growth. A Replay Of 2016 Or 2001? Most investors are betting that 2019 will be a replay of 2016, when the Fed’s dovish turn and China’s stimulus propelled the EM and global equity rallies. It is enticing to compare the current episode in financial markets to the one that occurred only three years ago. To be sure, there are a lot of similarities: the global trade slowdown driven by China/EM, selloffs in global equity and credit markets, a dovish shift in the Fed’s stance and policy stimulus in China are all reminiscent of early 2016. Not surprisingly, this has created a stampede into EM. According to the most recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, as of mid-January some 29% of investors were overweight EM stocks compared to 1% overweight in the U.S., 11% underweight in the euro area and 1% underweight in Japan. By now, the overweight in EM equities is most likely even higher, given the stampede into EM assets that has occurred over the past several weeks. This stands in contrast to the 33% underweight in EM equities in January 2016. It is apparent that the majority of investors are indeed extrapolating 2016 into 2019. We hold a different view and believe China’s slowdown will be more protracted than in 2015-’16, and that EM corporate earnings are set to contract (please refer to Chart I-5 on page 6). A key distinction between China’s current policy efforts and what was implemented in 2015-‘16 is the absence of stimulus for real estate. The odds are that China’s property market will continue to languish, weighing on household and business sentiment as well as spending. Further, the efficiency of monetary transmission mechanisms could be lower today than it was in 2016 due to the regulatory tightening on both banks and non-banks. The fiscal multiplier could also be lower due to the fragile sentiment among consumers and businesses. We discussed these issues in detail in our January 17, 2019 report. Remarkably, it appears that global share prices are tracking the pattern of 1998-2001 – their trajectories are identical in terms of both magnitude and duration (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Global Stocks Are Tracking Pattern Of 1998-2001 In Magnitude And Duration Global Stocks Are Tracking Pattern Of 1998-2001 In Magnitude And Duration Global Stocks Are Tracking Pattern Of 1998-2001 In Magnitude And Duration That said, there are substantial differences between today and 2001 in respect to the economic backdrops in the U.S. and China. Our focal point is to demonstrate that the Fed easing is not sufficient to prop up share prices if it does not lead to a recovery in corporate earnings. We conclude that the latest rebound in EM risk assets is probably late because neither the Fed’s pause nor China’s stimulus will revive EM corporate profits in the next nine months. In terms of market action, one can draw a number of parallels between the trajectory in global share prices today and in 2000-’01. Following an exponential rally in 1999, the global equity index peaked in January 2000 (Chart I-3). The equity selloff accelerated in the last quarter of 2000, with stocks plunging in December of that year. Chart I-3Is Rebound In Global And EM Stocks Late? Is Rebound In Global And EM Stocks Late? Is Rebound In Global And EM Stocks Late? Oversold conditions in global share prices and the Fed’s intra-meeting 50-basis-point rate cut on January 3, 2001, generated a 7% and 15% rebound in global and EM stocks, respectively. The bounce lasted from late December 2000 until early February 2001. The current trajectory in global share prices – the rollover in late January 2018, the top formation lasting several months followed by a dramatic plunge, the bottom in late December, 2018 and the subsequent rebound – closely resemble the path global share prices took in 2000 and early 2001 (Chart I-3, top panel). The same holds true for EM share prices (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Critically, the Fed continued to cut interest rates in 2001 and 2002, yet the bear market in global equities, including EM, persisted until March 2003 (Chart I-4A and I-4B, top panels). The culprit was shrinking corporate profits (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B, bottom panels). Chart I-4AFed Easing Did Not Help Global Stocks In 2001 Fed Easing Did Not Help Global Stocks In 2001 Fed Easing Did Not Help Global Stocks In 2001 Chart I-4BFed Easing Did Not Help EM Stocks In 2001 Fed Easing Did Not Help EM Stocks In 2001 Fed Easing Did Not Help EM Stocks In 2001 Odds are that EM earnings are set to contract this year as discussed below and shown in Chart I-5. As a result, this view bolsters our conviction that EM equities are likely to roll over soon and plunge anew in absolute terms, and certainly underperform U.S. stocks. Bottom Line: There are many economic differences between today and 2001. Our main point is that the Fed easing-inspired rally in global equities in early 2001 lasted several weeks only and was followed by a new cycle low. The key factor was not Fed policy but corporate profits. Provided our view that corporate earnings in EM and global cyclical sectors will contract this year, the rally in these segments is not sustainable regardless of Fed policy. What Drives EM: Chinese Or U.S. Growth? Predicting the outlook for China and global trade correctly is key to getting the EM call right. First, China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EPS growth of companies included in the EM MSCI equity index by nine months, and it currently points to continued deceleration and contraction in EM EPS in the months ahead (Chart I-5, top panel). The average of new and backlog orders within China’s manufacturing PMI also portends a negative outlook for EM corporate earnings (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Chart I-5EM Profits Are Heading Into Contraction EM Profits Are Heading Into Contraction EM Profits Are Heading Into Contraction The primary linkage between China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse and EM profits is as follows: China impacts EM and the rest of the world via its imports. This explains why EM share prices correlate with Chinese PMI imports (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Chinese Imports And EM Equities Chinese Imports And EM Equities Chinese Imports And EM Equities Second, China’s imports are to a large extent driven by capital spending, especially construction. Some 85% of mainland imports are composed of various commodities, industrial goods and materials, and autos. Consumer goods make up only about 15% of imports. Major capital expenditures in general and construction, in particular, cannot be undertaken without financing. This is why the country’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads its imports cycles (Chart I-7). This impulse is presently foreshadowing a deepening slump in mainland imports and by extension its suppliers’ revenues and profits. Chart I-7Chinese Imports Are Heading South bca.ems_wr_2019_02_07_s1_c7 bca.ems_wr_2019_02_07_s1_c7 Third, as EM shipments to China dwindle, not only will EM corporate revenues and profits disappoint but EM currencies will also depreciate. The latter bodes ill for EM U.S. dollar and local currency bonds. The basis is that exchange rate depreciation makes U.S. dollar debt more expensive to service, and also pushes up local bond yields in high-yielding EM fixed-income markets. Fourth, The majority of developing economies sell more to China than to the U.S. Remarkably, global trade and global manufacturing decelerated in 2018, even though U.S. goods imports were booming (Chart I-8). Crucially, the more recent strength in the U.S.’s intake of goods was in part due to frontloading of shipments to the U.S. before the import tariffs went into effect on January 1, 2019. Chart I-8U.S. Imports Are Very Robust U.S. Imports Are Very Robust U.S. Imports Are Very Robust Yet despite robust U.S. demand, aggregate exports of Korea, Taiwan, and Japan have done poorly and their manufacturing have slumped (Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B). Chart I-9AAsian Exports: Flirting With Contraction Asian Exports: Flirting With Contraction Asian Exports: Flirting With Contraction Chart I-9BAsian Manufacturing: Flirting With Contraction Asian Manufacturing: Flirting With Contraction Asian Manufacturing: Flirting With Contraction This highlights the increased significance of Chinese demand and the diminished importance of U.S. domestic demand in world trade. In particular, at $6 trillion, EM aggregate goods and services imports, including Chinese imports (but excluding China’s imports for processing and re-exporting), is greater than the combined imports of the U.S. and EU, which currently stand at $4.7 trillion ($2.5 trillion plus $2.2 trillion, respectively). Finally, the media and many investors have exaggerated the impact of U.S. tariffs on the Chinese economy. We are not implying that the tariffs are not relevant at all, or that they have not damaged sentiment among mainland businesses and households. They have. The point is that China’s exports to the U.S. constitute 3.8% of Chinese GDP only (Chart I-10). This compares to Chinese capital spending amounting to 42% of GDP and total annual credit origination and fiscal spending of 26% of GDP. Chart I-10China's Exports To U.S. Are Small (3.8% of GDP) China's Exports To U.S. Are Small (3.8% of GDP) China's Exports To U.S. Are Small (3.8% of GDP) Overall, China’s growth slowdown in 2018 was not due to its plunging shipments to the U.S. – actually, the latter were rising strongly till December due to frontloading – but due to weakness in credit origination, primarily among non-banks (shadow banking). Bottom Line: The Chinese business cycle – not the U.S.’s – is the key driver of EM share prices and currencies and more important than the Fed. EM And The Fed On the surface, it seems that EM is tracking Fed policy. To us, however, this is akin to“not seeing the forest for the trees”. Investors need to stand back and examine the medium- and long-term relationships between U.S. interest rates, DM central banks’ balance sheets, and EM financial markets. In this broader context, the following becomes apparent: There is no stable correlation between EM share prices, EM currencies and EM sovereign credit, on the one hand, and U.S. 10-year bond yields, on the other (Chart I-11). Chart I-11EM And U.S. Bond Yields: No Stable Correlation EM And U.S. Bond Yields: No Stable Correlation EM And U.S. Bond Yields: No Stable Correlation Historically, the correlation between EM share prices and the Fed funds rate has been mixed, albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-12). On this 40-year chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks did well during periods of a rising fed funds rate. These time spans are 1983-1984, 1988-1989, 1999-2000, 2003-2007 and 2017. Chart I-12EM Stocks And Fed Funds Rate: A Historical Perspective EM Stocks And Fed Funds Rate: A Historical Perspective EM Stocks And Fed Funds Rate: A Historical Perspective The only two episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican peso crisis. Yet, it is essential to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals: elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-1998. However, these late-1990s crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Remarkably, there is also no correlation between the size and the rate of change of DM central banks’ balance sheets, on the one hand, and EM risk assets and currencies on the other. In particular, Chart I-13 validates that the annual growth rate of G4 central banks’ balance sheets does not correlate with either EM share prices or EM local currency bonds’ total returns in U.S. dollars. Chart I-13Pace Of QEs And EM: No Correlation Pace Of QEs And EM: No Correlation Pace Of QEs And EM: No Correlation Finally, there is a low correlation between U.S. real interest rates and the real broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-14). Notably, Chart I-15 illustrates that the greenback often acts as a countercyclical currency, appreciating when global growth is slowing and depreciating when the global business cycle accelerating. Please note that the dollar is shown inverted on this chart. Chart I-14The U.S. Dollar And U.S. Real Rates The U.S. Dollar And U.S. Real Rates The U.S. Dollar And U.S. Real Rates Chart I-15The U.S. Dollar Is Countercyclical The U.S. Dollar Is Countercyclical The U.S. Dollar Is Countercyclical Bottom Line: Many analysts and investors assign more significance to the Fed policy’s impact on EM risk assets than historical evidence warrants. Unless Fed policy easing coincides with EM growth recovery, the Fed’s positive impact on EM will prove to be fleeting. Investment Considerations Widespread bullish bias on EM among investors currently and a continuous slew of poor growth data in China and global trade give us the conviction to argue that the current EM rally is not sustainable. Even if the S&P 500 drifts higher, EM stocks and credit will underperform their U.S. counterparts (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Stay Short EM / Long S&P 500 Stay Short EM / Long S&P 500 Stay Short EM / Long S&P 500 The EM equity index is sitting at a major technical resistance, and a decisive break above this level will challenge our view (Chart I-17, top panel). The same holds true for many EM currencies and copper (Chart I-17, bottom panel). However, for now, we are maintaining our negative bias. Chart I-17EM Equities And Copper Are Facing Resistance EM Equities And Copper Are Facing Resistance EM Equities And Copper Are Facing Resistance Within the EM equity universe, our overweights are Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Korea, and Thailand. Our underweights are Indonesia, India, Philippines, South Africa, and Peru. We continue to recommend shorting the following EM currency basket versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, IDR, MYR, CLP, and KRW. The full list of our recommended positions across EM equities, local rates, credit, and currencies is available on pages 17-18. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks Local currency bonds will outperform equities in Chile over the next six to nine months (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks The central bank is raising interest rates to cap inflation. However, we believe this is misguided because China’s ongoing deceleration along with lower copper prices, will slow growth in Chile over the course of this year. In addition, the current domestic inflation dynamics are less worrisome than the central bank contends. There is ongoing debate in the policy circles of Santiago over whether the recent large net immigration wave, particularly from Venezuela, is inflationary or disinflationary. On the one hand, net immigration expands the supply of labor and puts downward pressure on wages, and hence is disinflationary (Chart II-2). On the other hand, net immigration bolsters demand, and thereby inflation. Chart II-2Chile: Labor Force Is Expanding At 2% Chile: Labor Force Is Expanding At 2% Chile: Labor Force Is Expanding At 2% The central bank has acknowledged both effects but has cited that the latter will overwhelm the former. We disagree with this assessment and believe that current immigration in Chile will be more disinflationary. There are a number of factors that make us believe so: Both nominal and real wage growth are cooling off rapidly (Chart II-3). This corroborates the thesis that the expanding supply of labor is capping wage increases. Chart II-3Chile: Wage Growth Is Decelerating Chile: Wage Growth Is Decelerating Chile: Wage Growth Is Decelerating Central banks in any country need to be concerned with rising unit labor costs and service sector inflation. Energy and food prices are beyond a central bank’s control. Monetary policy should not respond to fluctuations in these prices unless there are second-round effects on wages and other prices.  There is presently no genuine inflationary pressures in Chile. The average of Chile’s core and trimmed mean inflation rates stands at 2.5%, and service sector inflation is at 3.7% (Chart II-4). This is within the central bank’s inflation target range of 3% +/-1%. Chart II-4Chile: Inflation Is Within Target Range Chile: Inflation Is Within Target Range Chile: Inflation Is Within Target Range Finally, Chile’s exports are set to shrink due to the ongoing deceleration in China and lower copper prices (Chart II-5). With exports accounting for 30% of GDP, a negative external shock will slow domestic demand too. This will be disinflationary. Chart II-5Chilean Exports Are About To Contract Chilean Exports Are About To Contract Chilean Exports Are About To Contract The fixed-income market in Chile is pricing in rate hikes (Chart II-6). We continue to recommend receiving 3-year swap rates. Even if the central bank continues to tighten, long-term interest rates will decline, anticipating rate cuts down the road. Chart II-6Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chilean share prices, in absolute terms, are at risk from the EM and commodities selloff. However, we recommend dedicated EM equity portfolios overweight Chile. The economy is fundamentally and structurally solid, and local equity markets are supported by large local investment pools. Importantly, unlike many other commodity producers, currency depreciation in Chile does not stop the central bank from cutting interest rates. Banco Central de Chile does not target the exchange rate and will cut rates to mitigate the adverse external shock. This will ensure that business cycle fluctuations in Chile will be milder than in other developing economies where central banks tighten to defend their currencies. This is positive for Chilean stocks versus other EM bourses. Finally, the peso is at risk of depreciation from lower copper prices. Bottom Line: Local investors should favor domestic bonds over stocks. Fixed-income traders should bet on lower three-year swap rates. Dedicated EM investors should overweight Chilean equities. Currency traders should maintain a short CLP / long USD trade. Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

