Financial Markets

Highlights Coincident measures of economic activity suggest that China’s economy continued to slow in July. The August manufacturing PMIs were positive, but they more likely reflect tariff front-running activity than a genuine improvement in the export outlook. The decline in the RMB will have a positive reflationary effect for Chinese producers, but it will not likely be enough to prevent a further slowdown in activity if the export outlook continues to deteriorate (as we expect). Our investment strategy recommendations remain unchanged: underweight Chinese stocks over a tactical (i.e. 0-3 month) time horizon, but overweight cyclically (6-12 months) on the basis that policymakers will ultimately act on the need to ease further. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, coincident measures of economic activity suggest that China’s economy continued to slow in July. The August manufacturing PMIs were positive (especially the Caixin PMI), but the absence of a pickup in manufacturing outside of China suggests that the August improvement (and the recent trend in China’s export data) reflects the same kind of tariff front-running activity that has occurred on more than one occasion over the past 18 months (and which sharply unwound in late-2018 / early-2019). On the housing front, July’s update saw a narrowing in the gap between lofty housing construction and depressed sales volume, suggesting that housing-related activity is unlikely to provide a ballast to counter a weakening external demand outlook absent further policy support for the sector. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, the continued decline in the RMB is the most noteworthy development, with USD-CNH having risen roughly 4.5% since we initiated our long position in mid-May. The still-controlled decline is likely to have a reflationary effect for Chinese producers, but not likely enough to prevent a further slowdown in activity if the export outlook continues to deteriorate in Q4 (as we expect). Consequently, our investment strategy recommendations remain unchanged: the near-term outlook remains bearish for China-related assets, but Chinese policymakers will be forced over the coming 3-6 months to recognize the need to ease further. Investors should remain overweight Chinese stocks over a 6-12 month horizon, but should continue to hedge RMB exposure by being long USD-CNH. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1The Chinese Economy Continues To Slow Based on coincident activity indicators such as the Li Keqiang index (LKI), China’s economy continued to slow in July (Chart 1). While the pace of growth remains stronger today than it did during the depths of the 2015/2016 slowdown, momentum is clearly negative and a further deceleration is likely over the coming few months. In short, Chinese growth has not yet bottomed. Our leading indicator for the LKI remains in a shallow uptrend, but slowed in July. The sequential decline occurred in nearly all of the components of the indicator; credit was particularly disappointing, with adjusted total social financing growth having decelerated nearly a half a percentage point on a YoY basis. Our indicator underscores that more easing will ultimately be needed in order to stabilize economic activity, even though we acknowledge that it will only likely arrive in piecemeal fashion until policymakers are pressured with a further significant slowdown in growth. The July housing data update was significant, as it featured a narrowing of the gap between lofty housing construction and depressed sales volume (Chart 2). While both the pace of pledged supplementary lending as well as sales volume growth marginally improved in July, floor space started decelerated to mid-single-digit territory (from 10+%). We have noted in several reports that the gap between starts and sales is unsustainable, suggesting that housing-related activity is unlikely to provide a ballast to counter a weakening external demand outlook absent further policy support. At first blush, China’s August PMIs were surprisingly positive. While the official manufacturing PMI slightly declined, the new export orders component improved as did the overall Caixin manufacturing PMI. The improvement in the latter was particularly significant, as it brought the index back into expansionary territory. However, our view of the pickup is less sanguine, and we expect it to reverse over the coming few months. August’s trade data has yet to be released, but the divergence between export and import growth in July provides a clue that the pickup in manufacturing/export sentiment is likely to be temporary. Ex-China, the global PMI has not meaningfully improved (Chart 3), which implies that the acceleration in Chinese export growth is indicative of the same kind of tariff front-running activity that has occurred on more than one occasion over the past 18 months (and which sharply unwound in late-2018 / early-2019). As a result, investors should view the near-term improvement in Chinese export-related data as a sign of an impending slowdown in trade activity, rather than an indication that the underlying trade situation is improving. Chart 2The Unsustainable Pace Of Housing Starts Is Slowing Chart 3China's August PMI Likely Reflects Tariff Front-Running Chart 4A-Shares Are Trading More Off Domestic Stimulus Odds Than Investable Stocks The most relevant high-level insight emanating from China’s equity markets continues to be the divergence in performance between investable and domestic stocks over the past three months. While investable stocks have trended lower due to the strong focus of foreign investors on the trade war, domestic stocks have moved sideways versus the global benchmark in US$ terms (Chart 4). To us, this suggests that domestic stocks are acting as a better barometer of domestic reflation than their investable peers and, for now, A-shares are acting as if reflationary efforts will just offset weak external demand. The likelihood of a further growth slowdown coupled with the reluctance of Chinese policymakers to aggressively stimulate implies that the domestic market is at risk of a near-term relapse, but global investors should watch closely for a breakout to the upside as an indication that policy is becoming considerably easier (and that investable stocks may soon follow the domestic market higher). Over the past month, sector performance within the investable equity market has mostly been along cyclical/defensive lines, with the former underperforming the latter. One notable exception is the investable consumer discretionary sector, which has risen more than 7% over the past month in absolute US$ terms, and has been rising in relative terms since the beginning of the year. Alibaba now accounts for a sizeable portion of the investable consumer discretionary sector, and its outperformance may be signaling a stable outlook for domestic consumer spending. China’s interbank and government bond market has been little changed over the past month. After having declined roughly 20 bps from late-July to early-August, Chinese government bond yields remain at a nearly 3-year low as part of ongoing investor expectations that monetary policy in China will remain easy. The PBOC’s mid-August reform of the loan prime rate (LPR) was a small step in the direction of further easing, but was not likely large enough to have a material impact on credit growth. More fiscal spending remains the most likely avenue for significant additional stimulus, but we do not expect it to materialize before economic activity slows further. Chart 5Onshore Corporate Bond Returns: Negligant Impact Of Defaults Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads fell slightly over the past month, reversing part of a modest uptrend in spreads that had begun in May. Abstracting from the day-to-day changes in spreads, the bigger story is that acute concerns over the potential for widespread corporate defaults have not led to any material impact on onshore corporate bond performance at any point over the past 18 months (which is in line with what we argued several times last year). In RMB terms the ChinaBond Corporate Bond Total Return Index has risen nearly 8% over the past year, or roughly 2.6% in unhedged US$ terms using spot exchange rates (Chart 5). While we would not advise an unhedged currency position in onshore corporate bonds at this time given our long stance towards USD-CNH, the bottom line for investors is that onshore corporate bond spreads already account for rising defaults, and probably overstate the risk. China’s controlled but very significant currency depreciation has continued over the past month, with USD-CNH having nearly reached 7.2 this week. Our earnings recession model for the MSCI China index suggests that the depreciation is likely to have a stimulative effect; holding the current pace of credit growth and the outlook for new export orders constant, the decline in the RMB has probably cut the odds of an ongoing contraction in EPS from roughly two-thirds to slightly over one-half over the past month. However, we noted above that the modest improvement in China’s manufacturing PMIs likely reflects unsustainable trade frontrunning, signaling that further stimulus will likely be required. This will have to come either through a more intense pace of credit growth, or meaningful further currency depreciation (or both). As such, investors should stay long USD-CNH for now, despite the significant rise over the past month. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights An inevitable and imminent U.K. general election will be one of the most unpredictable and ‘non-linear’ elections ever. This non-linearity makes it difficult to take a high-conviction view on sterling’s direction because a tiny vote swing in one direction or another could be the difference between a no-deal Brexit – and the pound below parity against the euro – or a solid coalition for remain – and the pound at €1.30. Instead, a good strategy is to buy sterling volatility on the announcement of the election. The easiest way to implement this is simultaneously to buy at-the-money call and put options (versus either the euro or dollar). In a soft Brexit or remain, the U.K. equity sectors most likely to outperform the overall market are real estate and general retailers. In a hard Brexit, a U.K. sector likely to outperform the overall market is clothing and accessories. Feature Chart of the WeekSterling Volatility Could Go Up A Lot Lyndon B Johnson famously said that that the first rule of politics is to learn to count. A government is a lame duck if it does not have a majority of legislators to drive and set its policy. Fifty years on, LBJ’s namesake is learning this first rule of politics. Boris Johnson is running a minority U.K. government. The irony is that this makes it impossible for a pro-Brexit Johnson to pass legislation for the Brexit process itself! Ending the free movement of EU citizens was supposedly one of the biggest ambitions of the Brexit vote. But astonishingly, even after a no-deal Brexit, free movement would not end – because EU law continues to apply until its legal foundation is repealed. The U.K. government wanted to end free movement through a new law, the immigration bill, but the proposed legislation, along with several other key new laws, cannot make it through parliament. The Most Non-Linear Election Looms The only way out of the impasse is to change the parliamentary arithmetic via a snap general election. The trouble is that the outcome of such an election is near impossible to predict. This is because the U.K.’s first past the post electoral system is designed for a head-to-head between two dominant parties. But right now, there are four parties in play – from left to right: Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, and Brexit. While in Scotland, the SNP is resurgent. Making the next U.K. general election one of the most unpredictable and ‘non-linear’ elections ever. The outcome of a snap general election is near impossible to predict. For example, in the recent Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, the 10 percent of votes that went to the Brexit party syphoned just enough ‘leave’ votes from the Conservatives to hand the seat to the Lib Dems. Repeated nationwide, such a swing could inflict mortal damage to the Conservatives. On the other hand, the staunchly pro-remain Lib Dems could also syphon crucial votes from a Labour party that is prevaricating on its Brexit policy. Understanding this, Johnson isn’t using the next election to resolve Brexit; quite the opposite, he is using Brexit to resolve the next election – in his favour – with the ancient strategy of ‘divide and rule’. Unite ‘leave’ by tacking to the hard right, and divide ‘remain’ between Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP, and Plaid Cymru. However, it is a very risky strategy. A small but critical rump of Brexit party voters are diehard anti-establishment rather than pure leave votes; furthermore, remainers almost certainly will vote tactically as they did in 2017 when they obliterated the Conservatives’ overall majority. For U.K. investments, the inevitable imminent election dominates all other considerations, as its outcome will determine the U.K.’s ultimate trading relationship with the EU and rest of the world, as well as establish the U.K’s overarching economic policy and strategy. But to reiterate, the outcome is highly non-linear. A tiny vote swing in one direction or another could be the difference between a no-deal Brexit – and the pound below parity against the euro – or a solid coalition for remain – and the pound at €1.30, as sterling’s ‘Brexit discount’ is unwound (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Sterling's Brexit Discount Is 15 Percent, Based On Real Interest Rate Differentials... Chart I-3...And Expected Interest Rate ##br##Differentials The non-linearity makes it difficult to take a high-conviction view on sterling’s direction. Instead, as soon as an election is announced, a good strategy is to buy sterling volatility. Although it has risen recently, sterling volatility is only in the foothills relative to the heights of 2016, meaning plenty of upside (Chart I-1). The easiest way to implement this is simultaneously to buy at-the-money call and put options (versus either the euro or dollar). Brexit Investments  A common question we get is what are the most Brexit-impacted investments, in both directions? As mentioned, the most obvious is sterling. Relative to the established relationship with interest rate differentials prior to the Brexit vote in 2016, the pound now carries a Brexit discount of around 15 percent. For U.K. investments, the inevitable imminent election dominates all other considerations. Related to this, the FTSE100 has outperformed the Eurostoxx600. This is exactly as theory would suggest. The FTSE100 and Eurostoxx600 are just a collection of global multi-currency earning companies quoted in pounds and euros respectively. So when sterling weakens, the multi-currency earnings increase more in FTSE100 index terms than in Eurostoxx600 index terms, resulting in FTSE100 outperformance (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The FTSE100 Outperforms When Sterling Weakens Turning to U.K. equity sectors, those most likely to outperform the overall market in a soft Brexit are real estate and general retailers (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-5U.K. Real Estate Outperforms In A Soft Brexit Chart I-6U.K. General Retailers Outperform In A Soft Brexit While a sector likely to outperform the overall market in a hard Brexit is clothing and accessories (Chart I-7). Chart I-7U.K. Clothing And Accessories Could Outperform In A Hard Brexit Four Disruptors Revisited The final section this week revisits the wider context for Brexit and other recent examples of populism. Specifically, they are backlashes to four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets. Disruptor 1: Protectionism. Since the Great Recession, an extremely polarised distribution of economic growth has left many people’s standard of living stagnant – despite seemingly decent headline economic growth and job creation (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Disruptor 1: Income Inequality Leads To Protectionism Looking to find a scapegoat, economic nationalism and protectionism have resonated very strongly with voters in several major economies: the U.S., U.K., Italy, and Brazil. Other voters could follow in the same vein. But history teaches us that protectionism ends up hurting many more people than it helps. Disruptor 2: Technology. The bigger danger is that the malaise is being misdiagnosed. Many middle-income job losses are not due to globalization, but due to technology. A polarised distribution of economic growth has left many people’s standard of living stagnant. Specifically, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is replacing secure middle-income jobs and displacing workers into insecure low-income manual jobs – like bartending and waitressing – which AI cannot (yet) replace (Table I-1). And AI’s impact on middle-income jobs is only in its infancy.1 The worry is that by misdiagnosing the illness as globalization and wrongly responding with protectionism, the illness will get worse, rather than improve. Table I-1Disruptor 2: Technology Disruptor 3: Debt super-cycles have reached exhaustion. Protectionism carries a further danger. Just like developed economies did a decade ago, major emerging market economies are now coming to the end of structural credit booms and need to wean themselves off their credit addictions (Chart I-9). At this point of vulnerability, aggressive protectionism risks tipping these emerging economies into a sharp slowdown.  Chart I-9Disruptor 3: Debt Super-Cycles Have Reached Exhaustion Disruptor 4: Financial markets are richly valued. Disruptors one, two and three come at a time when equities are valued to generate feeble total nominal returns over the next decade (Chart I-10). Extremely compressed risk premiums are justified so long as bond yields remain ultra-low. Otherwise, the rich valuations will come under pressure.  Chart I-10Disruptor 4: Financial Markets Are Richly Valued The long-term investment message is crystal clear. With the four disruptors in play, we strongly advise long-term investors not to follow passive (equity) index-tracking strategies. Instead, we advise long-term investors to follow bespoke structural investment themes as shown in our structural recommendations section. Please note that owing to my travelling there is no fractal trading system this week. Normal service will resume next week.   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report ‘The Superstar Economy: Part 2’ January 19, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Feature BCA Research (aka The Bank Credit Analyst) published its first report in 1949, a remarkable 70 years ago. This probably makes us the longest-running independent investment research firm in the world. As we age, it is normal to occasionally reflect on how the world has changed over the course of our lives. It is an interesting exercise in the case of BCA. We need to start with a little history. The Bank Credit Analyst began life as a small-circulation newsletter produced by Hamilton Bolton, a Montreal-based money manager. He had been sending out investment commentary to his clients for some time and was encouraged to start catering to a wider audience. Bolton was a visionary because he was one of the few market analysts at that time to understand the importance of money and credit in driving economic and market cycles. In those days, banks were the dominant financial intermediary, so an analysis of flows through the banking system provided accurate and leading signals about economic and market trends. That is why he named his new service “The Bank Credit Analyst”. Bolton developed a series of monetary-based indicators that allowed him to make some great market calls. He passed away in 1967, but his valuable contribution to financial research was acknowledged in 1987 when the CFA Institute posthumously awarded him the prestigious “Outstanding Contribution to Investment Research Award”.1 Hamilton Bolton was a product of his times in that his worldview was influenced heavily by having lived through the Great Depression. Like many of his generation, he had a strong aversion to excessive debt growth, and was highly sensitive to any buildup of financial imbalances that could tip the economy back into a severe downturn. In fact, widespread fears of renewed depression did not really fade until the late 1950s. That psychology helps explain why policymakers were complicit in allowing inflation to take hold in the 1960s because there is a common tendency to fight the last war. As long as depression/deflation is seen as the primary threat, then there will be complacency about inflation risks. Does This Sound Familiar? Let’s look at some of the conditions that existed in 1949, when The Bank Credit Analyst started publication. The U.S. long-term Treasury yield had been capped at 2.5% since April 1942. At the request of the Treasury Department, the Fed had given up control of the money supply by buying whatever bonds were needed to keep yields below 2.5%, in order to support the financing of war-inflated budget deficits. The level of federal debt was down from its wartime peak of 106% of GDP, but was still at a historically high 77.5%. The European and Japanese economies were in a complete mess, having been devastated during the war. As already noted, fears of renewed deflation and depression were prevalent. Inflation was tame with the U.S. personal consumption deflator declining by 0.8% in 1949 and rising by only 1.2% in 1950. There was considerable geopolitical upheaval. Most notably, the Cold War intensified as Russia extended its control over East Europe and other countries. Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China in October 1949 after his communist forces defeated the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek. There were serious border clashes between North and South Korea in August 1949, a prelude to the North’s invasion in June 1950. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to see some parallels with the current environment. We currently are having (or have had): Massive central bank purchases of government debt (i.e. quantitative easing) and the explicit pegging of bond yields by the Bank of Japan. A huge increase in government debt levels, albeit not because of war-related spending. In a remarkable coincidence, U.S. federal debt reached 77.8% of GDP in fiscal 2018, almost exactly the same level as in 1949. The European and Japanese economies are moribund. However, unlike in 1949, this reflects structural forces, not war-related devastation. There are widespread fears about the long-run economic growth outlook, well captured by the secular stagnation thesis, promoted by Larry Summers. Central bankers are concerned that inflation is too low. Geopolitical concerns abound. These include U.S.