This is the second of a two-part Special Report on the structural changes that have occurred as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. We look at three issues: asset correlation, the safety of the financial system, and the level of global debt. First, correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. Some believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has shifted permanently higher for two main reasons: (1) trading factors such as the increased use of exchange-traded funds and algorithms; and (2) the risk-on/risk-off environment in which trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. We have sympathy for the second explanation. The equity risk premium (ERP) was forced higher on a sustained basis by the financial crisis, driven by fears that the advanced economies had entered a ‘secular stagnation’. Elevated correlation among risk assets was a result of a higher-than-normal ERP. The ERP should decline as fears of secular stagnation fade, leading to a lower average level of risk asset correlation than has been the case over the last decade. Second, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. But is the financial system really any safer today? Undoubtedly, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. The propensity for contagion among banks has diminished and there has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities. The bad news is that the level of global debt has increased at an alarming pace. The third part of this report highlights that elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system. Choking debt levels boost the vulnerability to negative shocks. The number and probability of potential shocks appear to have increased since 2007, including extreme weather events, sovereign debt crises, large-scale migration, populism, water crises and cyber & data attacks. The lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide any fiscal relief in the event of a negative shock. Moreover, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend more in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. The Great Recession and Financial Crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policy and financial markets for years to come. Rather than reviewing the roots of the crisis, the first of our two-part series examined the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. We covered the changing structure of the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. We highlighted that the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. We made the case that the prolonged inflation undershoot is sowing the seeds of an overshoot in the coming years, in part related to central bank policymakers that are doomed to fight the last war. Finally, we argued that the forces behind the structural and cyclical bull market in bonds reached an inflection point in 2016/2017. In Part II, we examine the theory that the financial crisis has permanently lifted market correlations among risk assets. Next, we look at whether regulatory changes implemented as a result of the financial crisis have made the global financial system safer. Finally, we highlight the implications of the continued rise in global leverage over the past decade in the context of BCA’s Debt Supercycle theme. The bottom line is that the global financial system still faces substantial risks, despite a more highly regulated banking system. (1) Are Risk Asset Correlations Permanently Higher? Correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. For example, risk assets became more highly correlated, suggesting little differentiation within or across asset classes. Chart II-1 presents a proxy for U.S. equity market correlations, using a sample of current S&P 100 companies. The average correlation was depressed in the 1990s and 2000s relative to the 1980s. It spiked in 2007 and fluctuated at extremely high levels for several years, before moving erratically lower. It has jumped recently and is roughly in the middle of the post-1980s range. Chart II-1Two Factors Driving Correlation bca.bca_mp_2019_01_01_s2_c1 bca.bca_mp_2019_01_01_s2_c1 Correlations will undoubtedly ebb and flow in the coming years and will spike again in the next recession. But a key question is whether correlations will oscillate around a higher average level than in the 1990s and 2000s. The consensus seems to believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has indeed shifted higher on a structural basis for two main reasons: Market Structure Changes: Many investors point to trading factors such as the increased use of index products (exchange-traded funds for example), and high-frequency/algorithmic trading as likely culprits. Macro “theme” investing has reportedly become more popular and is often implemented through algorithms. The result is an increase in stock market volatility and a tendency for risk-asset prices to move up and down based on momentum because they are all being traded as a group. These factors would likely be evident today even if the financial crisis never happened, but the popularity of algorithm trading may have been encouraged by the fact that the macro backdrop was so uncertain for years after Lehman collapsed. Risk On/Off Trading Environment: Trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Even after the recession ended, the headwinds to growth were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged largely on the success or failure of unorthodox monetary policies. The general feeling was that either the policies would “work”, the output gap would gradually close and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail and risk assets would be dragged down by a return to recession. Thus, markets traded on an extreme “risk-on/risk-off” basis, as sentiment swung wildly with each new piece of economic and earnings data. While the market structure thesis has merit on the surface, the impact should only be short term in nature. It is difficult to see how a change in the intra-day microstructure of the market could have such a fundamental, wide-ranging and permanent impact on market prices. Previous research suggests that any impact on market correlation beyond the very short term is likely to be small. For the sake of brevity, we won’t present the evidence here, but instead refer readers to two BCA Special Reports.1 The risk on/off trading environment thesis is a more plausible explanation. However, we find it more useful to think about it in terms of the equity risk premium (ERP). A higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which, in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. A lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious are an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Shifts in the ERP are sometimes structural in nature, but there is also a strong cyclical element in that persistent equity declines historically have had the effect of temporarily raising the ERP and correlations. A simple model based on the ERP and volatility explains a lot of the historical variation in equity correlation, including the elevated levels observed in the years after 2007 (Chart II-2).2 The shift lower in correlations after 2012 reflects both a lower equity risk premium and a dramatic decline in downside volatility. Chart II-2Simple Model Explains Correlation Simple Model Explains Correlation Simple Model Explains Correlation It is tempting to believe that the lingering shell-shock related to the financial crisis means that the underlying equity risk premium has shifted permanently higher. The ERP is still elevated by historical standards, but this is more reflective of extraordinarily low bond yields than an elevated forward earnings yield. Investors evidently believe that the U.S. and other developed economies are stuck in a “secular stagnation”, which will require low interest rates for many years just to keep economic growth near its trend pace. In other words, the equilibrium interest rate, or R-star, is still very low. The ERP and correlations among risk assets will undoubtedly spike again in the next recession. Nonetheless, in the absence of recession, we expect fears regarding secular stagnation to fade further. If the advanced economies hold up as short-term interest rates and bond yields rise, then concerns that R-star is extremely low will dissipate and expectations regarding equilibrium bond yields will shift higher. The ERP will move lower as bond yields, rather than the earnings yield, do most of the adjustment. The underlying correlations among risk asset prices should correspondingly recede. This includes correlations among a wide variety of risk assets, such as corporate bonds and commodities. While this describes our base case outlook, there is a non-trivial risk that the next recession arrives soon and is deep. This would underscore the view that R-star is indeed very low and the economy needs constant monetary stimulus just to keep it out of recession (i.e. the secular stagnation thesis). The ERP and correlations would stay elevated on average in that scenario. What About The Stock/Bond Correlation? Chart II-3 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and the early-2000s. Bond yields tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined when the stock market has swooned. Chart II-3Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Inflation expectations can help explain the shift in stock/bond correlation. Expectations became unmoored after 1970, which meant that inflationary shocks became the primary driver of bond yields. Strong growth became associated with rising inflation and inflation expectations, and the view that central banks had fallen behind the curve. Bond yields surged as markets discounted aggressive tightening designed to choke off inflation. And, given that inflation lags the cycle and had a lot of persistence, central banks were not in a position to ease policy at the first hint of a growth slowdown. This was obviously a poor backdrop for stocks. When inflation expectations became well anchored again around the late 1990s, investors no longer feared that central banks would have to aggressively stomp on growth whenever actual inflation edged higher. Central banks also had more latitude to react quickly by cutting rates at the first sign of slower economic growth. Fluctuations in growth became the primary driver of bond yields, allowing stock prices to rise and fall along with yields. The correlation has therefore been positive most of the time since 2003. Bottom Line: A negative correlation between stocks and bond yields reared its ugly head in the last quarter of 2018. The equity correction reflected several factors, but the previous surge in bond yields and hawkish Fed comments appeared to spook markets. Investors became nervous that the fed funds rate had already entered restrictive territory, at a time when the global economy was cooling off. We expect more of these episodes as the Fed normalizes short-term interest rates over the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we see no evidence that inflation expectations have become unmoored. This implies that the stock-bond correlation will generally be positive most of the time over the medium term. In addition, the average level of correlation among risk assets has probably not been permanently raised, although spikes during recessions or growth scares will inevitably occur. (2) Is The Global Financial System Really Safer Today? The roots of the great financial crisis and recession involved a global banking and shadow banking system that encouraged leverage and risk-taking in ways that were hard for investors and regulators to assess. Complex and opaque financial instruments helped to hide risk, at a time when regulators were “asleep at the switch”. In many countries, credit grew at a much faster pace than GDP and capital buffers were dangerously low. Banking sector compensation skewed the system toward short-term gains over long-term sustainable returns. Lax lending standards and a heavy reliance on short-term wholesale markets to fund trading and lending activity contributed to cascading defaults and a complete seizure in parts of the money and fixed income markets. A vital question is whether the financial system is any less vulnerable today to contagion and seizure. The short answer is that the financial system is better prepared for a shock, but the problem is that the number of potential sources of instability have increased since 2007. Since the financial crisis, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. Reforms have come under four key headings: Capital: Regulators raised the minimum capital requirement for banks, added a buffer requirement, and implemented a surcharge on systemically important banks. Liquidity: Regulators implemented a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and a Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) in order to ensure that banks have sufficient short-term funds to avoid liquidity shortages and bank runs.3 Risk Management: Banks are being forced to develop systems to better monitor risk, and are subject to periodic stress tests. Resolution Planning: Banks have also been asked to detail options for resolution that, hopefully, should reduce systemic risk should a major financial institution become insolvent. Global systemically-important banks, in particular, will require sufficient loss-absorbing capacity. A major study by the Bank for International Settlements,4 along with other recent studies, found that systemic risk in the global financial system has diminished markedly as a result of the new regulations. On the whole, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. Lending standards have tightened almost across the board relative to pre-crisis levels, particularly for residential mortgages. Additional capital and liquid assets provide a much wider buffer today against adverse shocks, allowing most banks to pass recent stress tests (Chart II-4). Financial institutions have generally re-positioned toward retail and commercial banking and wealth management, and away from more complex and capital-intensive activities (Chart II-5). The median share of trading assets in total assets for individual G-SIBs has declined from around 20% to 12% over 2009-16. Chart II-4 Chart II-5 Moreover, the propensity for contagion among banks has diminished. The BIS notes that assessing all the complex interactions in the global financial system is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, a positive sign is that banks are focusing more on their home markets since the crisis, and that direct connections between banks through lending and derivatives exposures have declined. The BIS highlights that aggregate foreign bank claims have declined by 16% since the crisis, driven particularly by banks from the advanced economies most affected by the crisis, especially from some European countries (Chart II-6). It is also positive that European banks have made some headway in diminishing over-capacity, although problems still exist in Italy. Finally, and importantly, there has been a distinct shift toward more stable sources of funding, such as deposits, away from fickle wholesale markets (Charts II-7 and II-8). Chart II-6Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently)   Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Outside of banking, many other regulatory changes have been implemented to make the system safer. One important example is that rules were adjusted to reduce the risk of runs on money market funds. What About Shadow Banking? Of course, more could be done to further indemnify the financial system. Concentration in the global banking system has not diminished, and it appears that the problem of “too big to fail” has not been solved. And then there is the shadow banking sector, which played a major role in the financial crisis by providing banks a way of moving risk to off-balance sheet entities and securities, and thereby hiding the inherent risks. Shadow banking is defined as credit provision that occurs outside of the banking system, but involves the key features of bank lending including leverage, and liquidity and maturity transformation. Complex structured credit securities, such as Collateralized Debt Obligations, allowed this type of transformation to mushroom in ways that were difficult for regulators and investors to understand. A recent study by the Group of Thirty5 concluded that securitization has dropped to a small fraction of its pre-crisis level, and that growing non-bank credit intermediation since the Great Recession has primarily been in forms that do not appear to raise financial stability concerns. Much of the credit creation has been in non-financial corporate bonds, which is a more stable and less risky form of credit extension than bank lending. Other types of lending have increased, such as corporate credit to pension funds and insurance companies, but this does not involve maturity transformation, according to the Group of Thirty. There has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities such as collateralized debt obligations, asset-backed commercial paper, and structured investment vehicles since 2007 (Chart II-9). While the situation must be monitored, the Group of Thirty study concludes that the financial system in the advanced economies appears to be less vulnerable to bouts of self-reinforcing forced selling, such as occurred during the 2008 crisis. Chart II-9Less Private-Sector Securitization Less Private-Sector Securitization Less Private-Sector Securitization One exception is the U.S. leveraged loan market, which has swelled to $1.13 trillion and about half has been pooled into Collateralized Loan Obligations. As with U.S. high-yield bonds, the situation is fine as long as profitability remains favorable. But in the next recession, lax lending standards today will contribute to painful losses in leveraged loans. The Bad News That’s the good news. The bad news is that, while the financial system might have become less complex and opaque, the level of debt has increased at an alarming rate in both the private and public sectors in many countries. Elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system, especially as global bond yields return to more normal levels by historical standards. We discuss other pressure points such as Emerging Markets and China in the next section, although the latter deserves a few comments before we leave the subject of shadow banking. The Group of Thirty notes that 30% of Chinese credit is provided by a broad array of poorly regulated shadow banking entities and activities, including trust funds, wealth management products, and “entrusted loans.” Links between these entities and banks are unclear, and sometimes involve informal commitments to provide credit or liquidity support. The study takes some comfort that most of Chinese debt takes place between Chinese domestic state-owned banks and state-owned companies or local government financing vehicles. Foreign investors have limited involvement, thus reducing potential direct contagion outside of China in the event of a financial event. Still, the potential for contagion internationally via global sentiment and/or the economic fallout is high. The other bad news is that, while regulators in the advanced economies have managed to improve the ability of financial institutions to weather shocks, potential risks to the financial system have increased in number and in probability of occurrence. The Global Risk Institute (GRI) recently published a detailed comparison of potential shocks today relative to 2007.7 The report sees twice the number of risks versus 2007 that are identified as “current” (i.e. could occur at any time) and of “high impact”. The most pressing risks today include extreme weather events, asset bubbles, sovereign debt crises, large-scale involuntary migration, water crises and cyber & data attacks. Any of these could trigger a broad financial crisis if the shock is sufficiently intense, despite improved regulation. The GRI study also eventuates how the risks will evolve over the next 11 years. Readers should see the study for details, but it is interesting that the experts foresee cyber dependency rising to the top of the risk pile by 2030. The increase is driven by the importance of data ownership, the increasing role of algorithms and control systems, and the $1.2 trillion projected cost of cyber, data and infrastructure attacks. Our computer systems are not prepared for the advances of technology, such as quantum computing. Climate change moves to the number two risk spot in its base-case outlook. Space limitations precluded a discussion of the rise of populism in this report, but the GRI sees the political tensions related to income inequality as the number three threat to the global financial system by 2030. Bottom Line: Regulators have managed to substantially reduce the amount of hidden risk and the potential for contagion between financial institutions and across countries since 2007. Banks have a larger buffer against stocks. Unfortunately, the number and probability of potential shocks to the financial system appear to have increased since 2007. (3) Implications Of The Global Debt Overhang The End of the Debt Supercycle is a key BCA theme influencing our macro view of the economic and market outlook for the coming years. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness of monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit up-cycle. However, since the 2007-09 meltdown, even zero (or negative) policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed economies, except in a few cases. The end of the Debt Supercycle has severely impaired the key transmission channel between changes in monetary policy and economic activity. The combination of high debt burdens and economic uncertainty has curbed borrowers’ appetite for credit while increased regulatory pressures and those same uncertainties have made lenders less willing to extend loans. This has severely eroded the effectiveness of lower interest in boosting credit demand and supply, forcing central banks to rely increasingly on manipulating asset prices and exchange rates. On a positive note, the plunge in interest rates has lowered debt servicing costs to historically low levels. Yet, it is the level, rather than the cost, of debt that seems to have been an impediment to the credit cycle, contributing to a lethargic economic expansion. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) publishes an excellent dataset of credit trends across a broad swath of developing and emerging economies. Some broad conclusions come from an examination of the data (Charts II-10 and II-11):7 Chart II-10Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Chart II-11EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started Private debt growth has only recently accelerated for the advanced economies as a whole. There are only a handful of developed economies where private debt-to-GDP ratios have moved up meaningfully in the past few years. These are countries that avoided a real estate/banking bust and where property prices have continued to rise (e.g. Canada and Australia). The high level of real estate prices and household debt currently is a major source of concern to the authorities in those few countries. Even where some significant consumer deleveraging has occurred (e.g. the U.S., Spain and Ireland), debt-to-income ratios remain very high by historical standards. In many cases, a stabilization or decline in private debt burdens has been offset by a continued rise in public debt, keeping overall leverage close to peak levels. This is a key legacy of the financial crisis; many governments were forced to offset the loss of demand from private sector deleveraging by running larger and persistent budget deficits. Weak private demand accounts for close to 50% of the rise in public debt on average according to the IMF. Global debt of all types (public and private) has soared from 207% of GDP in 2007 to 246% today. The Debt Supercycle did not end everywhere at the same time. It peaked in Japan more than 20 years ago and has not yet reached a decisive bottom. The 2007-09 meltdown marked the turning point for the U.S. and Europe, but it has not even started in the emerging world. The financial crisis accelerated the accumulation of debt in the latter as investors shifted capital away from the struggling advanced economies to (seemingly less risky) emerging markets. Both EM private- and public-sector debt ratios have continued to move up at an alarming pace. The lesson from Japan is that deleveraging cycles following the bursting of a major credit bubble can last a very long time indeed. One key area where there has been significant deleveraging is the U.S. household sector (Chart II-12). The ratio of household debt to income has fallen below its long-term trend, suggesting that the deleveraging process is well advanced. However, one could argue that the ratio will undershoot the trend for an extended period in a mirror image of the previous overshoot. Or, it may be that the trend has changed; it could now be flat or even down. Chart II-12U.S. Household Deleveraging... U.S. Household Deleveraging... U.S. Household Deleveraging... What is clear is that U.S. attitudes toward saving and spending have changed dramatically since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart II-13). Like the Great Depression of the 1930s that turned more than one generation off of debt, the 2008/09 crisis appears to have been a watershed event that marked a structural shift in U.S. consumer attitudes toward credit-financed spending. The Debt Supercycle is over for this sector. Chart II-13...As Attitudes To Debt Change ...As Attitudes To Debt Change ...As Attitudes To Debt Change Developing Countries: Debt And Economic Fundamentals BCA’s long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Trade wars and a tightening Fed are negative for EM assets, but the main headwinds facing this asset class are structural. 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 II-14). 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 II-14, bottom panel). Chart II-14EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... The 2019 Key Views8 report from our Emerging Markets Strategy team highlights that excessive capital inflows over the past decade have contributed to over-investment and mal-investment. Much of the borrowing was used to fund unprofitable projects, as highlighted by the plunge in productivity growth, profit margins and return on assets in the EM space relative to pre-Lehman levels (Chart II-15) Decelerating global growth in 2018 has exposed these poor fundamentals. Chart II-15...Along With Deteriorating Profitability ...Along With Deteriorating Profitability ...Along With Deteriorating Profitability As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, emerging financial markets may enjoy a rally in the second half of 2019 on the back of Chinese policy stimulus. However, this will only represent a ‘sugar high’. The debt overhang in emerging market economies is unlikely to end benignly because a painful period of corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms are required in order to boost productivity and thereby improve these countries’ ability to service their debt mountains. China’s Debt Problem Space limitations preclude a full discussion of the complex debt situation in China and the risks it poses for the global financial system. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart II-16). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart II-17). Chinese banks are currently being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. Chart II-16China's Overinvestment... China's Overinvestment... China's Overinvestment... Chart II-17Has Undermined The Return On Assets Has Undermined The Return On Assets Has Undermined The Return On Assets The previous section highlighted that much of the debt has been created in the opaque shadow banking system, where vast amounts of hidden risk have likely accumulated. Whether or not the central government is willing and/or able to cover a wave of defaults and recapitalize the banking system in the event of a negative shock is hotly debated, both within and outside of BCA. But even if a financial crisis can be avoided, bringing an end to the unsustainable credit boom will undoubtedly have significant consequences for the Chinese economy and the emerging economies that trade with it. Interest Costs To Rise Globally, many are concerned about rising interest costs as interest rates normalize over the coming years. In Appendix Charts II-19 to II-21, we provide interest-cost simulations for selected government, corporate and household sectors under three interest-rate scenarios. The good news is that the starting point for interest rates is still low, and that it takes years for the stock of outstanding debt to adjust to higher market rates. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, interest burdens will increase but will generally remain low by historical standards. It would take a surge of 300 basis points across the yield curve to really ‘move the needle’ in terms of interest expense. This does not imply that the global debt situation is sustainable or that a financial crisis can be easily avoided. The next economic downturn will probably not be the direct result of rising interest costs. Nonetheless, elevated government, household and/or corporate leverage has several important long-term negative implications: Limits To Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Government indebtedness will limit the use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy during the next economic downturn. Chart II-18 highlights that structural budget deficits and government debt levels are higher today compared to previous years that preceded recessions. The risk is especially high for emerging economies and some advanced economies (such as Italy) where investors will be unwilling to lend at a reasonable rate due to default fears. Even in countries where the market still appears willing to lend to the government at a low interest rate, political constraints may limit the room to maneuver as voters and fiscally-conservative politicians revolt against a surge in budget deficits. This will almost certainly be the case in the U.S., where the 2018 tax cuts mean that the federal budget deficit is likely to be around 6% of GDP in the coming years even in the absence of recession. A recession would push it close to a whopping 10%. Even in countries where fiscal stimulus is possible, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend and take on more debt. Chart II-18 Growth Headwinds: The debt situation condemns the global economy to a slower pace of trend growth in part because of weaker capital spending. From one perspective this is a good thing, because spending financed by the excessive use of credit is unsustainable. Still, deleveraging has much further to go at the global level, which means that spending will have to be constrained relative to income growth. The IMF estimates that deleveraging in the private sector for the advanced economies is only a third of historical precedents at this point in the cycle. The IMF also found that debt overhangs have historically been associated with lower GDP growth even in the absence of a financial crisis. Sooner or later, overleveraged sectors have to retrench. Vulnerability To Negative Shocks: If adjustment is postponed, debt reaches levels that make the economy highly vulnerable to negative shocks as defaults rise and lenders demand a higher return or withdraw funding altogether. IMF work shows that economic downturns are more costly in terms of lost GDP when it is driven or accompanied by a financial crisis. This is particularly the case for emerging markets. Bottom Line: Although credit growth has been subdued in most major advanced economies, there has been little deleveraging overall and debt-to-GDP is still rising at the global level. Elevated debt levels are far from benign, even if it appears to be easily financed at the moment. It acts as dead weight on economic activity and makes the world economy vulnerable to negative shocks. It steals growth from the future and, in the event of such a shock, the lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide fiscal relief. The end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst APPENDIX Chart II-19Corporate Interest Cost Scenarios Corporate Interest Interest Cost Scenarios Corporate Interest Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-20Government Interest Cost Scenarios Government Interest Cost Scenarios Government Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-21U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ 1      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The Bane Of Investors’ Existence: Why Is Correlation High And When Will It Fall?" dated January 4, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report "The Passive Menace," dated September 13, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2       We use only below average returns in the calculation of volatility (downside volatility) because we are more concerned with the risk of equity market declines for the purposes of this model. 3       The LCR requires a large bank to hold enough high-quality liquid assets to cover the net cash outflows the bank would expect to occur over a 30-day stress scenario. The NSFR complements the LCR by requiring an amount of stable funding that is tailored to the liquidity risk of a bank’s assets and liabilities, based on a one-year time horizon. 4       Structural Changes in Banking After the Crisis. CGFS Papers No.60. Bank for International Settlements, January 2018. 5       Shadow Banking and Capital Markets Risks and Opportunities. Group of Thirty. Washington, D.C., November 2016. 6       Back to the Future: 2007 to 2030. Are New Financial Risks Foreshadowing a Systemic Risk Event? Global Risk Institute. 7       For more details on public and private debt trends, please see BCA Special Report "The End Of The Debt Supercycle: An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8       Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "2019 Key Views: Will The EM Lost Decade End With A Bang Or A Whimper?" dated December 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to a litany of worries regarding the outlook. The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. There are some tentative signs that the two U.S. weak spots, housing and capital spending, are bottoming out. However, our global leading economic indicators continue to herald a soft first half of 2019 outside of the U.S. The dollar thus has more upside in the near term. The political risks facing investors have not diminished either. In particular, we expect turbulence related to the U.S./China trade war to extend well beyond the 3-month “truce” period. The returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities historically have not been particularly attractive on average when the U.S. yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies back to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The upgrade to stocks in the developed markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now, but be prepared to upgrade sometime in 2019. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil prices have overshot to the downside. Supply is adjusting and, given robust energy demand in 2019, we still expect prices to rise to $82. Feature Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to concerns regarding the U.S./China trade war, corporate leverage, global growth, rising U.S. interest rates and the shift toward quantitative tightening. Some equity indexes, such as the Russell 2000, reached bear market territory, having lost more than 20%. Losses have been even worse outside the U.S. Earnings revisions have plunged into the “net downgrade” zone. Implied volatility has spiked and corporate bond spreads are surging (Chart I-1). The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Chart I-1A Flight To Quality A Flight To Quality A Flight To Quality We laid out our economic view in detail in the BCA Outlook 2019 report, published in late November. Not enough has changed on the global economic front in the three weeks since then that would justify such a violent shift in investor sentiment. That said, our favorite global leading economic indicators continue to erode (Chart I-2). The only ray of hope is that the diffusion index constructed from our Global Leading Economic Indicator appears to have bottomed. Nonetheless, the actual LEI will keep falling until the diffusion index shifts into positive territory.   Chart I-2Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red For China, a key source of investor angst, the latest retail sales and industrial production reports reinforced that economic momentum continues to recede. We will not be convinced that growth is bottoming until we see an upturn in our credit impulse indicator (Chart I-3). Its continued decline in November suggests that the outlook for emerging market assets and commodity prices is poor for at least the next quarter. Global industrial output appears headed for a mild contraction. The manufacturing troubles are centered in the emerging Asian economies, but Europe and Japan are also feeling the negative effects. Chart I-3China: No Bottom Yet China: No Bottom Yet China: No Bottom Yet In the U.S., November’s bounce in housing starts and permits is a hopeful sign that the soft patch in this sector is ending. However, it is not clear how the devastating wildfires on the west coast have affected the housing data (Chart I-4). The downdraft in capital goods orders may also be drawing to a close, based on the latest reading from the Fed’s survey of capital spending intentions. The U.S. leading economic indicator dipped slightly in November, but remains consistent with above-trend real GDP growth in the months ahead. Chart I-4U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs The bottom line is that our outlook for growth has not been significantly altered. We see little risk of a U.S. recession in 2019. The global economy continues to weaken, but we expect enough policy stimulus out of China to stabilize growth in that economy in the second half of the year. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that, while the risks appeared elevated, we would consider shifting back to overweight in stocks if they cheapened sufficiently. Valuation has indeed improved in recent weeks and sentiment has turned more cautious. Global growth will likely continue to decelerate in the first half of 2019, but markets have largely discounted this outcome. In other words, the shift toward pessimism in financial markets appears overdone. The fact that the Fed has signaled a move away from regular quarter-point rate hikes adds to our confidence in playing what will likely be the last upleg in risk assets in this cycle. Fed: Rate Hikes No Longer On Autopilot The Fed lifted rates by a quarter point in December and signaled that any additional tightening will be data-dependent. The FOMC also trimmed the expected peak in the funds rate and its estimate of the long-run, or neutral, level. Policymakers were likely swayed by some disappointing U.S. economic data, the pullback in core PCE inflation, and the sharp tightening in financial conditions (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Financial Conditions Have Tightened Financial Conditions Have Tightened Financial Conditions Have Tightened Monetary conditions are not tight by historical yardsticks, such as the level of real interest rates. The problem is that investors fear that the neutral level of the fed funds rate, the so-called R-star, remains very depressed. If true, it could mean that the Fed is already outright restrictive, which would signal that the monetary backdrop has turned hostile for risk assets. The OIS curve signals that the consensus believes that the Fed is pretty much done the tightening cycle (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! We believe that R-star is higher than the current policy setting and is rising, as the growth headwinds related to the Great Financial Crisis fade with the passage of time. The problem is that nobody knows the level of the neutral rate. Thus, we need to watch for signs that the fed funds rate has surpassed that level, such as an inverted yield curve. The 10-year/3-month T-bill spread is still in positive territory, but barely so. Meanwhile, our R-star indicator is also flashing yellow as it sits on the zero line (Chart I-7). It is a composite of monetary indicators that in the past have been useful in signaling that monetary policy had become outright restrictive, leading to slower growth and trouble for risk assets. The lead time of this indicator relative to economic activity and risk asset prices has been quite variable historically, but a breakdown below zero would send a powerful bearish signal for risk assets if confirmed by an inverted yield curve. Chart I-7Worrying Signs Of Tight Money Worrying Signs Of Tight Money Worrying Signs Of Tight Money The Implications Of Four Fed Scenarios It is not surprising that investors are struggling with a number of different possible scenarios on how the R-star/Fed policy nexus will play out. We can perhaps boil down discussion of the Fed and