-China tensions, Brexit, Korea (again), rising populism and Russia’s more aggressive stance on the world stage. In the end, the fears of 70 years ago that the world might slip back into depression proved unfounded. The 1950s and 1960s, for the most part, turned out to be golden decades for consumers, businesses and equity investors. Unfortunately, this does not mean that we can look forward to a repeat experience in the decades ahead, because we must now turn to the major differences between the present and the past. The Past Worked Out Just Fine The conditions for an economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s could hardly have been better. The U.S. armed forces employed more than 12 million men and women at the end of WWII, 7.6 million of whom were stationed overseas. After the war, these people were desperate to get back to a normal life, with civilian jobs, marriage and children. The inevitable result was a population boom and a surge in growth as pent-up demand for housing and consumer goods was unleashed. It was all aided by the 1944 G.I. Bill that provided low-cost mortgages and many other benefits. The improvement in economic growth boosted government tax receipts and, coupled with a drop in defense spending, this kept fiscal finances in check. During the 1950s and 1960s, the federal deficit averaged less than 1% of GDP and debt had fallen to less than 30% of GDP by 1969. This occurred despite a surge in federal infrastructure spending, helped by the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that authorized the construction of an interstate highway system. Meanwhile, the economy did not appear to be impeded by tax rates that were far above current levels. The reconstruction of the European economies was a monumental task that was beyond the financing capabilities of those shattered countries. However, between 1948 and 1951, the U.S. European Recovery Program (The Marshall Plan) transferred $100 billion in 2018 dollars to aid the recovery effort and this helped Europe get back on its feet. There also was a huge amount of U.S. aid to support the rebuilding of Japan. Economic growth in Japan averaged almost 9% a year in the 1950s and more than 10% in the 1960s. In Germany, the comparable figures were 7.7% and 4.2%. The growth of the world economy also was boosted by steady reductions in tariffs during the 1950s and 60s. The most notable was the Kennedy Round of 1964-67 that achieved a 38% weighted average drop in tariffs. Protectionism was in strong retreat in the decades after WWII. Finally, a word on the markets. At the end of 1949, the S&P 500 was trading at seven times trailing earnings while the dividend yield was at 6¾%. The market’s earnings yield of 14% compared to a 2.2% yield on 30-year Treasuries. In other words, stocks were incredibly cheap. Moreover, when the 1951 Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord ended the bond peg, yields inevitably rose steadily over the subsequent years, making bonds a poor investment. In the 1950s, U.S. equities delivered real compound returns of 16.6% a year compared to -3.3% for 30-year bonds. In the 1960s, the annualized real returns were a still-respectable 5.3% for stocks and -1.4% for bonds. In sum, the two decades after the launch of the BCA were a very favorable time and it was largely due to a very depressed starting point. However, the current environment is very different to that of 70 years ago. It’s a Different Picture Now Perhaps the most important difference with the past is the demographic outlook. In contrast to the post-WWII baby boom, the U.S. and most other developed economies face bleak population dynamics. Almost all developed economies – and many emerging ones – have seen the birth rate drop below replacement levels with the result that population growth has slowed dramatically. In many cases, populations are in actual decline – especially in the important working-age segment. That deprives economic growth of its main driver. The annual potential growth of U.S. real GDP averaged 4% in the 1950s and 4.3% in the 1960s. Potential growth in the next decade will average only 1.8% a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And it will be even lower in Europe and Japan. As far as pent-up demand is concerned, the picture also is very different. While the consumer industry works hard to develop new must-have goods and services, the reality is that demand is satiated for a lot of products. For example, in 2017, there were 259 million registered private and commercial autos and trucks in the U.S. compared to only 225 million licensed drivers. In 1950, the number of licensed drivers (62 million) far exceeded the number of registered vehicles (48 million). And it is hard to believe that the ownership penetration of most consumer durables has much upside. Turning to government finances, the current environment of bloated deficits and debt significantly constrains the room for fiscal stimulus. Yes, there is constant talk of the need for more infrastructure spending, but this has proven very difficult to implement without offsetting cuts in other spending or measures to boost revenues. The U.S. is saddled with unprecedented peacetime fiscal deficits and the CBO projects that federal debt will approach 100% of GDP within ten years, even without factoring in another recession. The comparison between the free trade era of the 1950s and 60s and the current situation speaks for itself. It is unclear at this stage just how far the move toward protectionism will go, but one thing seems clear. The rush toward globalization that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union and the entry of China into the global trading system is in retreat. This shows up not only in rising tariffs, but also in declining cross-border direct investment flows and increased antipathy to large-scale international migration. The irony is that the developed world needs more immigration to offset the weak growth in resident populations. What about the markets? The stock market certainly is not cheap, the way it was 70 years ago, with the S&P 500 trading at more than 18 times trailing operating earnings. Low interest rates are providing support, but future returns are likely to be in low single figures in a world where economic growth is moderate and there is little scope for profit margins and/or multiples to expand. Prospects for bonds do look somewhat similar to the situation in the early 1950s. Then, there was only one way for yields to go once the Fed’s peg ended. Today, yields will only fall sustainably if the economy sinks into a protracted downturn. We will get another recession in the next few years and yields could certainly hit new lows at that point. But the resulting policy response – both fiscal and monetary – seems almost certain to lead to higher inflation down the road. That would not bode well for the bond outlook, as was the case between the second half of the 1960s and the early 1980s. Concluding Thoughts Hamilton Bolton was fortunate to launch his new investment service ahead of a powerful economic revival and an almost two-decade bull market in stocks. He did not live long enough to witness the inflation upturn and volatile economic environment of the 1970s and 1980s, but BCA’s monetary focus allowed it to prosper during that period. Under the leadership of Tony Boeckh, the company’s then owner and Editor-in-Chief, BCA was strident in warning investors about the buildup of inflationary pressures and the dangers this posed for markets. During this time, BCA also developed the concept of the Debt Supercycle which helped investors understand the complex forces driving policy and the economic/market cycles. If Bolton was alive today, he would be horrified at the state of the world. He would not be able to understand how investors could be so complacent in the face of record government deficits and debt and by what he would regard as the reckless behavior of central banks. At the same time, he would be able to identify with the renewed focus on weak growth and deflation risks. The bottom line is that he would be advising investors to be extremely cautious. Investors currently are semi-obsessed with the timing of the next recession as that would be the signal to significantly downgrade risk assets. The official BCA stance is that a recession is not imminent and this creates a window for stocks to outperform. This matters for those investors who need to be concerned with relative performance. It is painful to sit on the sidelines if markets keep rising and you underperform your peers. However, for those more concerned with absolute performance, and that was true of most investors in Bolton’s time, the upside potential currently seems unattractive relative to the downside risks. Unfortunately, economists have a poor track record of forecasting recessions and bear markets thus often come as a complete surprise. Yes, low interest rates provide a floor under stocks, with the dividend yield comfortably above the 10-year Treasury yield. But rates are low for a reason: the economy and thus corporate earnings face major downside risks. Against this background, I would tend to side with what I imagine Bolton would say: this is a time to focus on capital preservation rather than taking risks to maximize returns. Let me try to end on a more positive note. As noted earlier, the long-term outlook turned out much better than Bolton probably anticipated 70 years ago. What could make that true this time around? Some things cannot be changed, at least over the next decade: adverse demographic trends, high ownership of consumer goods, and high levels of government debt. Geopolitical developments could go either way – for the better or worse – so I will make no predictions there. The one savior would be a marked revival in productivity because, ultimately, that is the only real source of rising living standards. Technology is changing rapidly and there are lots of exciting innovations. But to make a significant and lasting difference it will require more than developments such as autonomous vehicles or 3-D printing. We will need a new General Purpose Technology (GPT) that has a profound impact on the way economies and societies are structured. Previous examples include the steam engine, electricity and of course the internet. Perhaps Artificial Intelligence will do the trick, but that does not seem likely to be a near-term cure. Chart 1Then (1949) And Now (2019) In closing, we can be sure of one thing. The world changed in ways Hamilton Bolton could not have conceived and that also will be true for us today. BCA will endeavor to evolve with the times as it has done over the past 70 years and we look forward to keep helping our clients prosper in a complex and ever-changing world. 1949 – A Very Momentous Year Hamilton Bolton launches The Bank Credit Analyst The Peoples Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) are founded Indonesia gains independence from the Netherlands The civil war in Greece ends NATO is established The Geneva Convention is agreed The Soviet Union detonates its first atomic bomb Apartheid becomes official policy in South Africa Alfred Jones creates the first hedge fund The first non-stop circumnavigation of the world by an aircraft occurs The first commercial jet airliner, the De Havilland Comet, has its maiden flight EDSAC – the first practicable stored-program computer runs its first program at Cambridge University Products introduced that year included Lego, the 45 rpm record, the first Porsche car and the Xerox photocopier. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is published People born include Ivana Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Benjamin Netanyahu, Meryl Streep and Bruce Springsteen 2019 – Not So Much Chaotic politics in the U.K., Italy and many other countries Trade wars   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Previously known as the Nicholas Molodovsky Award  

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

Feature In investment, there are times when your view and your strategy should not be the same. Our view remains that the global economy is likely to avoid recession over the next 18 months, that the Fed will cut rates once or twice more as an “insurance” but not enter a full easing cycle, that global bond yields will rise, and that risk assets will outperform over the next 12 months. But the risks to that view have increased, and so we want to bolster the hedge against our view being wrong. We don’t see Recommended Allocation Chart 1GAA Portfolio Volatility Relative To Benchmark government bonds as an attractive hedge at this level of yield, and so are moving to a “barbell” strategy, with overweights in equities and cash, and an underweight in fixed income. This lowers the volatility of our recommended portfolio to close to that of the benchmark (Chart 1). First, the good news. Although the manufacturing sector globally continues to deteriorate, with many PMIs falling to below 50, services and consumption remain robust almost everywhere (Chart 2). With central banks easing monetary policy, and in some countries (Italy, the U.S., the U.K., maybe even Germany) governments loosening fiscal policy, financial conditions are improving, which will eventually support growth (Chart 3). Intra-cyclical manufacturing downturns typically last around 18 months, and this one is close to its sell-by date (Chart 4). Chart 2Manufacturing Weak, Services Fine So what has changed? First, manufacturing has continued to decline for longer than we expected. In the early summer, there were signs of a bottoming in Europe, but these are no longer evident. The diffusion index of the global manufacturing PMI (i.e. the percentage of countries with a rising versus falling PMI), which typically leads the PMI by six months, suggests the PMI has further to fall (Chart 5). Chart 3Easing Financial Conditions Will Help Chart 4Close To The Bottom?   Chart 5Further Downside For PMIs? Chart 6China's Reluctant Monetary Stimulus   The most likely cause of this is that China has been more reluctant to ramp up monetary stimulus than we expected. It has eased fiscal policy, but monetary policy has been tentative: despite a moderate increase in credit creation this year, M3 money supply growth has barely accelerated (Chart 6). This has been enough to stabilize Chinese growth, but has been insufficient to give the sort of boost to global growth that China provided in 2016. There are two reasons for China’s reluctance to stimulate. The authorities seemingly continue to prioritize debt deleveraging and clamping down on shadow banking. And, also, maybe they do not want to give a boost to the global economy that would help the U.S. avoid recession and increase the probability of President Trump’s being reelected. China has been more reluctant to ramp up monetary stimulus than we expected. The Trade War is an increasing risk. BCA’s geopolitical strategists continue to assign a 40% probability to a resolution by year-end,1 but it is becoming harder to see how (or, indeed, why) President Xi would offer concessions to the U.S. that would lead to a deal. Ultimately, if Chinese growth slows significantly and U.S. stocks fall sharply, China will boost monetary stimulus and President Trump will push for even a superficial trade agreement. But things will need to get worse first. Meanwhile, the rise in global political uncertainty – and the mercurial nature of Trump’s foreign and trade policies – are a risk for markets (Chart 7). Chart 7Global Political Risks Rising Chart 8Consumers (Mostly) Remain Confident   We are also concerned about how long consumption can remain robust in this environment. So far, consumer confidence has remained resilient in the U.S., though it has dipped a little in Europe and Japan (Chart 8). But, if corporate profits remain weak, companies will start to delay hiring decisions and begin to lay off workers. This would be the transmission mechanism for the manufacturing slowdown to spread into the broader economy. So far, fortunately, there are few signs it is happening: German unemployment is at a record low, and U.S. initial claims continue to run at or below last year’s level (Chart 9). Chart 9No Signs Of Weakening Labor Market Table 1GAA Recession Checklist     In the recession checklist we have published for the past two or more years, we are starting to have to tick off more warning signs (Table 1 and Chart 10). Chart 10Some Worrying Signs Chart 11Risk Of Recession No Longer Negligible   For example, the yield curve has inverted both for the 3-month/10 year and 2-year/10-year. Although the yield curve has been an almost infallible predictor of recession in the past 70 years, there are some reasons to argue that it may not be as good this time: for example, central bank purchases have artificially pulled down long-term rates. But inversion is probably a self-fulfilling prophesy. For example, in a recent Fed Senior Bank Loan Officers Survey, 40% of banks said they would tighten credit standards simply because of a moderate inversion of the yield curve. Formal models of recession 12 months ahead that incorporate the yield curve slope, put recession risk now at about 25% (Chart 11).   Chart 1218 Months Of Ups And Downs Given all this, we think it is appropriate to take some risk off. As far back as February 2018, we argued that “investors primarily concerned with capital preservation might look to dial down risk or hedge exposure now”.2 Given the ups and down of markets in the past 18 months, we suspect that those risk-averse investors would not have been unhappy with that advice (Chart 12), although they would also have missed some nice equity rallies over that time, if they had been nimble enough to time entry and exit points. Since a majority of the subscribers to this service are rather conservative, we are now extending that advice to all clients. On a 12-month time horizon, we raise cash to overweight. We are also reducing somewhat both our equity overweight and bond underweight. In this period of increased uncertainty, a portfolio closer than usual to benchmark makes sense. (BCA’s House View is a little more bullish, remaining neutral on cash and overweight equities on the 12-month horizon). Fixed Income: Absent recession, we see little room for rates to fall further. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield (now 1.5%) should stay above its July 2016 historic low of 1.37%. The Fed is unlikely to cut rates by 100 basis points over the next 12 months, as futures imply. We would expect only two 25 bp rate cuts: in September and either October or December. Yields are likely eventually to move up over the next 12 months (particularly given that inflation continues to trend higher). But they may not move much for a while, and so we move from underweight to neutral on duration for now. Eventually, we see investors understanding that government bonds are no longer an attractive hedge at current yields. Even if German 10-year yields fell to -1.2% (probably around the lowest possible), one-year total return would only be 5% (Table 2). The U.S. looks a little better, though. One could imagine the yield falling to zero in the next recession, which would give a return of 16%. On credit, we remain neutral: it represents a low-beta play on equities. So far this year, both investment-grade and high-yield bonds have eked out a small positive excess return (Chart 13). Table 2Not Much Room For Positive Returns Chart 13Credit Returns Have Not Been Bad Chart 14Downside For Cyclicals?   Equities: To offset our overweight on equities, we continue with a low-beta country/regional tilt. We recommend an overweight on the U.S., and underweight on Emerging Markets. The key for upside to U.S. equities remains earnings. Analysts have a pessimistic forecast of only 2.5% EPS growth in 2019 for the S&P500. A rough proxy for earnings growth (nominal GDP growth of 4.5%, wage growth of 3.5% leading to some margin expansion, 2% buybacks) points to EPS growth of around 7-8%. Q3 earnings (where analysts forecast -2% year-on-year) are likely to surprise on the upside, as did Q1 and Q2, though the strong dollar and weak overseas growth are risks. In our next Quarterly, to be published on October 1, we may make some adjustments to further dial down risk, for example in our equity sector recommendations, which currently have a slight cyclical tilt. The relative performance of cyclicals has started to wobble, and the message from bond markets is that cyclicals have further to fall in relative terms (Chart 14). Investors will come to understand that government bonds are no longer an attractive hedge at current yields. Currencies: The trade-weighted dollar has broadly moved sideways in the past year (Chart 15), weakening against the yen, but strengthening against the euro and EM currencies. We remain neutral on the dollar. It will continue to be pulled by two opposing forces: weak global growth is a positive, but the Fed has more room to cut rates than the rest of the world and so interest rate differentials will shift against the dollar. The renminbi is likely to continue to weaken, as the Chinese use currency policy as the least painful offset against U.S. tariffs. The latest  set of tariffs suggests that the CNY needs to fall to around 7.5-7.6 to the USD to offset their impact but, if Trump implements all the tariffs he has threatened, it could fall as far as 8.0 (Chart 16). This would pull other EM currencies down further. GBP will continue to be buffeted by Brexit scenarios. A no-deal Brexit could bring it down to 1.00 against the USD, whereas Remain or a very soft Brexit would take it back to PPP, 1.43. The current level is a probability weighted average of the two. Chart 15Dollar Has Moved Broadly Sideways Chart 16CNY Could Fall Much Further     Commodities: The oil price has been hurt by a slowing of demand in developed economies (Chart 17). Supply, however, remains tight, and our energy strategists have cut their forecast for Brent this year only modestly to an average of $66 a barrel (from an earlier forecast of $70, and from a current spot price of $60).3 Industrial commodities continue to struggle because of China’s slowdown (Chart 18) and are unlikely to recover until China’s stimulus is beefed up. Gold remains a good insurance for investors worried about geopolitical risk, recession, and inflation.   Chart 17EM Oil Demand Has Been Weak   Chart 18Industrial Commodities Hurt By China       Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly, “Big Trouble In Greater China,” dated August 23, 2019, available at gps.bcareseach.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation, “GAA Monthly Portfolio Update,” dated February 1, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, “USD Strength Slows Oil Demand Growth; 2020 Brent Forecast Remains At $75/bbl,” dated August 22, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation  

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of August 31, 2019.   Currently, the model still favors Spain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Australia at the expense of the U.S., Japan, the U.K., France and Canada, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1,  Chart 2 and  Chart 3, the overall model underperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 6 bps in August, driven by 1 bp of outperformance from Level 2 model, and 6 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 82 bps, with 290 bps of outperformance by Level 2 model, offset by 51 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Chart 4Overall Model Performance The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of August 31, 2019. The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model continues to favor a mixed bag of sectors, given the current increased level of uncertainty, and continued lack of evidence that global growth is bottoming. Despite the current liquidity phase tilting the model to favor high-beta sectors, weak growth and momentum inputs offset that. The valuation component continues to remain muted across all sectors. The model is now overweight five sectors in total, two cyclical versus three defensive sectors. The overweight sectors are Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Consumer Staples, Healthcare and Utilities. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) Table 4Current Model Allocations   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com              