the implications for financial markets to a matrix of four main outcomes, based on combinations related to the level of R-Star (high or low) and the pace of Fed rate hikes in 2019 (pause or continue increasing rates by 25 basis points per quarter). Policy Mistake #1: R-star is still very low, but policymakers do not realize this and the FOMC continues to tighten into restrictive territory in 2019. By definition, the economy begins to suffer in this scenario, inflation and inflation expectations decline and long-bond yields are flat-to-lower. The yield curve inverts. However, current real rates are still so low that the fed funds rate cannot be very far above R-Star, which means it would represent only a small policy mistake. As long as the Fed recognizes the economic slowdown early enough and truncates the rate hike cycle, then there is a good chance that a recession would be avoided. Investors would initially fear a recession, however, which means that risk assets would be hit hard in absolute terms and relative to bonds and cash until recession fears fade. The direction of the dollar is perhaps trickiest part because there are so many potential cross currents. To keep things simple we will assume that global growth follows our base-case view and remains lackluster in the first half of 2019, followed by a modest re-acceleration. We believe the dollar would likely rally a little as the Fed continues tightening, but then would fall back as the FOMC is forced to turn dovish in the face of a U.S. growth scare. Policy Mistake #2: R-Star is high and rising but the Fed fails to hike rates fast enough to keep up. The economy accelerates in this scenario because monetary policy remains stimulative through 2019, at a time when the 2018 fiscal stimulus will still be providing a demand tailwind. Core PCE inflation moves above 2% and long-term inflation expectations shift up, signaling to investors that the Fed has fallen behind the inflation curve. Risk assets rip for a while and the yield curve bear-steepens as the 10-year Treasury yield moves gradually higher at first. Belatedly, the FOMC realizes it has underestimated the neutral rate and signals a hawkish policy shift. A 50-basis point rate hike at one FOMC meeting causes risk assets to buckle on the back of surging Treasury yields. The yield curve begins to bear-flatten. Eventually the curve inverts and the economy enters recession. The dollar weakens at first because higher inflation lowers U.S. real interest rates relative to the rest of the world. Global growth prospects would initially get a boost from the acceleration in U.S. growth, which is also dollar-bearish. However, in the end the dollar would likely rise as global financial markets turn risk-off. Fed Gets It Right (1): R-star is high and rising. The Fed continues to tighten in line with the increase in the neutral rate. Treasurys sell off hard and the yield curve shifts higher, but remains fairly flat (parallel shift). The curve could mildly invert temporarily, but market worries about a recession eventually recede as economic momentum remains robust, allowing the curve to subsequently trade in the 0-50 basis point range. As discussed below, risk assets tend to outperform Treasurys and cash when the yield curve is in this range, but not by much. The Treasury market would suffer significant losses. This is the most dollar-bullish of the four scenarios, given our global growth view (tepid) and the fact that the market is not even priced for a full quarter-point rate hike in 2019. Fed Gets It Right (2): R-Star is actually still quite low, but the Fed correctly sees recent economic data disappointments and the tightening in financial conditions as signs that policy is close to neutral. The Fed pauses the rate hike cycle, followed by a slower and more data-dependent pace of tightening. The yield curve stays fairly flat and flirts with inversion as investors try to figure out if the Fed has overdone it. Risk assets are volatile and deliver little return over cash. Treasurys rally a bit as the chance of any further rate hikes is priced out of the market, but the rally is limited unless the economy falls into recession (which is not part of this scenario because we are assuming the Fed “gets it right”). The dollar fluctuates, but delivers no real trend since U.S. yield differentials versus the rest of the world do not change much. As we go to press, financial markets are moving in a way that is consistent the Policy Mistake #1; the consensus appears to believe that the Fed has already lifted the fed funds rate too far, causing financial conditions to tighten. But if U.S. real GDP growth remains above-trend as we expect, then the market view could eventually transition to a belief in Mistake #2; the Fed falls behind the inflation curve. The curve would re-steepen and risk assets could have one last hurrah before the Fed gets hawkish again and the 2020 recession arrives. The transition from Mistake #1 to Mistake #2 is essentially our base-case outlook. Nonetheless, obviously the risks around this central scenario are high, especially given how late it is in the U.S. economic and policy cycle. Asset Returns And The Yield Curve Our 2018 late-cycle investing theme focussed on historical asset return and policy dynamics after the U.S. unemployment rate fell below the full-employment level in past cycles. We found that risk assets tend to run into trouble once the U.S. S&P 500 operating margin peaks. As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, our margin proxies are still not heralding that a peak is at hand. Given the recent investor obsession with the U.S. yield curve, this month we look at historical asset returns at different levels of the 10-year/3-month T-bill yield curve slope: Phase I, when the slope is above 50 basis points; Phase II, when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points; and Phase III, when the curve is inverted (Table I-1). The data are presented as (not annualized) monthly average returns. It may be surprising that risk asset returns are for the most part positive even in when the curve is inverted. However, keep in mind that we are focussing on the curve, not on recession periods. The curve can be inverted for a long time before the subsequent recession occurs. Risk asset returns often remain positive during this period. The broad conclusions are as follows: Unsurprisingly, risk assets perform their best, in absolute terms and relative to government bonds and cash, in Phase I when the yield curve is steep. Returns tend to deteriorate as the curve flattens. This includes equities, corporate bonds and commodities. Small caps underperform large caps when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points, but the reverse is true when the curve is flatter or steeper than that range. The ratio of cyclical stocks to defensives has not revealed a consistent pattern with respect to the yield curve, although this may reflect the short historical period available. Value stocks shine versus growth when the curve is inverted. Hedge fund and private equity returns have not varied greatly across the three yield curve environments. Structured product, such as CMBS and ABS, have enjoyed their best performance when the curve is inverted. Timberland and Farmland have also rewarded investors during Phase III. We suspected that asset returns when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range would vary importantly with the direction of the curve. In Table I-I we split Phase II into two parts: when the curve is steepening after being inverted, and when the curve is flattening after being steep. In other words, when the consensus is either transitioning from quite bullish to very bearish, or vice-versa. Chart I- Risk assets such as equities (U.S. and Global) and U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds indeed perform much better in absolute terms when the curve is flat but is steepening rather than flattening. The same is true for U.S. structured product. In terms of excess returns relative to government issues, both U.S. IG and HY corporates have tended to underperform when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range. Surprisingly, the underperformance is worse when the curve is steepening than when it is flattening. This appears to reflect an anomalous period in early 2006 when the curve was flattening but corporate bonds enjoyed strong excess returns. Emerging market equities show very strong returns in all three curve phases. This reflects the inclusion of the pre-2000 period in the mean calculations, a time when EM equities were much less correlated with U.S. financial conditions. EM equity returns have been significantly lower on average since 2000 when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range (and especially when the curve is flattening) The bottom line is that risk assets can still reward investors with positive returns during periods when the yield curve is flat. However, it is a dangerous time, especially when the global economy is up to its eyeballs in debt. This month’s Special Report beginning on page 17 argues that, although regulation has made the global financial system more resilient to shocks compared to the pre-Lehman years, the number of potentially destabilizing shocks has increased. Moreover, the trade war and Brexit risks make the investment backdrop all the more precarious. No Quick End To The Trade War The honeymoon following the trade ceasefire between the U.S. and China, agreed at the G20 summit in early December, did not last long. The arrest of the chief financial officer of Chinese telecom maker Huawei and continuing hawkish tweets from the U.S. president dampened hopes that a trade agreement can be negotiated by March. Even news that China intended to cut tariffs on U.S. auto imports did not help much. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that negotiations will prove to be protracted and testy. It will take a lot more than some token market-opening action on the part of China to placate the U.S. Our geopolitical team emphasizes that “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance.1 For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart I-8). While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Chart I-8R&D Expenditure By Country R&D Expenditure By Country R&D Expenditure By Country U.S. demands will also be hard for China to swallow. Most importantly, the U.S. is requesting that China rein in its hacking and spying, shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors, adjust its “Made in China” targets to allow for more foreign competition, and lower foreign investment equity restrictions. These stumbling blocks will make it difficult to strike a deal on trade. We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China will not arrive in the 90-day timeframe of the ceasefire. Thus, global risk assets will be subject to swings in sentiment regarding the likelihood of a trade deal well beyond March. Meanwhile, as previously discussed, Chinese policy stimulus has not yet become aggressive enough to spark animal spirits in the private sector. The Chinese authorities are proceeding cautiously so as to avoid adding significantly to private- and public-sector’s debt mountain. This month’s Special Report also discusses the risks that the surge in debt over the past decade poses for the global financial system, including escalating risk in China’s shadow banking system. Brexit Pain Continues Politics surrounding the torturous Brexit process will also remain a source of volatility for global markets in 2019. Prime Minister May survived a leadership challenge, but this is hardly confidence-inspiring. The question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The votes appear to be in place for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to essentially pay for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election (which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power), or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the failure of the Tories to endorse May’s proposed agreement means that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear; the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart I-9). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. The bottom line is that, while a soft Brexit is the most likely outcome, the path from here to the end result will be punishing. We do not recommend Brexit-related bets on the pound, despite the fact that it is cheap. Chart I-9A Shift Toward Bremain A Shift Toward Bremain A Shift Toward Bremain 2019: A Tale Of Two Halves For EM, Commodities And The Dollar One of our key themes in the BCA Outlook 2019 is that the growth divergence between China and the U.S. will persist at least for the first half of 2019. The result will be weak EM asset prices and currencies, little upside for base metals and a strong U.S. dollar. We expect the Chinese authorities will do enough to stabilize growth by mid-year, providing the impetus for a playable bounce in EM and commodity prices in the second half of 2019, coinciding with a peak in the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, the dollar still has some upside potential in broad trade-weighted terms in the first half of 2019. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to show a greater need for policy tightening in the U.S. than in the rest of the major countries. The dollar has usually strengthened when this has been the case historically. In particular, the ECB’s Central Bank Monitor has slipped back into “easy money required” territory, reflecting moderating economic momentum and still-depressed consumer price inflation (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar The ECB announced the well-anticipated end of its asset purchase program in December. The central bank will now focus on forward guidance as its main policy tool outside of setting short-term interest rates. Lending via targeted LTROs will also be considered under certain circumstances. Policymakers retained the latest forward guidance after the December MPC meeting, that rates are on hold “through the summer of 2019”. The latest reading from our ECB Monitor suggests that the central bank could be on hold for longer than that. We expect Eurozone growth to improve somewhat through the year, but we still believe that interest rate differentials will move further in favor of the dollar relative to the euro and the other major currencies. Periods of slow global growth also tend to favor the greenback. The bottom line is that, while a correction is possible in the very near term, investors with at least a six-month horizon should remain long the dollar. Investment Conclusions: Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. The risks facing investors have not diminished either, especially given the precarious nature of late-cycle investing and the uncertainty regarding the neutral level of the fed funds rate. Historically, the returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities have not been particularly attractive on average when the yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, we believe that the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Despite our more positive view on equities, we remain cautious on credit. Spreads have widened recently to more attractive levels, but we remain concerned about the high leverage of U.S. corporates, whose debt/assets ratio is on average higher now than in 2009. Signs of strain are already showing in the junk bond market, with new issuance having largely dried up since early December. If this continues, borrowers may struggle to refinance maturing debt in early 2019.  Credit is an asset class that is likely to perform particularly poorly in the next recession. Our upgrade to stocks in the advanced markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil markets are still in the process of re-adjusting to an extraordinary policy reversal by the Trump Administration on its Iranian oil-export sanctions in November, as last-minute waivers were granted to Iran’s largest oil importers. We believe that oil prices have overshot to the downside. Following OPEC 2.0’s decision to cut 1.2mm b/d of production to re-balance markets in the first half of the year, we continue to expect prices to recover on the back of solid global energy demand. Canada also mandated energy firms to trim production. Our energy experts expect oil prices to reach $82/bbl in 2019. We also like gold as long as the fed funds rate remains below its neutral level. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 21, 2018 Next Report: January 31, 2019 II. (Part II) The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis This is the second of a two-part Special Report on the structural changes that have occurred as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. We look at three issues: asset correlation, the safety of the financial system, and the level of global debt. First, correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. Some believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has shifted permanently higher for two main reasons: (1) trading factors such as the increased use of exchange-traded funds and algorithms; and (2) the risk-on/risk-off environment in which trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. We have sympathy for the second explanation. The equity risk premium (ERP) was forced higher on a sustained basis by the financial crisis, driven by fears that the advanced economies had entered a ‘secular stagnation’. Elevated correlation among risk assets was a result of a higher-than-normal ERP. The ERP should decline as fears of secular stagnation fade, leading to a lower average level of risk asset correlation than has been the case over the last decade. Second, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. But is the financial system really any safer today? Undoubtedly, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. The propensity for contagion among banks has diminished and there has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities. The bad news is that the level of global debt has increased at an alarming pace. The third part of this report highlights that elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system. Choking debt levels boost the vulnerability to negative shocks. The number and probability of potential shocks appear to have increased since 2007, including extreme weather events, sovereign debt crises, large-scale migration, populism, water crises and cyber & data attacks. The lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide any fiscal relief in the event of a negative shock. Moreover, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend more in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. The Great Recession and Financial Crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policy and financial markets for years to come. Rather than reviewing the roots of the crisis, the first of our two-part series examined the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. We covered the changing structure of the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. We highlighted that the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. We made the case that the prolonged inflation undershoot is sowing the seeds of an overshoot in the coming years, in part related to central bank policymakers that are doomed to fight the last war. Finally, we argued that the forces behind the structural and cyclical bull market in bonds reached an inflection point in 2016/2017. In Part II, we examine the theory that the financial crisis has permanently lifted market correlations among risk assets. Next, we look at whether regulatory changes implemented as a result of the financial crisis have made the global financial system safer. Finally, we highlight the implications of the continued rise in global leverage over the past decade in the context of BCA’s Debt Supercycle theme. The bottom line is that the global financial system still faces substantial risks, despite a more highly regulated banking system. (1) Are Risk Asset Correlations Permanently Higher? Correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. For example, risk assets became more highly correlated, suggesting little differentiation within or across asset classes. Chart II-1 presents a proxy for U.S. equity market correlations, using a sample of current S&P 100 companies. The average correlation was depressed in the 1990s and 2000s relative to the 1980s. It spiked in 2007 and fluctuated at extremely high levels for several years, before moving erratically lower. It has jumped recently and is roughly in the middle of the post-1980s range. Chart II-1Two Factors Driving Correlation bca.bca_mp_2019_01_01_s2_c1 bca.bca_mp_2019_01_01_s2_c1 Correlations will undoubtedly ebb and flow in the coming years and will spike again in the next recession. But a key question is whether correlations will oscillate around a higher average level than in the 1990s and 2000s. The consensus seems to believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has indeed shifted higher on a structural basis for two main reasons: Market Structure Changes: Many investors point to trading factors such as the increased use of index products (exchange-traded funds for example), and high-frequency/algorithmic trading as likely culprits. Macro “theme” investing has reportedly become more popular and is often implemented through algorithms. The result is an increase in stock market volatility and a tendency for risk-asset prices to move up and down based on momentum because they are all being traded as a group. These factors would likely be evident today even if the financial crisis never happened, but the popularity of algorithm trading may have been encouraged by the fact that the macro backdrop was so uncertain for years after Lehman collapsed. Risk On/Off Trading Environment: Trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Even after the recession ended, the headwinds to growth were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged largely on the success or failure of unorthodox monetary policies. The general feeling was that either the policies would “work”, the output gap would gradually close and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail and risk assets would be dragged down by a return to recession. Thus, markets traded on an extreme “risk-on/risk-off” basis, as sentiment swung wildly with each new piece of economic and earnings data. While the market structure thesis has merit on the surface, the impact should only be short term in nature. It is difficult to see how a change in the intra-day microstructure of the market could have such a fundamental, wide-ranging and permanent impact on market prices. Previous research suggests that any impact on market correlation beyond the very short term is likely to be small. For the sake of brevity, we won’t present the evidence here, but instead refer readers to two BCA Special Reports.2 The risk on/off trading environment thesis is a more plausible explanation. However, we find it more useful to think about it in terms of the equity risk premium (ERP). A higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which, in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. A lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious are an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Shifts in the ERP are sometimes structural in nature, but there is also a strong cyclical element in that persistent equity declines historically have had the effect of temporarily raising the ERP and correlations. A simple model based on the ERP and volatility explains a lot of the historical variation in equity correlation, including the elevated levels observed in the years after 2007 (Chart II-2).3 The shift lower in correlations after 2012 reflects both a lower equity risk premium and a dramatic decline in downside volatility. Chart II-2Simple Model Explains Correlation Simple Model Explains Correlation Simple Model Explains Correlation It is tempting to believe that the lingering shell-shock related to the financial crisis means that the underlying equity risk premium has shifted permanently higher. The ERP is still elevated by historical standards, but this is more reflective of extraordinarily low bond yields than an elevated forward earnings yield. Investors evidently believe that the U.S. and other developed economies are stuck in a “secular stagnation”, which will require low interest rates for many years just to keep economic growth near its trend pace. In other words, the equilibrium interest rate, or R-star, is still very low. The ERP and correlations among risk assets will undoubtedly spike again in the next recession. Nonetheless, in the absence of recession, we expect fears regarding secular stagnation to fade further. If the advanced economies hold up as short-term interest rates and bond yields rise, then concerns that R-star is extremely low will dissipate and expectations regarding equilibrium bond yields will shift higher. The ERP will move lower as bond yields, rather than the earnings yield, do most of the adjustment. The underlying correlations among risk asset prices should correspondingly recede. This includes correlations among a wide variety of risk assets, such as corporate bonds and commodities. While this describes our base case outlook, there is a non-trivial risk that the next recession arrives soon and is deep. This would underscore the view that R-star is indeed very low and the economy needs constant monetary stimulus just to keep it out of recession (i.e. the secular stagnation thesis). The ERP and correlations would stay elevated on average in that scenario. What About The Stock/Bond Correlation? Chart II-3 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and the early-2000s. Bond yields tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined when the stock market has swooned. Chart II-3Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Inflation expectations can help explain the shift in stock/bond correlation. Expectations became unmoored after 1970, which meant that inflationary shocks became the primary driver of bond yields. Strong growth became associated with rising inflation and inflation expectations, and the view that central banks had fallen behind the curve. Bond yields surged as markets discounted aggressive tightening designed to choke off inflation. And, given that inflation lags the cycle and had a lot of persistence, central banks were not in a position to ease policy at the first hint of a growth slowdown. This was obviously a poor backdrop for stocks. When inflation expectations became well anchored again around the late 1990s, investors no longer feared that central banks would have to aggressively stomp on growth whenever actual inflation edged higher. Central banks also had more latitude to react quickly by cutting rates at the first sign of slower economic growth. Fluctuations in growth became the primary driver of bond yields, allowing stock prices to rise and fall along with yields. The correlation has therefore been positive most of the time since 2003. Bottom Line: A negative correlation between stocks and bond yields reared its ugly head in the last quarter of 2018. The equity correction reflected several factors, but the previous surge in bond yields and hawkish Fed comments appeared to spook markets. Investors became nervous that the fed funds rate had already entered restrictive territory, at a time when the global economy was cooling off. We expect more of these episodes as the Fed normalizes short-term interest rates over the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we see no evidence that inflation expectations have become unmoored. This implies that the stock-bond correlation will generally be positive most of the time over the medium term. In addition, the average level of correlation among risk assets has probably not been permanently raised, although spikes during recessions or growth scares will inevitably occur. (2) Is The Global Financial System Really Safer Today? The roots of the great financial crisis and recession involved a global banking and shadow banking system that encouraged leverage and risk-taking in ways that were hard for investors and regulators to assess. Complex and opaque financial instruments helped to hide risk, at a time when regulators were “asleep at the switch”. In many countries, credit grew at a much faster pace than GDP and capital buffers were dangerously low. Banking sector compensation skewed the system toward short-term gains over long-term sustainable returns. Lax lending standards and a heavy reliance on short-term wholesale markets to fund trading and lending activity contributed to cascading defaults and a complete seizure in parts of the money and fixed income markets. A vital question is whether the financial system is any less vulnerable today to contagion and seizure. The short answer is that the financial system is better prepared for a shock, but the problem is that the number of potential sources of instability have increased since 2007. Since the financial crisis, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. Reforms have come under four key headings: Capital: Regulators raised the minimum capital requirement for banks, added a buffer requirement, and implemented a surcharge on systemically important banks. Liquidity: Regulators implemented a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and a Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) in order to ensure that banks have sufficient short-term funds to avoid liquidity shortages and bank runs.4 Risk Management: Banks are being forced to develop systems to better monitor risk, and are subject to periodic stress tests. Resolution Planning: Banks have also been asked to detail options for resolution that, hopefully, should reduce systemic risk should a major financial institution become insolvent. Global systemically-important banks, in particular, will require sufficient loss-absorbing capacity. A major study by the Bank for International Settlements,5 along with other recent studies, found that systemic risk in the global financial system has diminished markedly as a result of the new regulations. On the whole, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. Lending standards have tightened almost across the board relative to pre-crisis levels, particularly for residential mortgages. Additional capital and liquid assets provide a much wider buffer today against adverse shocks, allowing most banks to pass recent stress tests (Chart II-4). Financial institutions have generally re-positioned toward retail and commercial banking and wealth management, and away from more complex and capital-intensive activities (Chart II-5). The median share of trading assets in total assets for individual G-SIBs has declined from around 20% to 12% over 2009-16. Chart II-4 Chart II-5 Moreover, the propensity for contagion among banks has diminished. The BIS notes that assessing all the complex interactions in the global financial system is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, a positive sign is that banks are focusing more on their home markets since the crisis, and that direct connections between banks through lending and derivatives exposures have declined. The BIS highlights that aggregate foreign bank claims have declined by 16% since the crisis, driven particularly by banks from the advanced economies most affected by the crisis, especially from some European countries (Chart II-6). It is also positive that European banks have made some headway in diminishing over-capacity, although problems still exist in Italy. Finally, and importantly, there has been a distinct shift toward more stable sources of funding, such as deposits, away from fickle wholesale markets (Charts II-7 and II-8). Chart II-6Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently)   Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Outside of banking, many other regulatory changes have been implemented to make the system safer. One important example is that rules were adjusted to reduce the risk of runs on money market funds. What About Shadow Banking? Of course, more could be done to further indemnify the financial system. Concentration in the global banking system has not diminished, and it appears that the problem of “too big to fail” has not been solved. And then there is the shadow banking sector, which played a major role in the financial crisis by providing banks a way of moving risk to off-balance sheet entities and securities, and thereby hiding the inherent risks. Shadow banking is defined as credit provision that occurs outside of the banking system, but involves the key features of bank lending including leverage, and liquidity and maturity transformation. Complex structured credit securities, such as Collateralized Debt Obligations, allowed this type of transformation to mushroom in ways that were difficult for regulators and investors to understand. A recent study by the Group of Thirty6 concluded that securitization has dropped to a small fraction of its pre-crisis level, and that growing non-bank credit intermediation since the Great Recession has primarily been in forms that do not appear to raise financial stability concerns. Much of the credit creation has been in non-financial corporate bonds, which is a more stable and less risky form of credit extension than bank lending. Other types of lending have increased, such as corporate credit to pension funds and insurance companies, but this does not involve maturity transformation, according to the Group of Thirty. There has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities such as collateralized debt obligations, asset-backed commercial paper, and structured investment vehicles since 2007 (Chart II-9). While the situation must be monitored, the Group of Thirty study concludes that the financial system in the advanced economies appears to be less vulnerable to bouts of self-reinforcing forced selling, such as occurred during the 2008 crisis. Chart II-9Less Private-Sector Securitization Less Private-Sector Securitization Less Private-Sector Securitization One exception is the U.S. leveraged loan market, which has swelled to $1.13 trillion and about half has been pooled into Collateralized Loan Obligations. As with U.S. high-yield bonds, the situation is fine as long as profitability remains favorable. But in the next recession, lax lending standards today will contribute to painful losses in leveraged loans. The Bad News That’s the good news. The bad news is that, while the financial system might have become less complex and opaque, the level of debt has increased at an alarming rate in both the private and public sectors in many countries. Elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system, especially as global bond yields return to more normal levels by historical standards. We discuss other pressure points such as Emerging Markets and China in the next section, although the latter deserves a few comments before we leave the subject of shadow banking. The Group of Thirty notes that 30% of Chinese credit is provided by a broad array of poorly regulated shadow banking entities and activities, including trust funds, wealth management products, and “entrusted loans.” Links between these entities and banks are unclear, and sometimes involve informal commitments to provide credit or liquidity support. The study takes some comfort that most of Chinese debt takes place between Chinese domestic state-owned banks and state-owned companies or local government financing vehicles. Foreign investors have limited involvement, thus reducing potential direct contagion outside of China in the event of a financial event. Still, the potential for contagion internationally via global sentiment and/or the economic fallout is high. The other bad news is that, while regulators in the advanced economies have managed to improve the ability of financial institutions to weather shocks, potential risks to the financial system have increased in number and in probability of occurrence. The Global Risk Institute (GRI) recently published a detailed comparison of potential shocks today relative to 2007.7 The report sees twice the number of risks versus 2007 that are identified as “current” (i.e. could occur at any time) and of “high impact”. The most pressing risks today include extreme weather events, asset bubbles, sovereign debt crises, large-scale involuntary migration, water crises and cyber & data attacks. Any of these could trigger a broad financial crisis if the shock is sufficiently intense, despite improved regulation. The GRI study also eventuates how the risks will evolve over the next 11 years. Readers should see the study for details, but it is interesting that the experts foresee cyber dependency rising to the top of the risk pile by 2030. The increase is driven by the importance of data ownership, the increasing role of algorithms and control systems, and the $1.2 trillion projected cost of cyber, data and infrastructure attacks. Our computer systems are not prepared for the advances of technology, such as quantum computing. Climate change moves to the number two risk spot in its base-case outlook. Space limitations precluded a discussion of the rise of populism in this report, but the GRI sees the political tensions related to income inequality as the number three threat to the global financial system by 2030. Bottom Line: Regulators have managed to substantially reduce the amount of hidden risk and the potential for contagion between financial institutions and across countries since 2007. Banks have a larger buffer against stocks. Unfortunately, the number and probability of potential shocks to the financial system appear to have increased since 2007. (3) Implications Of The Global Debt Overhang The End of the Debt Supercycle is a key BCA theme influencing our macro view of the economic and market outlook for the coming years. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness of monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit up-cycle. However, since the 2007-09 meltdown, even zero (or negative) policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed economies, except in a few cases. The end of the Debt Supercycle has severely impaired the key transmission channel between changes in monetary policy and economic activity. The combination of high debt burdens and economic uncertainty has curbed borrowers’ appetite for credit while increased regulatory pressures and those same uncertainties have made lenders less willing to extend loans. This has severely eroded the effectiveness of lower interest in boosting credit demand and supply, forcing central banks to rely increasingly on manipulating asset prices and exchange rates. On a positive note, the plunge in interest rates has lowered debt servicing costs to historically low levels. Yet, it is the level, rather than the cost, of debt that seems to have been an impediment to the credit cycle, contributing to a lethargic economic expansion. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) publishes an excellent dataset of credit trends across a broad swath of developing and emerging economies. Some broad conclusions come from an examination of the data (Charts II-10 and II-11):8 Chart II-10Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Chart II-11EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started Private debt growth has only recently accelerated for the advanced economies as a whole. There are only a handful of developed economies where private debt-to-GDP ratios have moved up meaningfully in the past few years. These are countries that avoided a real estate/banking bust and where property prices have continued to rise (e.g. Canada and Australia). The high level of real estate prices and household debt currently is a major source of concern to the authorities in those few countries. Even where some significant consumer deleveraging has occurred (e.g. the U.S., Spain and Ireland), debt-to-income ratios remain very high by historical standards. In many cases, a stabilization or decline in private debt burdens has been offset by a continued rise in public debt, keeping overall leverage close to peak levels. This is a key legacy of the financial crisis; many governments were forced to offset the loss of demand from private sector deleveraging by running larger and persistent budget deficits. Weak private demand accounts for close to 50% of the rise in public debt on average according to the IMF. Global debt of all types (public and private) has soared from 207% of GDP in 2007 to 246% today. The Debt Supercycle did not end everywhere at the same time. It peaked in Japan more than 20 years ago and has not yet reached a decisive bottom. The 2007-09 meltdown marked the turning point for the U.S. and Europe, but it has not even started in the emerging world. The financial crisis accelerated the accumulation of debt in the latter as investors shifted capital away from the struggling advanced economies to (seemingly less risky) emerging markets. Both EM private- and public-sector debt ratios have continued to move up at an alarming pace. The lesson from Japan is that deleveraging cycles following the bursting of a major credit bubble can last a very long time indeed. One key area where there has been significant deleveraging is the U.S. household sector (Chart II-12). The ratio of household debt to income has fallen below its long-term trend, suggesting that the deleveraging process is well advanced. However, one could argue that the ratio will undershoot the trend for an extended period in a mirror image of the previous overshoot. Or, it may be that the trend has changed; it could now be flat or even down. Chart II-12U.S. Household Deleveraging... U.S. Household Deleveraging... U.S. Household Deleveraging... What is clear is that U.S. attitudes toward saving and spending have changed dramatically since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart II-13). Like the Great Depression of the 1930s that turned more than one generation off of debt, the 2008/09 crisis appears to have been a watershed event that marked a structural shift in U.S. consumer attitudes toward credit-financed spending. The Debt Supercycle is over for this sector. Chart II-13...As Attitudes To Debt Change ...As Attitudes To Debt Change ...As Attitudes To Debt Change Developing Countries: Debt And Economic Fundamentals BCA’s long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Trade wars and a tightening Fed are negative for EM assets, but the main headwinds facing this asset class are structural. 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 II-14). 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 II-14, bottom panel). Chart II-14EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... The 2019 Key Views9 report from our Emerging Markets Strategy team highlights that excessive capital inflows over the past decade have contributed to over-investment and mal-investment. Much of the borrowing was used to fund unprofitable projects, as highlighted by the plunge in productivity growth, profit margins and return on assets in the EM space relative to pre-Lehman levels (Chart II-15) Decelerating global growth in 2018 has exposed these poor fundamentals. Chart II-15...Along With Deteriorating Profitability ...Along With Deteriorating Profitability ...Along With Deteriorating Profitability As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, emerging financial markets may enjoy a rally in the second half of 2019 on the back of Chinese policy stimulus. However, this will only represent a ‘sugar high’. The debt overhang in emerging market economies is unlikely to end benignly because a painful period of corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms are required in order to boost productivity and thereby improve these countries’ ability to service their debt mountains. China’s Debt Problem Space limitations preclude a full discussion of the complex debt situation in China and the risks it poses for the global financial system. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart II-16). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart II-17). Chinese banks are currently being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. Chart II-16China's Overinvestment... China's Overinvestment... China's Overinvestment... Chart II-17Has Undermined The Return On Assets Has Undermined The Return On Assets Has Undermined The Return On Assets The previous section highlighted that much of the debt has been created in the opaque shadow banking system, where vast amounts of hidden risk have likely accumulated. Whether or not the central government is willing and/or able to cover a wave of defaults and recapitalize the banking system in the event of a negative shock is hotly debated, both within and outside of BCA. But even if a financial crisis can be avoided, bringing an end to the unsustainable credit boom will undoubtedly have significant consequences for the Chinese economy and the emerging economies that trade with it. Interest Costs To Rise Globally, many are concerned about rising interest costs as interest rates normalize over the coming years. In Appendix Charts II-19 to II-21, we provide interest-cost simulations for selected government, corporate and household sectors under three interest-rate scenarios. The good news is that the starting point for interest rates is still low, and that it takes years for the stock of outstanding debt to adjust to higher market rates. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, interest burdens will increase but will generally remain low by historical standards. It would take a surge of 300 basis points across the yield curve to really ‘move the needle’ in terms of interest expense. This does not imply that the global debt situation is sustainable or that a financial crisis can be easily avoided. The next economic downturn will probably not be the direct result of rising interest costs. Nonetheless, elevated government, household and/or corporate leverage has several important long-term negative implications: Limits To Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Government indebtedness will limit the use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy during the next economic downturn. Chart II-18 highlights that structural budget deficits and government debt levels are higher today compared to previous years that preceded recessions. The risk is especially high for emerging economies and some advanced economies (such as Italy) where investors will be unwilling to lend at a reasonable rate due to default fears. Even in countries where the market still appears willing to lend to the government at a low interest rate, political constraints may limit the room to maneuver as voters and fiscally-conservative politicians revolt against a surge in budget deficits. This will almost certainly be the case in the U.S., where the 2018 tax cuts mean that the federal budget deficit is likely to be around 6% of GDP in the coming years even in the absence of recession. A recession would push it close to a whopping 10%. Even in countries where fiscal stimulus is possible, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend and take on more debt. Chart II-18 Growth Headwinds: The debt situation condemns the global economy to a slower pace of trend growth in part because of weaker capital spending. From one perspective this is a good thing, because spending financed by the excessive use of credit is unsustainable. Still, deleveraging has much further to go at the global level, which means that spending will have to be constrained relative to income growth. The IMF estimates that deleveraging in the private sector for the advanced economies is only a third of historical precedents at this point in the cycle. The IMF also found that debt overhangs have historically been associated with lower GDP growth even in the absence of a financial crisis. Sooner or later, overleveraged sectors have to retrench. Vulnerability To Negative Shocks: If adjustment is postponed, debt reaches levels that make the economy highly vulnerable to negative shocks as defaults rise and lenders demand a higher return or withdraw funding altogether. IMF work shows that economic downturns are more costly in terms of lost GDP when it is driven or accompanied by a financial crisis. This is particularly the case for emerging markets. Bottom Line: Although credit growth has been subdued in most major advanced economies, there has been little deleveraging overall and debt-to-GDP is still rising at the global level. Elevated debt levels are far from benign, even if it appears to be easily financed at the moment. It acts as dead weight on economic activity and makes the world economy vulnerable to negative shocks. It steals growth from the future and, in the event of such a shock, the lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide fiscal relief. The end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst APPENDIX Chart II-19Corporate Interest Cost Scenarios Corporate Interest Interest Cost Scenarios Corporate Interest Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-20Government Interest Cost Scenarios Government Interest Cost Scenarios Government Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-21U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our tactical upgrade of equities to overweight this month goes against most of our proprietary indicators. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S., Japan and Europe are all heading lower. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors are clearly moving funds away from the equity market at the moment. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a ‘sell’ signal. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, supporting the view that caution is still warranted. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio has dropped into negative territory. The earnings surprises index has also declined, although it remains above 60%. Finally, our Composite Technical Equity Indicator has broken below the zero line and its 9-month exponential moving average, sending a negative technical signal. On the positive side, our Monetary Indicator has hooked up, although it is still in negative territory for equities. From a contrary perspective, the fact that equity sentiment has turned bearish is positive for stocks. In fact, this is the main reason why we upgraded stocks this month. While it is late in the U.S. economic expansion and the Fed is tightening, sentiment regarding U.S. and global growth has become overly pessimistic. Thus, we are playing a late-cycle bounce in stocks. For bonds, the term premium moved further into negative territory in December, which is unsustainable from a long-term perspective. Long-term inflation expectations are also too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% target over the medium term. These facts suggest that bond yields have not peaked for the cycle, although at the moment they have not yet worked off oversold conditions according to our technical indicator. The U.S. dollar is overbought and very expensive on a PPP basis. Nonetheless, we believe it will become more expensive in the first half of 2019, before its structural downtrend resumes in broad trade-weighted terms. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators   Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator   Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields   Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP   Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator   Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals   Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators   Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop   Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot   Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions   Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   1      For more details, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda," dated December 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The Bane Of Investors’ Existence: Why Is Correlation High And When Will It Fall?" dated January 4, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report "The Passive Menace," dated September 13, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 3       We use only below average returns in the calculation of volatility (downside volatility) because we are more concerned with the risk of equity market declines for the purposes of this model. 4       The LCR requires a large bank to hold enough high-quality liquid assets to cover the net cash outflows the bank would expect to occur over a 30-day stress scenario. The NSFR complements the LCR by requiring an amount of stable funding that is tailored to the liquidity risk of a bank’s assets and liabilities, based on a one-year time horizon. 5       Structural Changes in Banking After the Crisis. CGFS Papers No.60. Bank for International Settlements, January 2018. 6       Shadow Banking and Capital Markets Risks and Opportunities. Group of Thirty. Washington, D.C., November 2016. 7       Back to the Future: 2007 to 2030. Are New Financial Risks Foreshadowing a Systemic Risk Event? Global Risk Institute. 8       For more details on public and private debt trends, please see BCA Special Report "The End Of The Debt Supercycle: An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 9       Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "2019 Key Views: Will The EM Lost Decade End With A Bang Or A Whimper?" dated December 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

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 Shifting Correlations Shifting 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 Mixed Messages On Growth Mixed 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 Diverging Growth, Diverging Bond Yields Diverging 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? Oil Correction Or Growth Scare? Oil 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 ECB Buying Does Not Control European Credit Spreads ECB 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 Spread Convergence During CSPP Spread 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? A Worsening Supply/Demand Balance For European BBBs? A 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 Bank Funding Versus Bond Funding Bank 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 More Bank Loans, Less Debt Issuance More 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 No Fundamental Changes From CSPP No 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 Stubbornly Resilient Bond Yields Stubbornly Resilient Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

Highlights Five risks to our bullish dollar stance need to be monitored: further weakness in the S&P 500; rebounding gold prices; stabilizing EM exchange rates and bond prices; Spanish bank stocks at multi-decade lows; and large, long-exposure by speculators to the greenback. However, China's lackluster response to stimulus and the U.S.'s domestic strength still favor the dollar. In fact, the key force likely to cause U.S. growth to converge toward weaker global growth will be a stronger U.S. dollar. Feature BCA has a positive bias toward the dollar for the coming six to nine months. Admittedly, the dollar is expensive, but cyclical determinants still favor a rally. The Federal Reserve is hiking rates as the U.S. economy is at full capacity and goosed up by fiscal injections. Yet global growth is very wobbly. This combination is a potent cocktail for USD strength. Despite these key sources of support, we cannot be dogmatic, especially as financial markets are anticipatory mechanisms, and therefore the dollar could have already priced in some of these developments. As such, this week we explore the key risks to our dollar view. While serious threats for the dollar exist over the upcoming two to three quarters, the key macro and financial drivers remain dollar bullish. The Threats 1) The S&P Sells Off Further The MSCI EAFE index, expressed in USD terms, is down nearly 20% since its January 2018 highs. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 has fallen 9% since its recent all-time high, or 7% vis-Ã -vis where it stood in late January. The risk is that as the global economic slowdown deepens, investors end up selling their good assets along with their bad ones. This means the S&P 500 could fall more. In fact, our colleague Peter Berezin writes in BCA's Global Investment Strategy that U.S. equities could fall an additional 6% from current levels before finding a durable support.1 The problem for the dollar is not whether stock prices fall. It is about what it means for the Fed. Until earlier this week, equity weakness had no impact at all on bonds. However, now, weak stock prices are dragging down U.S. bond yields. Moreover, while the U.S. yield curve slope steepened between August 24 and October 5, it is flattening anew (Chart I-1). All these market moves suggest investors are beginning to price out anticipated interest rate hikes. If U.S. stocks were to fall further, these dynamics would most likely deepen. However, since there is little monetary tightening to price out of the European or Japanese interest rate curves, such a move would likely lead to a dollar-bearish narrowing of interest rate differentials. Chart I-1It Took A Stock Market Rout For Investors To Reconsider The Fed's Path It Took A Stock Market Rout For Investors To Reconsider The Fed's Path It Took A Stock Market Rout For Investors To Reconsider The Fed's Path 2) Gold Is Rebounding Keynes might have called gold a barbarous relic of a bygone era, but as an extremely long-duration asset with no cash flow, the yellow metal remains an important gauge of global monetary and liquidity conditions. As the stock of dollar foreign-currency debt is large, a strong dollar is synonymous with tightening global liquidity conditions. Unsurprisingly, since 2017, gold and the dollar have been tightly negatively correlated (Chart I-2). However, since October, this correlation has been breaking down. Both the dollar and gold are moving up. This suggests that the recent increase in U.S. interest rates and in the dollar might not be as deleterious for the world as markets are currently anticipating. Chart I-2Is Gold Not Hating A Strong Dollar Anymore? Is Gold Not Hating A Strong Dollar Anymore? Is Gold Not Hating A Strong Dollar Anymore? Moreover, gold prices often lead EM asset prices. Since gold prices are highly sensitive to global liquidity, this makes sense. When the yellow metal sniffs out whiffs of reflation, it is only a matter of time before EM assets do as well. Since a rally in EM assets would lead to an easing in EM financial conditions, this easing would improve the global growth outlook (Chart I-3). Hence, rising gold prices might be a sign that while investors are increasingly negative on global industrial activity, the light at the end of the tunnel could be around the corner. The dollar would suffer if the outlook for global growth were to improve. Chart I-3EM Financial Conditions Hold The Key To Global Growth EM Financial Conditions Hold The Key To Global Growth EM Financial Conditions Hold The Key To Global Growth 3) EM Currencies And EM High-Yield Bonds Stabilizing Something strange is happening. While EM equity prices are still falling, EM high-yield bonds and currencies are not. In fact, EM FX and EM debt prices bottomed at the beginning