Highlights While a self-fulfilling crisis of confidence that plunges the global economy into recession cannot be excluded, it is far from our base case. Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, it is highly likely that global equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. The auto sector has been the main driver of the global manufacturing slowdown. As automobile output begins to recover later this year, so too will global manufacturing. Go long auto stocks. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will weaken once global growth picks up. We expect to upgrade EM and European equities later this year along with cyclical equity sectors such as industrials, energy, and materials. Financials should also benefit from steeper yield curves. We still like gold as a long-term investment. However, the combination of higher bond yields and diminished trade tensions could cause bullion to sell off in the near term. As such, we are closing our tactical long gold trade for a gain of 20.5%. Feature “The Democrats are trying to 'will' the Economy to be bad for purposes of the 2020 Election. Very Selfish!” – @realDonaldTrump, 19 August 2019 8:26 am “The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election” – @realDonaldTrump, 15 August 2019 9:52 am Bad Juju Chart 1Spike In Google Searches For The Word Recession President Trump’s remarks, made just a few days after the U.S. yield curve inverted, were no doubt meant to deflect attention away from the trade war, while providing cover for any economic weakness that might occur on his watch. But does the larger point still stand? Google searches for the word “recession” have spiked recently, even though underlying U.S. growth has remained robust (Chart 1). Could rising angst induce an actual recession? Theoretically, the answer is yes. A sudden drop in confidence can generate a self-fulfilling cycle where rising pessimism leads to less private-sector spending, higher unemployment, lower corporate profits, weaker stock prices, and ultimately, even deeper pessimism. Two things make such a vicious cycle more probable in the current environment. First, the value of risk assets is quite high in relation to GDP in many economies (Chart 2). This means that any pullback in equity prices or jump in credit spreads will have an outsized impact on financial conditions.   Chart 2The Total Market Value Of Risk Assets Is Elevated Chart 3Not Much Scope To Cut Rates Second, policymakers are currently more constrained in their ability to react to adverse shocks, such as an intensification of the trade war, than in the past. Interest rates in Europe and Japan are already at zero or in negative territory (Chart 3). Even in the U.S., the zero-lower bound constraint – though squishier than once believed – remains a formidable obstacle. Chart 4 shows that the Federal Reserve has cut rates by over five percentage points, on average, during past recessions. It would be impossible to cut rates by that much this time around if the U.S. economy were to experience a major downturn.   Chart 4The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound Fiscal stimulus could help buttress growth. However, both political and economic considerations are likely to limit the policy response. While China is stimulating its economy, concerns about excessively high debt levels have caused the authorities to adopt a reactive, tentative approach. Japan is set to raise the consumption tax on October 1st. Although a variety of offsetting measures will mitigate the impact on the Japanese economy, the net effect will still be a tightening of fiscal policy. Germany has mused over launching its own Green New Deal, but so far there has been a lot more talk than action. President Trump floated the idea of cutting payroll taxes, only to abandon it once it became clear that the Democrats were unwilling to go along. On The Positive Side Despite these clear risks, we are inclined to maintain our fairly sanguine 12-to-18 month global macro view. There are a number of reasons for this: First, the weakness in global manufacturing over the past 18 months has not infected the much larger service sector (Chart 5). Even in Germany, with its large manufacturing base, the service sector PMI remains above 50, and is actually higher than it was late last year. This suggests that the latest global slowdown is more akin to the 2015-16 episode than the 2007-08 or 2000-01 downturns. Chart 5AThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 5BThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) Second, manufacturing activity should benefit from a turn in the inventory cycle over the remainder of the year. A slower pace of inventory accumulation shaved 90 basis points off of U.S. growth in the second quarter and is set to knock another 40 basis points from growth in the third quarter, according to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model. Excluding inventories, U.S. GDP growth would have been 3% in Q2 and is tracking at 2.7% in Q3 – a fairly healthy pace given the weak global backdrop (Chart 6). Chart 6The U.S. Economy Is Still Holding Up Well Outside the U.S., inventories are making a negative contribution to growth (Chart 7). In addition to the official data, this can be seen in the commentary accompanying the Markit manufacturing surveys, which suggest that many firms are liquidating inventories (Box 1). Falling inventory levels imply that sales are outstripping production, a state of affairs that cannot persist indefinitely. Third, and related to the point above, the automobile sector has been the key driver of the global manufacturing slowdown. This is in contrast to 2015-16, when the main culprit was declining energy capex. According to Wards, global vehicle production is down about 10% from year-ago levels, by far the biggest drop since the Great Recession (Chart 8). The drop in automobile production helps explain why the German economy has taken it on the chin recently. Chart 7Inventories Are Making A Negative Contribution To Growth Chart 8Auto Sector: The Culprit Behind The Manufacturing Slowdown Importantly, motor vehicle production growth has fallen more than sales growth, implying that inventory levels are coming down. Despite secular shifts in automobile ownership preferences, there is still plenty of upside to automobile usage. Per capita automobile ownership in China is only one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 9). This suggests that the recent drop in Chinese auto sales will be reversed. As automobile output begins to recover later this year, so too will global manufacturing. Investors should consider going long automobile makers. Chart 10 shows that the All-Country World MSCI automobiles index is trading near its lows on both a forward P/E and price-to-book basis, and sports a juicy dividend yield of nearly 4%.1 Chart 9The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Chart 10Auto Stocks Are A Compelling Buy   Fourth, our research has shown that globally, the neutral rate of interest is generally higher than widely believed. This means that monetary policy is currently stimulative, and will become even more accommodative as the Fed and a number of other central banks continue to cut rates. Remember that unemployment rates have been trending lower since the Great Recession and have continued falling even during the latest slowdown, implying that GDP growth has remained above trend (Chart 11). As diminished labor market slack causes inflation to rebound from today’s depressed levels, real policy rates will decline, leading to more spending through the economy.  Chart 11Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower The Trade War Remains The Biggest Risk The points discussed above will not matter much if the trade war spirals out of control. It is impossible to know what will happen for sure, but we can deduce the likely course of action based on the incentives that both sides face. President Trump has shown a clear tendency in recent weeks to try to de-escalate trade tensions whenever the stock market drops. This is not surprising: Despite his efforts to deflect blame for any selloff on others, he knows full well that many voters will blame him for losses in their 401(k) accounts and for slower domestic growth and rising unemployment. What about the Chinese? An increasing number of pundits have warmed up to the idea that China is more than willing to let the global economy crash if this means that Trump won’t be re-elected. If this is China’s true intention, the Chinese will resist making any deal, and could even try to escalate tensions as the U.S. election approaches. It is an intriguing thesis. However, it is not particularly plausible. U.S. goods exports to China account for 0.5% of U.S. GDP, while Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.4% of Chinese GDP. Total manufacturing value-added represents 29% of Chinese GDP, compared to 11% for the United States. There is no way that China could torpedo the U.S. economy without greatly hurting itself first. Any effort by China to undermine Trump’s re-election prospects would invite extreme retaliatory actions, including the invocation of the War Powers Act, which would make it onerous for U.S. companies to continue operating in China. Even if Trump loses the election, he could still wreak a lot of havoc on China during the time he has left in office. Moreover, as Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, has stressed, if Trump were to feel that he could not run for re-election on a strong economy, he would try to position himself as a “War President,” hoping that Americans rally around the flag. That would be a dangerous outcome for China.  Chart 12Would China Really Be Better Off Negotiating With A Democrat As President? In any case, it is not clear whether China would be better off with a Democrat as president. The popular betting site PredictIt currently gives Elizabeth Warren a 34% chance of winning, followed by Joe Biden with 26%, and Bernie Sanders with 15% (Chart 12). This means that two far-left candidates with protectionist leanings, who would stress environmental protection and human rights in their negotiations with China, have nearly twice as much support as the former Vice President. All this suggests that China has an incentive to de-escalate the trade war. Given that Trump also has an incentive to put the trade war on hiatus, some sort of détente between the U.S. and China, as well as between the U.S. and other players such as the EU, is more likely than not. Investment Conclusions Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, it is very likely that global equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. Since it might take a few more months for the data on global growth to improve, equities will remain in a choppy range in the near term, before moving higher later this year. As we discussed last week, the equity risk premium is quite high in the U.S., and even higher abroad, where valuations are generally cheaper and interest rates are lower (Chart 13).2 Chart 13AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 13BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency (Chart 14). If global growth picks up later this year, the greenback should begin to weaken. European and emerging market stocks have typically outperformed the global benchmark in an environment of rising global growth and a weakening dollar (Chart 15). We expect to upgrade EM and European equities – along with more cyclical sectors of the stock market such as industrials, materials, and energy – later this year. Chart 14The U.S. Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves     Thanks to the dovish shift by central banks around the world, government bond yields are unlikely to return to their 2018 highs anytime soon. Nevertheless, stronger economic growth should lift long-term yields at the margin, causing yield curves to steepen (Chart 16). Steeper yield curves will benefit beleaguered bank stocks. Chart 16Stronger Economic Growth Should Lift Long-Term Bond Yields, Causing Yield Curves To Steepen Finally, a word on gold: We still like gold as a long-term investment. However, the combination of higher bond yields and diminished trade tensions could cause bullion to sell off in the near term. As such, we are closing our tactical long gold trade for a gain of 20.5%. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 Evidence of Inventory Liquidation In The Manufacturing Sector Footnotes 1 The top ten constituents of the MSCI ACWI Automobiles Index are Toyota (22.6%), General Motors (7.8%), Daimler (7.3%), Honda Motor (6.2%), Ford Motor (5.7%), Tesla (4.8%), Volkswagen (4.8%), BMW (3.8%), Ferrari (3.0%), Hyundai Motor (2.4%). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Four ghosts of 2016 are knocking at the door: Brexit, Trump, Brazil, Italy. President Trump and U.S. trade policy are keeping uncertainty high. Upgrade the odds of a no-deal Brexit to about 33%. Expect limited stimulus from Italy and Germany – for now. Brazil’s pension reform is entering its final stretch – buy the rumor, sell the news. Feature Four major political events of 2016 are returning to affect the global investment landscape this fall – though only two of these ghosts are truly frightening. In order of market relevance: Trump: The election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. president, November 8, 2016 Brexit: The U.K. referendum to leave the European Union, June 23, 2016 Italy: The Italian constitutional referendum, December 4, 2016 Brazil: The removal of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, August 31, 2016 Italy and Brazil are producing market-positive political results in the short run. Brexit and Trump pose substantial and immediate risks to the global bull market. A pivot by Trump is the headline risk to our view that no trade agreement will be concluded by November 2020, as we outlined in a Special Report last week. At the moment tensions are still escalating. President Trump has ordered an increase in tariffs (Chart 1) and threatened to invoke the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, which would give him the ability to halt transactions, freeze funds, and appropriate assets. China is retaliating proportionately and virtually incapable of softening its tone prior to its National Day celebration on October 1. The next round of negotiations, slated for Washington in September, could be a flop like the talks in July, or it could be canceled. Investors should stay defensive. The equity market will have to fall to force Trump to stage a tactical retreat. Meanwhile China could intervene violently in Hong Kong SAR. That possibility, the nationalist military parade on October 1, and U.S. actions toward the South China Sea and Taiwan, show that sabers are rattling, causing additional market jitters. Chart 1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo U.S.-China tensions underpin our tactical safe-haven trade recommendations. But we are not shifting to a cyclically bearish stance until we get clarity on Trump’s and Xi’s handling of their immediate predicament. Brexit is the other acute short-term risk. This was true even before Prime Minister Boris Johnson opted to prorogue parliament from September 10 to October 14, shortening the time that parliament has to either pass a law forbidding a no-deal exit or bring down Johnson’s government in a vote of no confidence. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” to no higher than 33%, using a conservative decision-making process (Diagram 1). No-deal is not our base case because parliament, the public, and even Johnson himself want to avoid a recession, which is the likely outcome, even granting that the Bank of England will not stand idly by. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” Brexit to about 33%. Diagram 1Brexit Decision Tree (Revised August 29, 2019) From a bird’s eye point of view, the pound is very attractive (Chart 2). But in the near-term the twists and turns of Britain’s political struggle imply that we will see wild volatility. Our foreign exchange strategists expect that a no-deal Brexit would cause GBP/USD to collapse to 1 after October 31. Assuming our one-in-three odds of such an outcome, the probability-weighted average of cable is about 1.2. Hence investors should not short sterling from here, unless they strongly believe we are underrating the odds of no-deal exit. In the worst-case scenario, a no-deal Brexit will cause an economic shock at a time when Europe is on the brink of recession – Italy and Germany are virtually there. This means there is a substantial risk of additional deflationary pressure piling onto German bunds and sustaining the global bond rally. This pressure will be sharply reduced if Johnson loses an early no confidence vote, but that is a 50/50 call so we would not call time on this rally yet. Stay cautious. Chart 2Pound Can Only Go So Low   Italy: Stimulus … Without A Bruising Brussels Battle Italy has avoided a new election by producing an unusual tie-up between the establishment Democratic Party and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S). The coalition still needs to clear some internal hurdles and an online vote by Five Star members, but an agreement is to be presented to President Sergio Mattarella as we go to press. This is the most market-friendly outcome that could have been expected, as is clear through the sharp drop in Italian government bond yields (Chart 3). Our GeoRisk indicator for Italy is also collapsing. Chart 3Markets Cheer New Italian Coalition This development marks the climax of a story line that we outlined in 2016, when Prime Minister Matteo Renzi lost a constitutional referendum that aimed to strengthen Italian governments to enable deeper structural reforms (he subsequently resigned). At that time we argued that Italy would emerge as a market-relevant political risk due to rampant anti-establishment sentiment, but that this risk would subside when Italy’s populists were shown to be pragmatic at heart, i.e. unwilling to push their conflicts with Brussels to a point that truly reignited European break-up risk. This view is now vindicated – and not only for the short-term. The new coalition comes at the nick of time, with Europe teetering on recession and the risk of a no-deal Brexit rising. The new government will have to deliver the 2020 budget to the European Commission by October 15. The budget will aim to provide fiscal support, including a delay of the legislatively mandated hike in the Value Added Tax from 22% to 24.2%, already rolled over from 2019. The Five Star Movement will demand as a price for its participation in the coalition that social spending go up; the Democratic Party will have learned a lesson while out of power and will be more fiscally permissive and strike a tougher tone with Brussels. The Italian budget talks will be a non-issue: the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. The episode demonstrates that the Italian risk to financial markets is overrated. This point goes beyond the fact that the Democrats and Five Star were able to cooperate. Italy’s leading populist parties have already shown that they are pragmatic and will play the game with Brussels to avoid a financial breakdown. In May 2018, the newly formed populist coalition proposed a gigantic “wish list” budget that would have increased the budget deficit to roughly 7.3% of GDP in 2019. They also appointed a euroskeptic economy minister who almost prevented government formation. The ensuing conflict with Brussels triggered considerable turmoil (Chart 4). Ultimately, however, the populists did precisely what we expected: they bowed to the severe financial constraint on Italy’s banking system. They agreed to a 2019 and 2020 deficit of 2.04% and 2.1%, respectively (Chart 5). Chart 4Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Chart 5Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash At present, the market is relieved that an election was avoided that might have seen Salvini and the League form a government with a much smaller right-wing party (Fratelli D’Italia) (Chart 6) – but the truth is that Salvini had already capitulated to the EU, both on budget matters and the euro currency. He was hardly likely to push for a budget more aggressive than that of the initial proposal in 2018. The clash with Brussels would have been a flash in the pan; the result would have been greater fiscal thrust, which would have been market-positive in the current environment. Chart 6Election Would Have Meant More Stimulus ... And More Political Risk M5S will also push for more spending and has also moderated their stance on the euro. A coalition with the Democrats will not work if the purpose is to push a euroskeptic agenda. There will be a focus on counter-cyclical fiscal policy, pragmatic reforms that the two can agree on, and fighting corruption. The budget talks will be a non-issue: the Democratic Party is an establishment party and the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. Furthermore, the context has changed since 2018 in a way that will reduce budget frictions. There is a need for countercyclical fiscal policy in light of the global slowdown, so the European Commission will have to be more flexible on the budget. This is particularly true if Germany itself loosens its belt on a cyclical basis. The risk to the above is that the coalition shaping up between the Democrats and Five Star is an alliance of convenience that will break down over time. Five Star will remain hard-line on immigration, which is driving anti-establishment sentiment. Italian elections are a frequent affair. Salvini and the League will be waiting in the wings, especially if Brussels proves too tight-fisted or if the Democrats do not toughen their stance on immigration. But as outlined above, Salvini’s own evolution on the euro, on northern Italy, and on the budget and financial stability shows that the economy will have to get a lot worse before Italian euroskepticism presents a renewed systemic risk. Bottom Line: The tentative coalition taking shape in Italy will produce a modest increase in fiscal thrust with minimal frictions with Brussels. As such it is the most market-friendly outcome that could have occurred from Salvini’s push to seize power. Beneath this episode of government change is the political arrangement taking shape in Italy, and across Europe, which calls for a commitment to the European project and currency. The price of this commitment is a tougher line on immigration from European leaders. Germany: Fiscal Loosening, But Not For The States (Yet) Our GeoRisk indicator for Germany is pointing to an increase in risk in recent weeks. Germany is threatened by a potential technical recession and while fiscal stimulus is in preparation, there will not be a fiscal game-changer until Merkel steps down in 2021 – barring a total collapse in the economy that forces her hand in the meantime. The outlook is not improving (Chart 7, top panel). The economy shrank by 0.1% in Q2 2019, exports are falling, and passenger car production is at the lowest level ever recorded (Chart 7, bottom panels). Chart 7German Economy Gets Pummeled Chart 8Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has announced that Germany could increase government spending by $55 billion within the context of European and German budget constraints. Split proportionally between 2019 and 2020, this additional spending would not put Germany in violation of the “black zero” rule – a commitment to a balanced budget that limits the federal structural deficit to 0.35% of GDP – even without any additional revenue (Chart 8).   There will not be a fiscal game-changer in Germany until Merkel steps down – barring a crisis. The German Chancellery reports that it does not see the need for stimulus in the short term – as long as trade tensions do not escalate and there is no hard Brexit. At present, however, trade tensions are escalating and the odds of a no-deal Brexit are increasing. Moreover China’s economy and stimulus efforts continue to disappoint. In this context Germany’s ruling coalition is putting together a climate change package that would entail additional spending (while stealing some thunder from the increasingly popular Green Party). Given the European Commission’s forecast of Germany’s 2020 budget surplus, 0.8% of GDP, the government could ultimately go further than Scholz’s ~$50bn. This is because the black zero rule provides for exceptions in case of recession (or natural disasters or other crises out of governmental control) with a majority vote in the Bundestag. Hence we are not so much concerned about the magnitude of the stimulus as its timing. First, Merkel and her coalition typically move slower than the market would like in the face of financial and economic challenges. Second, according to the black zero rule, which is transcribed in the German constitution (the Basic Law), the Länder cannot run budget deficits from 2020. Amending the constitution to delay this deadline requires a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat – a much taller order than the simple majority needed to boost federal deficits. The governing coalition currently holds 56% of the seats in the Bundestag. If the Greens were brought on board, which they would be inclined to do, this number falls just short of two-thirds at 65.6%. In order to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Bundesrat, the Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, and the Greens would need the support of another party, either the Left or the Free Democrats. This could be done but it would require political will, which is only likely to be sufficient if the German and global economy get worse from here. Meanwhile financial markets will have to settle for the gradual implementation of a stimulus package on the order of 1% of GDP – the one the government is planning. Bottom Line: While Germany will likely roll out a stimulus package