of September, despite rising U.S. interest rates. However, since then, EM stock prices denominated in USD terms have fallen nearly 10% (Chart I-4). EM exchange rates and yields are the most important determinants of EM financial conditions. This suggests that despite EM stock prices falling fast, EM financial conditions may not be deteriorating as quickly as assumed. Chart I-4Are EM Financial Conditions Easing? Are EM Financial Conditions Easing? Are EM Financial Conditions Easing? This market action is in fact consistent with the development we highlighted in the gold market. We must therefore maintain a watchful eye on EM bonds and EM FX. Further meaningful improvement in these assets, while not BCA's base-case, would dangerously challenge our view that global industrial activity slows further, undermining our dollar-bullish view. 4) Spanish Banks Near Post-2008 Lows As we highlighted in August, Spanish banks are the most exposed major banks in the world to EM woes (Chart I-5).2 The exposure of the Spanish banking sector to the weakest EM economies represents 170% of capital and reserves, which is driving the entire euro area's exposure to these markets to 32% of Eurozone banks' capital and reserves. Chart I-5Who Has More Exposure To EM? Risks To The Dollar View Risks To The Dollar View The weakening in EM expected growth and the fall in EM currencies is a risk for Spanish banks. However, Spanish banks also maintain a large chunk of their EM exposure in wholly or partly owned subsidiaries. This means that while an EM crisis will definitely have an important impact on Spanish bank earnings, the impact on the balance sheet of Spanish banks is likely to be more limited. However, Spanish banks now trade in line with the levels that prevailed in Q1 2009, Q3 2012 and Q1 2016 (Chart I-6). In other words, Spanish banks are already pricing in a crisis, especially after the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that banks - not customers - must pay mortgage duties. Chart I-6Spanish Banks Are Discounting Plenty Of Bad News Spanish Banks Are Discounting Plenty Of Bad News Spanish Banks Are Discounting Plenty Of Bad News While markets may not be the most efficient mechanism when it comes to pricing future shocks, markets are very efficient at lateral pricing - i.e. the pricing of an event in one market, even if wrong, will be equally reflected in other markets. If the impact of an EM crisis is fully priced into Spanish banks, the impact of such a crisis is likely to also be reflected in the expectations of what the European Central Bank will do over the coming quarters, and thus it is also priced into the euro. The pessimism already present in Spanish banks and euro area financial equities may explain why the euro has not cracked below its August 17 lows, while global stock prices have. The bad news could simply already be baked into the cake! If Spanish bank stocks rebound, the dollar is likely to suffer; if they break down, the dollar will likely rally more. 5) Speculators Are Already Long The Dollar For the dollar to rise further, someone needs to buy it. The problem is that speculators have already been buying the greenback, and they are now aggressively long the dollar (Chart I-7). This means that it may become more difficult to find new buyers for U.S. dollars, especially as investors may be in the process of unloading their U.S. equities. To be fair, while it is true that the net speculative positions are elevated, they also can remain so for extended periods. Chart I-7Investors Are Long The Dollar Investors Are Long The Dollar Investors Are Long The Dollar Bottom Line: There are important risks to our dollar-bullish view that we need to closely monitor. They are: the global stock selloff migrating to the U.S., which could prompt investors to price out Fed rate hikes; gold rebounding, which might indicate marginal improvement in global liquidity conditions; EM exchange rates and high-yield bonds not weakening anymore, which could result in an easing in financial conditions, ending the deterioration in global growth; Spanish banks potentially already pricing in a dire outcome in EM; and speculators being already long the dollar. Despite these Risks, Why Do We Still Like The Dollar? The first reason relates to global growth. Ultimately, the dollar is a counter-cyclical currency. When global growth weakens, the dollar strengthens. China continues to generate potent headwinds for the world economy. Beijing has been stimulating the Chinese economy, but this stimulus is having a muted impact. As Arthur Budaghyan writes in the week's Emerging Market Strategy report, China's monetary stimulus is falling flat.3 Not only are excess reserves in the banking sector rather meager, Chinese banks are not showing a deep propensity to lend. It is not just about the behavior of Chinese banks: Chinese firms are also not displaying a high propensity to spend and borrow, which is weighing on the velocity of money in China (Chart I-8). As a result, this means that liquidity injections are not generating much impact in terms of loan growth and economic activity. Chart I-8Chinese Stimulus Is Falling Flat Because Economic Agents Are Cautious bca.fes_wr_2018_10_26_s1_c8 bca.fes_wr_2018_10_26_s1_c8 This is evident when looking at two variables. China's Li-Keqiang Index, our preferred measure of Chinese industrial activity, has stopped rebounding. In fact, it is currently weakening anew, which suggests that Chinese growth, despite all the supposed easing in monetary conditions, is not responding (Chart I-9, top panel). Moreover, Chinese infrastructure spending is also contracting at its fastest pace in 14 years (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Further, the slowing in Chinese real estate sales suggests that construction will not come to the rescue, especially as vacancy rates in Chinese major cities currently stand at elevated levels. Chart I-9Chinese Growth Outlook Is Deteriorating Anew Chinese Growth Outlook Is Deteriorating Anew Chinese Growth Outlook Is Deteriorating Anew We continue to monitor our China Play index (Chart I-10) to see if China is showing any underlying improvement, but the rally evident from June to October is now dissipating. The impact of stimulus thus looks like it is leaving investors wanting for more. Yet, as Matt Gertken and Roukaya Ibrahim argue in this week's Geopolitical Strategy service, additional stimulus will be limited as Xi Jinping is not yet abandoning his three battles against indebtedness, pollution and poverty.4 Hence, we expect China to remain a significant drag on global growth over the coming two to three quarters. Chart I-10China-Related Plays Are Losing Momentum China-Related Plays Are Losing Momentum China-Related Plays Are Losing Momentum The second issue that supports our bullish-dollar stance is the mechanism required for U.S. and global growth to converge. As Ryan Swift argues in BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service, U.S. growth will not be able to avoid the gravitational pull of a weaker global economy.5 The type of divergence currently on display between the global and U.S. Leading Economic Indicators (LEIs) is generally followed by a deteriorating U.S. growth outlook (Chart I-11). Chart I-11U.S. Growth Ultimately Converges With The Rest Of The World U.S. Growth Ultimately Converges With The Rest Of The World U.S. Growth Ultimately Converges With The Rest Of The World However, this weakening in U.S. growth won't happen out of nowhere. Either there will be domestic vulnerabilities that prompt the U.S. to become more sensitive to foreign shocks, or the dollar will force this adjustment. Today, unlike in 2015 and 2016, the sales-to-inventory ratio does not point to any imminent decline in U.S. industrial activity; to the contrary, it suggests further improvements in the coming months (Chart I-12). This leaves the dollar as the main culprit to put the brakes on U.S. growth. Chart I-12U.S. Domestic Fundamentals Are Fine U.S. Domestic Fundamentals Are Fine U.S. Domestic Fundamentals Are Fine Since 2009, the greenback has been very responsive to the relative growth outlook between the U.S. and the rest of the world. The accumulated gap between the U.S. and global LEIs shows the total impact of growth divergences. This indicator has done a good job at foretelling how the dollar will trade (Chart I-13). The dollar tends to respond to U.S. growth outperformance. Only once the dollar has rallied enough to meaningfully tighten U.S. financial conditions does the U.S. growth outlook deteriorate vis-Ã -vis the rest of the world. Currently, this chart suggests we are nowhere near having reached a chokepoint for U.S. growth. Chart I-13A Higher Dollar Needed For U.S. Growth To Resist The Gravitational Pull From The Rest Of The World A Higher Dollar Needed For U.S. Growth To Resist The Gravitational Pull From The Rest Of The World A Higher Dollar Needed For U.S. Growth To Resist The Gravitational Pull From The Rest Of The World Since the Fed remains quite unconcerned by the weakness in global growth and global stock prices, we expect that world financial markets will have to plunge deeper, the dollar to rally higher and U.S. financial conditions to tighten further before the FOMC shows enough concern to hurt the dollar. We are not there yet. Bottom Line: The absence of a meaningful response by the Chinese economy to stimulus suggests that China may have hit a debt wall. This implies that Chinese growth remains fragile and therefore a drag on global growth. Hence, international economic activity and trade will continue to provide an important tailwind for the U.S. dollar. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is not displaying enough domestic vulnerabilities to be overly sensitive to the softness in global growth. Instead, more rounds of dollar strength will be required to force U.S. growth to converge lower toward global economic activity. As such, these two forces remain powerful enough to overweight currency exposure to the USD within global portfolios. That said, the five risks described in the previous section must be kept in mind. At the current juncture, they only warrant buying a few hedges, such as our long NZD/USD recommendation, but they do not warrant underweighting the greenback. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Stimulus: Not so Stimulating", dated October 26, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Stimulus, Deleveraging And Growth", dated October 25, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China Sticks To The "Three Battles", dated October 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Waiting For Peak Divergence", dated October 23, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Markit Services PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 54.7. This measure also increased from the previous month's reading of 53.5. However, durable good ex-defense month-on-month growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.6%. Finally, monthly new homes sales underperformed expectations, coming in at an annualized pace of 553 thousand. DXY has appreciated by 0.8% this week. We are bullish on the U.S. dollar on a cyclical basis. Furthermore, momentum, one of the strongest predictive factors for the dollar continues to be positive. Finally, global growth should continue to slowdown, as the monetary tightening by Chinese authorities starts to weigh on the global industrial cycle. Report Links: In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus - August 3, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area has been negative: Markit Manufacturing PMI surprised to the downside, coming in at 52.1. Moreover, Markit Services PMI also underperformed expectations, coming in at 53.3. Finally, private loan yearly growth surprised negatively, coming in at 3.1%. EUR/USD has fallen by 0.8% this week. We are bearish on the euro on a cyclical basis, as inflationary pressures continue to be too weak in the euro area for the ECB to start raising rates. Moreover, the fact that the euro area's economy is highly dependent on exports, makes it very sensitive to global growth and emerging markets. This means that the tightening by Chinese authorities should impact the euro area economy negatively, and consequently, put downward pressure on EUR/USD. Report Links: Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan? - October 5, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: The leading economic Index outperformed expectations, coming in at 104.5. However, the coincident index surprised to the downside, coming in at 116.7. USD/JPY has been flat this week. We are neutral on the yen on a tactical basis, given that the current risk-off environment should continue to help safe havens like the yen. However, we are bearish on the yen on a cyclical basis, as inflation expectations are not well anchored in Japan. This means that the BoJ will continue to conduct ultra-dovish monetary policy for the foreseeable future, putting a cap on how high the yen can rise. Report Links: Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan? - October 5, 2018 Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy - July 27, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP/USD has decreased by 1.5% this week. Given the lack of a geopolitical risk premium embedded into the pound, we expect GBP volatility to remain elevated. This means that any hiccups in Brexit negotiations could bring about some downside for the pound. Furthermore, inflation should remain contained, even amid a tight labour market. This is mainly because inflation dynamics in the U.K. are much more driven by the external sector, as imports represent a very large portion of British final demand. Given that the pound has remained stable this year, inflation will remain subdued. We are currently short GBP/NZD in our portfolio, to take advantage of the dynamics mentioned above. Report Links: Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD/USD has been flat this week. We are most bearish on this currency within the G10, given that the AUD is highly sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle, which will continue to slow down, as Chinese authorities keep cleaning credit excesses in the economy. Moreover, policy tightening by the Fed will provide a further headwind to cyclical plays like the AUD. We are short AUD/CAD within our portfolio, as we believe that the oil currencies should fare better than other commodity currencies, given that OPEC supply cuts, as long as Iranian sanction in oil will keep upward pressure on oil prices. Report Links: Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has been flat this week. We are positive on the New Zealand dollar, particularly against the GBP, as there is very little room for kiwi rate expectations to fall. Moreover, this currency should also outperform the Australian dollar, given that New Zealand is less exposed to the Chinese industrial cycle than Australia. Nevertheless, we remain bearish on the NZD on a long-term basis, given that the new government proposals to reduce immigration and add an unemployment mandate to the RBNZ will lower the neutral rate in New Zealand, which will limit the central bank's ability to tighten monetary policy. Report Links: Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been negative: Core inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.5%. This measure also decreased form 1.7% last month. Headline inflation also surprised to the downside, coming in at 2.2%. This measure decreased significantly, coming down from 2.8% the previous month. The Bank of Canada increased rates to tk% on Wednesday, and highlighted the potential for additional rate hikes over the coming 12 months. USD/CAD has been mostly flat this week. The upside in the CAD versus the USD is likely to be limited as the policy tightening by the BoC now seems well anticipated by market participants. To take advantage of this reality, we went short CAD/NOK in our portfolio. This cross also serves as a hedge to our long dollar view, given its positive correlation to the DXY. Despite some headwinds, the CAD should outperform the AUD, as we expect that oil will do better than base metals within the commodity complex. Report Links: Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has fallen by 0.5% this week, as investors have grown worried with the recent sell off in equities. We are bearish on the franc on a cyclical basis, given that inflation in Switzerland is still too weak for the SNB to move away from their ultra-dovish monetary policy. Moreover, Helvetic real estate prices should continue to fall, as the restrictions on immigration put forth by the Swiss government since 2014 should continue to weigh on housing demand. This will further hamper the ability of the SNB to tighten its extraodinarly accommodative monetary policy. That being said, EUR/CHF could continue to fall in the near term, as money flows into safe heaven assets amid the current sell off in equities. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has risen by 0.9% this week. As expected, yesterday the Norges Bank left rates unchanged at 0.75%. In its report, the Norwegian central bank highlighted that although economic growth has been a little lower than anticipated, inflation has been somewhat higher than expectations. We are bullish on the krona against the Canadian dollar, given that rate hike expectation in Canada are much more fully priced in than in Norway even though the inflationary backdrop is very similar. Moreover, we are positive on the krone relatively to other commodity currencies like the AUD or the NZD, as we expect oil to outperform other commodities thanks to supply cuts by OPEC and sanctions against Iran. Report Links: Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 USD/SEK has rallied by 1% this week. We are positive on USD/SEK on a short-term basis, given that the SEK is the currency which is most negatively affected by the strength of the U.S. dollar. Furthermore, tightening by Chinese authorities should also weigh on the krona, given that the Swedish economy is very levered to the global industrial cycle, as many of its exports are intermediate goods that are then re-exported to emerging markets. That being said, we are bullish on the krona on a longer-term basis, as the Riksbank is on the verge of beginning a tightening cycle as imbalances in the Swedish economy are only growing more dangerous. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights A supply-driven spike in oil prices in early 2019 is now a highly likely scenario. This represents a potential risk to our current high-conviction view that global bond yields will continue to rise over the next year. Oil prices north of $100/bbl would have negative implications for global growth, especially with a rising U.S. dollar likely to magnify the inflationary impact outside the U.S. A spike in oil prices could alter the recent positive correlation between global bond yields and oil (through higher inflation expectations), even turning into a negative correlation (through weaker expected economic growth). The most reliable historical correlations suggests that more volatile oil prices will lead to greater volatility for both bond yields and corporate credit spreads. Feature The BCA house view remains unequivocally bond bearish, led by additional upside potential for U.S. Treasury yields. The Fed will continue to deliver a steady pace of rate hikes over at least the next year in response to a strong U.S. economy that is fueled by fiscal stimulus and operating well beyond full employment. U.S. bond markets are not discounting enough potential tightening and inflation expectations remain below levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target, so Treasury yields have room to rise further. While we are comfortable with our high-conviction bearish view on government bonds, we recognize that it is prudent to look for potential scenarios that could derail our base-case scenario. Especially since our once out-of-consensus expectation of higher global yields is now a widely-held view among investors, with Treasury yields breaking out to new cyclical highs in recent weeks. One such risk could come from a spike in oil prices in early 2019, and its potential aftermath. A confluence of geopolitical (Iran, Venezuela) and monetary policy risks (Fed tightening, rising U.S. dollar) will likely stoke oil price volatility next year. This will eventually lead to higher bond market volatility both in developed markets (DM) and emerging markets (EM) - a relationship that has had a far more reliable correlation over time than the direct relationship between oil prices and yields (Chart 1). Chart 1Oil Vol & Bond Vol Are Linked Oil Vol & Bond Vol Are Linked Oil Vol & Bond Vol Are Linked In this joint Special Report, BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services explore how a changing relationship between oil and interest rates could affect the future behavior of global bond markets and, by association, returns to fixed income portfolios. Growing Odds Of A 2019 Oil Price Spike Global oil markets are tightening. While oil demand growth is slowing somewhat, exports from two of OPEC's largest producers - Iran and Venezuela - are falling precipitously. U.S. sanctions against the former, and the unabated collapse in the latter's economy will together remove some 2mm barrels/day (b/d) of supply from an already tight market next year. Global oil inventories are drawing down, while spare capacity is perilously low, leaving little in the way of readily available backup supply to deal with an unplanned production outage even in a minor oil-exporting state. The confluence of these factors is setting the global oil market up for a supply shock, which could take prices to $100/bbl in 1Q19 (Chart 2).1 Those high prices are likely to be sustained, and we expect Brent crude oil, the global benchmark, to trade at $95/bbl on average over the course of next year. Chart 2Get Ready For $100/bbl Oil In Q1 2019 Get Ready For $100/bbl Oil In Q1 2019 Get Ready For $100/bbl Oil In Q1 2019 Against this physical reality, the Fed remains set to continue normalizing interest rates. With other major central banks remaining relatively accommodative, widening rate differentials (Chart 3) will continue to support the U.S. dollar (USD). This will, all else equal, increase the cost of oil in local currency terms outside the U.S., hitting EM economies particularly hard if the price move is both as large, and as rapid, as we expect. Chart 3Rate Differentials Will Remain USD-Supportive Rate Differentials Will Remain USD-Supportive Rate Differentials Will Remain USD-Supportive It is important here to differentiate between a steady demand-driven rise in the price of oil and a rapid supply-driven oil price spike. The former can be bond-bearish by pushing up the inflation expectations components of global bond yields at a time when strong economic growth is also pushing up real bond yields. An oil price spike, however, can eventually produce a DIS-inflationary impulse by depressing real economic growth and destroying oil demand, which ultimately lowers oil prices, inflation expectations and real yields. The IMF, in its most recent World Economic Outlook, highlighted a scenario for 2019 where a big enough rise in oil prices could even cause the Fed to reverse its rates-normalization policies.2 While this is not BCA's base case view, a period of sharply higher oil prices in 1Q19 followed by lower prices in 2H19 would whipsaw global oil markets and raise oil price volatility. History suggests that bond price volatility is likely to also increase in the process, both for government bonds (through more uncertainty over the future path of inflation and policy rates) and corporate bonds (though more uncertainty over future economic growth). Expect Higher Bond Volatility As Oil Volatility Rises Since the end of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), oil volatility has strongly influenced volatility in DM and EM bond markets. Indeed, we find all grades of corporate and junk bonds grouped together are highly correlated with oil volatility in the post-GFC period. We expect this to continue going forward, as oil inventories are drawn down globally to meet consumer demand for refined petroleum products like gasoline, diesel fuel, chemicals and plastics. The drawdown in global inventories shows up in a backwardated oil-price forward curve, which reflects the increasing inelasticity of supply.3 This means prices have to adjust more frequently and sharply to equilibrate available supply with demand, producing higher volatility in oil prices (Chart 4). Chart 4Implied Volatilities Will Rise As OECD Storage Falls Man Bites Dog: Could Sharply Rising Oil Prices Lead To Lower Global Bond Yields In 2019? Man Bites Dog: Could Sharply Rising Oil Prices Lead To Lower Global Bond Yields In 2019? Using principal components analysis (PCA), we find a high pairwise correlation between oil and bond volatility since 2010. The first principal component (PC) of all grades of corporate and junk bonds grouped together varies strongly with oil volatility, with a correlation of 0.80. Importantly, this component explains 91% of the variability in the group (Chart 5).4 EM bond spreads for smaller issuers like Chile, Peru, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Colombia, and Malaysia are also heavily influenced by greater variability of oil prices, with the first PC of this group highly correlated with oil volatility. Chart 5Oil Volatility Leads To Bond Volatility Oil Volatility Leads To Bond Volatility Oil Volatility Leads To Bond Volatility It comes as no surprise that our U.S. Bond Strategy group, headed by Ryan Swift, has found that lower-quality corporate bonds (i.e., junk) have a high correlation with oil volatility, as do lower-quality corporate spreads (Chart 6). As Ryan noted in a recent report: "there is no consistent correlation between the level of oil prices and junk spreads. However, there is a correlation between implied volatility in the crude oil market and junk spreads, with higher implied vol coinciding with wider spreads and vice-versa. ... The bottom line for junk investors is that a supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to a steep backwardation in the futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads."5 Chart 6Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Oil Volatility Leads To Credit Spread Widening Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Oil Volatility Leads To Credit Spread Widening Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Oil Volatility Leads To Credit Spread Widening Thus, the oil price spike that we are expecting in 2019 should make corporate bond investors more cautious on the outlook for credit spread and expected returns. BCA's bond strategists have already been expecting to shift to an underweight stance on U.S. corporate debt sometime in 2019 as the Fed moves to a restrictive monetary stance and investors begin to cut U.S. growth expectations and anticipate increased future credit downgrades and defaults. A sharp upward move in oil prices in 1Q19 may prove to be the trigger for that shift to a more bearish outlook on credit. Could An Oil Price Spike Change The Fed's Current Thinking? The combination of an oil price spike and a stronger USD that we anticipate would present a considerable headwind to EM economic growth. Econometric modelling work done by BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy shows that there is a strong correlation between EM growth and U.S. inflation (see Box 1).6 Correlation is not causation, of course, but there is a plausible mechanism for that correlation through the USD, which impacts both EM growth and U.S. inflation. Box 1 Modeling The Links Between The USD, EM & Inflation The two risks we highlight in this Special Report - an oil-price shock in 1Q19 that occurs while the Fed is tightening - have profound implications for EM economies, which makes them particularly important for fixed-income markets globally.7 The near-term effects of an oil-supply shock that quickly sent prices above $100/bbl will hit EM consumers particularly hard. Many governments relaxed or removed fuel subsidies shielding consumers from high oil prices following the OPEC-engineered oil-price collapse of 2014 - 16, which saw Brent crude oil prices - the global benchmark - fall from more than $110/bbl in 1H14 to close to $25/bbl in early 2016.8 An oil-price spike would consume a far larger share of EM households' disposable income now, and would reduce aggregate demand. The second risk - tightening of the Fed's monetary policy - is more complicated. The U.S. economy separated itself from the rest of the world with strong growth this year, partly aided by fiscal stimulus. As a result, the U.S. economy is operating beyond full employment, and wages are growing smartly. This growth allows the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which likely produces four policy-rate rate hikes this year, and, per our House view, four next year. On the back of the Fed's rates-normalization policy, the U.S. trade-weighted dollar appreciated ~ 8% this year. We expect continued strength next year. As the dollar strengthens, EM trade volumes slow. This is partly a result of rising local-currency costs ex U.S., as most commodities are priced in USD. Trade volumes - particularly imports - are closely tied to EM incomes: The World Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade in EM economies averaged 1.5% from 2000-07 p.a., and 1.2% from 2010-17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period.9 Falling trade volumes correspond with weakening or falling income in EM economies. Part of this likely is explained by the expansion and deepening of Global Supply Chains (GSCs) over the past two decades, which fueled the rapid rise in trade of intermediate goods globally, and EM incomes in the process.10 To examine the impact of a rising dollar on EM income, we estimated a regression for the level of EM import volumes using an ensemble of models for the broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) USD as an explanatory variable.11 Our modeling indicates that a 1% increase in our USD TWIB ensemble translates into a 0.33% decline in EM import volumes (Chart 7).12 Chart 7Strong Dollar Dampens EM Trade Volumes Downward Trend In EM Trade Will Continue As USD Strengthens ... Strong Dollar Dampens EM Trade Volumes Downward Trend In EM Trade Will Continue As USD Strengthens ... Strong Dollar Dampens EM Trade Volumes Downward Trend In EM Trade Will Continue As USD Strengthens ... Next, we wanted to take these results and have a closer look at inflation, since, as noted above, wage and price pressures have been transmitted globally through GSCs for the better part of the 21st century. This is a phenomenon that accelerates as GSCs are broadened and deepened. More precisely, we wanted to examine the global aspects of local inflation in DM and EM economies.13 To do this, we look at the level of the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a function of EM import volumes. Our modeling indicates that a 1% change in the level of EM import volumes as a function of the USD TWIB translates to a change (in the same direction) in the level of U.S. CPI of between 0.15% and 0.25% - estimated over the post-GFC period (2010 to now). This reflects both the direct and indirect effects of EM incomes on domestic inflation in the U.S. (Chart 8): Chart 8U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes A stronger USD lowers expected U.S. inflation by reducing the cost of imports. EM disposable income growth slows as the USD rises, because the local-currency costs of imports rise and consumes more of available household budgets. Our modeling isolates the common deterministic trend between the U.S. CPI and EM import volumes from the cyclical variations. In fact, these two variables expressed in levels exhibit a strong and stable common trend.14 The U.S. trade-weighted dollar index has already appreciated 8% this year, with more upside likely in the next 6-12 months (Chart 9).15 This would widen the existing sharp divergence between a strong U.S. economy and weaker non-U.S. growth, putting even more upward pressure on the USD. This would represent an additional tightening of U.S. monetary conditions on top of the Fed rate hikes that have already occurred since late 2015. Chart 9Expect Continued USD Appreciation Expect Continued USD Appreciation Expect Continued USD Appreciation BCA's bond strategy services have described a concept known as the "Fed Policy Loop" to explain the link between global growth divergences, a rising USD, financial market volatility and eventual shifts in the Fed's hawkish bias. Such a move occurred in late 2015/early 2016, when the Fed had to delay additional increases beyond the initial 25bp rate hike of the current tightening cycle because of a soaring USD and global financial market instability (Chart 10). Chart 10Is The Fed Policy Loop: Watch U.S. Credit Spreads Is The Fed Policy Loop: Watch U.S. Credit Spreads" Is The Fed Policy Loop: Watch U.S. Credit Spreads" The current backdrop shares some characteristics with that episode, in terms of growth divergences (top panel), USD strength and wider EM credit spreads (second panel). The missing piece today is a large widening of U.S. credit spreads, and U.S. credit market underperformance versus Treasuries (third panel). The U.S. economy is in a much healthier place now compared to three years ago, which is why credit spreads have remained much better behaved in 2018. The global backdrop is also far less disinflationary, with the global output gap now closed and inflation expectations drifting back towards pre-crisis levels consistent with central bank inflation targets (Chart 11). Investors should focus on U.S. corporate bond spreads for signs that a stronger USD is starting to impact U.S. corporate profits and future U.S. growth expectations. This would be the most likely potential trigger for the Fed to pause on its current tightening path, as occurred in early 2016 (bottom panel). Importantly, we firmly believe that the Fed's hurdle for backing off the rate hikes from a tightening of financial conditions is much higher now because the U.S. economy is stronger today. A "garden variety" equity market correction, without much widening of corporate spreads, will not be enough. Investment Implications What we have laid out in this report is a risk to the current BCA house views on global duration exposure (stay below-benchmark) and global credit exposure (stay neutral, but favoring the U.S. over Europe and EM) - a supply-driven spike in oil prices, combined with additional increases in the USD fueled by Fed tightening. The potential trigger for that oil spike is largely geopolitical, stemming from the likely loss of oil supply from Iran via U.S. sanctions and Venezuela through economic collapse. The timing of either outcome is difficult to pin down precisely, but sometime in the first quarter of 2019 is our current best guess for when oil prices reach $100/bbl. The key variables to watch will be the U.S. dollar. If it stays stable, then the impacts on global growth and U.S. inflation from the oil spike could be more modest. If the USD surges higher, then the negative impact on non-U.S. growth will eventually spill back into the U.S. economy. The combination of more volatile oil prices and a stronger USD would be a likely trigger for a surge in U.S. bond volatility and wider corporate bond spreads. Eventually, this could move the Fed to pause on its rate hike cycle and, at least temporarily, end the current bond bear market. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Our full oil-price forecast is available in the September 20, 2018, issue of BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, in a report titled "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We will be updating our oil-price forecast next week. 2 Please see the IMF's World Economic Outlook for October 2018, which can be found here https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/ 3 Backwardation is a term of art in commodity markets used to describe an inverted forward curve - i.e., prompt prices for commodities delivered in the very near future trade higher than prices for commodities delivered further out in time. This is the market's way of signaling supplies are tight; storage holders are being incentivized to release oil in inventory via higher prices for prompt delivery. The opposite of this is referred to as a contango market (prompt prices are lower than deferred prices). Contango markets reflect well-supplied markets, as supply that cannot be immediately used must be stored for later use. In recent research, we were able to extend findings from academic studies that showed a non-linear relationship between oil volatility and the slope of the forward curve - highly backwardated and contango forward curves are accompanied by higher volatility in oil prices, due to the physical constraints on storage in such markets. 4 Principal components analysis (PCA) is a statistical technique used to reduce the most important information contained in a large number of correlated variables into a smaller number of common factors that explains the larger set. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk," dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 EM trade volumes - particularly imports - are a key variable we use to track EM income levels. The World Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade averaged 1.5% from 2000 - 07, and 1.2% from 2010 - 17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period. Please see "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets," in the June 21, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 10 of the 11 post-WW2 recessions in the U.S. were preceded by an oil-price spike. Since 1970, the combination of an oil-price spike and a Fed rate-hiking cycle resulted in recession. Please see "Oil-Supply Shock, Risking U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy on September 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the Special Focus in the World Bank's January 2018 Global Economic Prospects entitled "With The Benefit of Hindsight: The Impact of the 2014 - 16 Oil Price Collapse." 9 We discuss this in "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets," in the June 21, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see "Global value chains and the increasingly global nature of inflation," by Raphael Auer, Claudio Borio, Andrew Filardo, published online April 28, 2017, by VOX, the CEPR Policy Portal. 11 We average estimates from five different USD regressions using monetary policy variables, commodity prices and momentum indicators. The period covered is the post-GFC (2010 to now). 12 The regression we estimate includes a trend variable, which allows us to separate out the cyclical aspects of trade (i.e., imports) alone. 13 Please see "The globalisation of inflation: the growing importance of global value chains," by Raphael Auer, Claudio Borio and Andrew Filardo, which was published by the Bank For International Settlements in January 2017. 14 We believe this reflects "hidden variables" that simultaneously drive U.S. inflation and EM incomes such as global growth and global money/credit growth. The coefficient range we report - 0.15% to 0.25% - controls for this. For a discussion of "hidden variables," please see Clive Granger's 2003 Nobel Lecture entitled "Time Series Analysis, Cointegration, and Applications." 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ...Assessing Downside Risk," dated August 23, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.