by Q4, if third quarter GDP data confirm that the country is in a technical recession, Merkel’s hesitation and budget limits mean that this stimulus will likely be moderate. A marginal upside surprise is possible but it will not represent a true “game changer” on fiscal policy in Germany. The game changer is more likely after Merkel steps down in 2021. The Green Party is surging in Germany and could possibly lead the next government. Even if it doesn’t, its success and Europe-wide developments are pushing German leaders to become more accommodative. Brazil: Reform Or Bust Political turmoil in Brazil over the past five years has ultimately resulted in a right-wing populist government under President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is pursuing a pension reform that is universally acknowledged as necessary to straighten out Brazil’s fiscal books, but that the previous government tried and failed to pass. On this front the news is market-positive: having cleared the lower Chamber of Deputies, the pension reforms are now likely to pass the senate. This will lift investor confidence and give Bolsonaro an initial success that he may then be able to translate into additional economic reforms. The Brazilian economy and financial markets are moving in opposite directions. The currency and equities staged a mid-year rally despite negative data releases – shrinking retail sales and industrial production amid high unemployment (Chart 9). More recently these assets relapsed despite tentative signs of improvement on the economic front (Chart 10). All the while, chaos and controversies surrounding Bolsonaro’s government have weighed on his approval rating, ending the honeymoon period after election (Chart 11). Chart 9Brazil: Signs Of Improvement   Chart 10Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Chart 11Bolsonaro’s Honeymoon Is Long Gone The mid-year equity re-rating was driven by an improvement in sentiment on the back of the government’s pension reform. The relapse occurred despite the passage of the pension reform bill in the lower house, indicating that global economic pessimism has dominated. The bill’s next step goes to the senate where it faces two rounds of voting before enactment (Diagram 2). It should clear this hurdle by a large margin, though we expect delays. Diagram 2Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline In the second round vote in the lower house on August 6 – which had a smaller margin of victory than the first round – deputies voted largely in line with party alliances (Charts 12A & 12B). Assuming legislators in the senate behave in the same way, the reform should gain the support of 64 of the 81 senators – easily surpassing the 49 votes needed. Even in a more pessimistic scenario where all opposition parties and all independent parties vote against the bill – along with two defecting senators from government-allied parties – the reform would pass by 56-25. Chart 12APension Bill Sailed Through Lower House ... Chart 12B... And Should Pass Senate In Time This favorable outlook is also supported by popular opinion, which indicates that the majority of those polled agree that pension reforms are necessary (Chart 13). This leaves two questions: How soon will the bill clear the senate? According to senate party leaders’ proposed timetable, the bill will undergo its first upper house vote on September 18 with the second round slated for October 2. This is ambitious. The strategy of Senator Tasso Jereissati – who has been appointed senate pension reform rapporteur – is to approve the text in its current form and create a parallel proposed amendment to the constitution (PEC) which will bring together the amendments that senators make to the original text. Dozens of amendments have been filed with the Commission on Constitution and Justice. These will prolong the enactment of the final bill and dilute its impact. We doubt the senate will let Jereissati have his way entirely and hence expect delays and dilution. Chart 13Brazil: Public Now Favors Pension Reform Chart 14Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough How much savings will the bill generate? Will the reforms be sufficient to improve public debt dynamics in Brazil? The Independent Fiscal Institute of the senate estimates that the reform will generate BRL 744 billion of savings. This is significantly less than the BRL 1.2 trillion initially proposed, and lower than the BRL 860 billion that Economy Minister Paulo Guedes has indicated as the minimum fiscal savings required. Our Emerging Markets strategists argue that the bill falls short of what is needed. While the plan will reduce the fiscal deficit and slow debt accumulation, it will be insufficient to generate primary surpluses over the coming years (Chart 14).1 Moreover, estimated savings in the final bill will likely be further revised down as the bill undergoes more amendments in the senate. What comes after pension reform? The market has focused almost exclusively on this issue to the neglect of Bolsonaro’s wider economic reform agenda. The agenda includes privatization, trade liberalization, tax reforms, and deregulation. Here we are more skeptical. First, Bolsonaro will have spent a lot of political capital on pensions. Second, while the economy and unemployment are always important, they are not the foremost concern for Brazilians (Chart 15). Chart 15Bolsonaro Will Lose Political Capital After Pension Bill Third, the economic agenda is often at odds with Bolsonaro’s social, foreign, and environmental policies: The new Mercosur-European Union trade agreement and ongoing trade negotiations between Mercosur and Canada are positive developments. However the G7 summit in France highlighted that the deal with the EU is at risk due to dissatisfaction with Bolsonaro’s response to the Amazon fires. France and Ireland have threatened to withhold support of the ratification. With world leaders concerned about the political risks of trade liberalization, and with Trump having issued a license to foreign leaders for trade weaponization, an escalation of tensions between the Europeans and Bolsonaro could lead to punitive measures even beyond the delay to the Mercosur-EU deal. Brazil’s China problem: Bolsonaro has been cozying up to President Donald Trump while striking a more aggressive tone with China. This is a risky strategy as it may undermine Brazil’s economic interests. The country’s exports are much more leveraged to China than to the U.S. and have been benefitting on the back of the trade war as China substitutes away from the U.S. (Chart 16). The president’s planned trip to China in October reveals an attempt to mend ties after having accused China of dominating key Brazilian sectors during his election campaign. But it is not clear yet that Bolsonaro will stage a retreat. And if President Trump backtracks on his trade war in order to clinch a deal, Bolsonaro may have lost some goodwill with China without receiving the benefit of China’s substitution effects. Hence Bolsonaro will have to soften his approach to China to make progress on the trade aspect of the reform agenda. Chart 16Brazil: Time To Mend Ties With China Bottom Line: We expect the passage of a diluted pension reform bill that will slow the growth of public debt to some extent. However global headwinds are persisting. And any success on pensions should not be extrapolated to other items on the economic reform agenda. Bolsonaro’s trade liberalization faces difficulties on the surface. Other domestic reforms are even more difficult to achieve in the wake of painful pension cuts. Reforms that enjoy public support and do not require a complicated legislative process are the most likely to be implemented, but even then, legislation and implementation are likely to be long-in-coming in Brazil’s highly fractured congress. As a result we share the view with our Emerging Markets Strategy that the pension reform is a “buy the rumor, sell the news” phenomenon. Housekeeping We are booking gains on our long BCA global defense basket for a 17% gain since inception in October 2018. The underlying thesis for this trade remains strong and we will reinstitute it at an appropriate time, though likely on a relative basis to minimize headwinds to cyclical sectors. We are also finally throwing in the towel on our long rare earth / strategic metals equity trade. The logic behind the trade is intact but it was very poorly timed and the basket has depreciated 24% since inception.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. France: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator   Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator   Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The U.S.-Sino trade war is taking a dangerous turn, but the U.S. should avoid a recession until 2022. Global growth will bottom in early 2020. The Fed is set to cut rates two to three times in the next year. Safe-haven bonds have more tactical upside, but will perform poorly on a cyclical basis. Long-term investors should use the next six to nine months to offload their corporate bonds. Equities will be volatile for the rest of 2019; a breakout is forecast for 2020. Long-term investors should favor stocks over bonds, and international stocks over U.S. ones. Feature The yield curve has become the punch line of late-night shows, triggered by the 2-/10-year yield curve inversion in early August. Recession fears have hit the front page. There are good reasons for the mounting concern. Historically, yield curve inversions have done an excellent job forecasting recession. The trade war between the U.S. and China is intensifying at an alarming speed. Moreover, global government bond yields are dipping to all-time lows. Additionally, the global ZEW and PMIs are depressed, while the global production of capital goods and machinery is contracting (Chart I-1). Despite this backdrop, the odds of a U.S. recession are overstated. Consumers in the U.S. and other advanced economies are healthy, the U.S. Federal Reserve and other major central banks are easing, and global financial conditions are supporting growth. We expect stocks to break out of their volatile period of consolidation early next year. Bond yields should rise later this year, but it is too early to stand in front of their downward trend. Finally, long-term investors should use any additional narrowing in credit spreads to lighten their exposure to corporates. U.S. Recession Odds Are Low The yield curve signal is not as dire as the headlines suggest. The inversion is incomplete; the curve is inverted up to the five-year mark and beyond that point, it steepens again. If the yield curve foreshadows a recession, then its slope would be negative across all maturities (Chart I-2). Chart I-1The List Of Worries Is Long   The consumer sector is doing well despite the global growth slowdown. Real retail sales, excluding motor vehicles, are growing at 4.4% and have quickly recovered from this past winter’s government shutdown. Meanwhile, retailers such as Walmart, Target, Home Depot and Lowe’s are reporting strong numbers. Three factors insulate consumer spending from global woes. First, household disposable income is expanding at a healthy 4.7% pace, courtesy of a tight labor market. Secondly, household balance sheets are robust. Household debt-servicing costs only represent 9.9% of disposable income, the lowest reading in more than four decades (Chart I-3, first panel). According to a December BIS paper, debt-servicing costs are one of the best forecasters of recessions.1 Additionally, household debt relative to GDP and to household assets is at 16- and 34-year lows, respectively (Chart I-3, second and third panel). Thirdly, the U.S. savings rate, which stands at 8.1%, already offers a cushion against adverse shocks and has limited upside. The corporate sector also displays some easily overlooked positives. So far, the PMIs and capex growth are still in mid-cycle slowdown territory. Meanwhile, debt loads have never provided an accurate recessionary signal. Since the end of the gold standard, recessions have always materialized after debt-servicing costs as a share of EBITDA rose two to four percentage points above their five-year moving average. We are nowhere near there (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Consumer Balance Sheets Are Very Robust Chart I-4Corporate Debt Is Not In Recessionary Territory   Nevertheless, we will remain vigilant on the capex trend. Corporate investment may not indicate a recession, but the escalating trade war with China will hurt capex intentions. Even if capex contracts, as in 2016, the economy can still avoid a recession. The factors that prompted slowdowns in global trade and manufacturing provide a mixed message. Housing is showing some positive signs after subtracting from GDP in the past six quarters. The NAHB Housing Market Index is recovering smartly from its plunge last year and homebuilder stocks have been outperforming the S&P 500 since October 2018 (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, the 139-basis point collapse in mortgage rates since November 2018 is finally impacting the economy. Mortgage demand is surging, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officers Survey. The MBA mortgage applications data corroborate this observation. As a result, both existing home sales and residential investment are trying to bottom (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Leading Indicators Of Residential Activity Are Improving Chart I-6Positive Signs For Residential Activity     The liquidity of the U.S. private sector is also strengthening. Deposit growth has reaccelerated after falling to near recessionary levels (Chart I-7) and the non-financial, private sector’s cash holdings are again increasing faster than debt. Furthermore, bank credit is expanding. Chart I-7The Private Sector Is Accumulating Liquidity Waiting For The Global Economy To Bottom Global growth should bottom by early 2020. Thus, while the U.S. economy should avoid a recession, any distinct re-acceleration will wait until next year. The factors that prompted slowdowns in global trade and manufacturing provide a mixed message. The trade war between the U.S. and China is intensifying. Chinese activity has not yet bottomed but policymakers will be increasingly forced to react. However, the global inventory down cycle is advanced, and in Europe, domestic activity indicators are holding up despite the continued deterioration in external and industrial conditions. Trade War The uncertainty created by the Sino-U.S. trade war is hurting global growth. On August 1, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S. The tariffs are phased in: $112 billions of goods will be taxed on September 1 while $160 billion will be hit on December 15. Unsurprisingly, a vicious circle of retaliation has been unleashed as China imposed a tariff ranging from 5% to 10% on U.S. goods last Friday, to which Trump immediately responded with a tariff hike from 25% to 30% on the $250 billion batch of goods and from 10% to 15% on the $300 billion batch slated to come into place September 1 and December 1. To bring back hedged foreign buying of Treasurys, the Fed will have to engineer a steeper yield curve and lower FX hedging costs. A resumption in talks between Beijing and Washington in September will offer little solace to investors. Even if President Trump is pressured by the stock market and the U.S. electoral calendar to settle for what Beijing is offering, it is not clear that President Xi Jinping will accept a deal. As BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken discusses in Section II, the two superpowers are locked in a multi-decade geopolitical rivalry and the Hong Kong protests and tensions over Taiwan could move the talks off track. China’s Challenges China’s economy has yet to bottom convincingly. So far, Chinese reflation has been weaker than anticipated. Given that stimulus has not been forceful, the uncertainty produced by the trade war and the illiquidity created by bloated balance sheets is still dragging down China’s marginal propensity to consume (Chart I-8). However, this propensity to spend has little downside, if the past 10 years are any indication. Chinese infrastructure and equipment investment needs to be revived. They are shouldering the bulk of the decline in economic activity and have slowed to an annual pace of 2.8% and -2.1%, respectively. Residential investment is expanding at a 9.4% annual rate (Chart I-9), but according to Arthur Budaghyan, BCA’s Chief Emerging Markets Strategist, even this sector’s strength could be an illusion. Chinese property developers are starting projects to raise funds via pre-sales. However, they are not completing nearly as many projects as they have started.2 Chart I-8A Falling Marginal Propensity To Spend Means More Stimulus Is Needed   We are not yet ready to give up on Chinese stimulus as the economy is on the verge of a deflationary spiral that could push debt-to-GDP abruptly higher. The following developments support this view: The statement following the July Politburo meeting showed a greater willingness to stimulate economic activity, as long as it does not add to the property bubble. Producer prices are again deflating. Contracting PPIs often unleash vicious circles as they push real rates higher and hurt investment, which foments additional price declines. Retail sales are slowing and the employment components of the manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs have fallen to 47.1 and 48.7, respectively. China’s economy needs to be insulated from the intensifying trade war with the U.S. or the deteriorating labor market will dampen consumer spending even more. We expect more tax cuts, more credit growth, and more issuance of local government special bonds to finance government spending, following China’s 70th anniversary celebrations on October 1. As Chart I-10 illustrates, an acceleration in total social financing will ultimately lift EM PMIs as well as Asian and European exports. Inventory Cycle The inventory cycle is very advanced. Inventories in the U.S., China and euro area are depleting (Chart I-11). Inventories cannot fall forever, especially when global monetary policy is increasingly accommodative and fiscal policy is loosened. Chart I-10More Chinese Stimulus Will Eventually Support Global Growth Chart I-11The Inventory Purge Is Advanced   Global activity can rebound if the inventory adjustment ends. Inventory fluctuations help drive the Kitchin cycle, a 36-40 month oscillation in activity. According to BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, the current slowdown is nearing 18 months, the typical length of a down oscillation in these cycles (Chart I-12).3 Europe     The manufacturing-heavy euro area will benefit when the global industrial cycle bottoms, but domestic tailwinds are also emerging. European deposits accumulation is quickening, driven by households (Chart I-13, top panel). Meanwhile, the European credit impulse has recovered thanks to the fall in both non-performing loans and borrowing costs (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Moreover, consumer spending is healthy as household balance sheets are improving and wage growth is accelerating to a 3.2% annual pace. Finally, last month we highlighted that the euro area fiscal thrust is set to increase by 0.7% of GDP this year.4 Fiscal easing appears set to expand as Germany and Italy study support packages. Finally, the Italian political uncertainty is receding as the Five Star Movement and the Democratic Party have agreed to form a coalition government. Chart I-12The Three-Year Cycle Is Also Advanced Chart I-13Some Ignored Improvements In Europe   At the moment, the biggest risk for Europe is the significant probability of a No-Deal Brexit. After the recent decision to prorogue Parliament, Matt Gertken raised his probability of a No-Deal Brexit to one third from 20%.Such an event would negatively impact Dutch, German and French exports, which could scuttle any improvement in Europe. Adding It Up The combined effects of more Chinese stimulus in the fourth quarter, an impending end to the global inventory drawdown, and an endogenous improvement in Europe, all should ultimately outweigh the negatives created by the U.S.-Sino trade war. Moreover, global financial conditions are easing (Chart I-14). Therefore, the fall in global bond yields should push the G-10 12-month credit impulse higher (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Lower oil prices should also help G-10 consumers. Early indicators support this assessment. BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator has been slowly bottoming, and according to its diffusion index, it will soon move higher (Chart I-15, top panel). Moreover, Singapore’s container throughput is tentatively stabilizing, while our Asian EM Diffusion Index is improving, albeit from depressed levels (Chart I-15, second panel). Finally, ethylene and propylene prices are rallying with accelerating momentum (Chart I-15, third and fourth panels). Chart I-14Easier Financial Conditions Favor Credit Growth Chart I-15Some Growth Indicators Are Stabilizing   Bottom Line: The U.S. economy will probably slow further in the coming months, but it will not enter into recession anytime soon. Neither debt nor consumers pose problems, the housing sector is turning the corner and the private sector’s liquidity position is strengthening. Meanwhile, global activity is trying to bottom, but any improvement will be delayed by the latest round of trade tensions. However, global policymakers are responding, thus global growth should improve by early 2020. Fed Policy: More Cuts Expected Chart I-16A Liquidity Crunch In The Interbank Market? Our base case is that the Fed will cut rates twice more in the coming nine months. In the tails of the probability distribution, three supplementary cuts are more likely than only one additional cut. Paradoxically, liquidity considerations support our Fed view. A recurring theme in our research is the improvement in global liquidity indicators such as excess money, deposit growth and our financial liquidity index.5 However, these indicators are not able to boost growth because of an important technical consideration. What might be classified as excess reserves by the Fed may not be free reserves. Higher Supplementary Leverage Ratios under Basel III rules require commercial banks to hold greater levels of excess reserves to meet their mandatory Tier 1 capital ratios. Since the Fed’s balance sheet runoff results in falling excess reserves, the decline in reserves may have already created some illiquidity in the interbank system. Global central banks have been divesting from the T-bill market, which is worsening the decline in excess reserves. They have parked their short-term funds at the New York Fed’s Foreign Repurchase Agreement Pool (Foreign Repo Pool) which limits the availability of reserves in the banking system (Chart I-16).6 These dynamics increase the cost of hedging the dollar for foreign buyers of U.S. assets. When reserves fall below thresholds implied by Basel III regulations, global banks lose their ability to use their balance sheets to conduct capital market transactions. Without this necessary wiggle room, they cannot arbitrage away wider cross-currency basis swap spreads and deviations of FX forward prices from covered interest rate parity. For foreign investors, the cost of hedging their FX exposure increases. Together with the flatness of the U.S. yield curve, hedged U.S. Treasurys currently yield less than German Bunds or JGBs (Table I-1). Chart I-17Declining Excess Reserves Hurt Risk Assets And Growth Lower excess reserves and higher hedging costs have been bullish for the USD and negative for the global economy. Instead of buying hedged Treasurys, foreigners purchase U.S. assets unhedged (agency and corporate bonds, not Treasurys). Thus, falling excess reserves have been correlated with a stronger dollar, softer global growth and weaker EM asset and FX prices (Chart I-17). This adverse environment has accentuated the downside in Treasury yields and flattened the yield curve (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Going forward, these problems should intensify. The Treasury will issue over US$800 billion of debt by year-end to replenish its cash balance and finance the bulging U.S. budget deficit. Primary dealers will continue to plug the void left by foreigners and will purchase the expanding issuance (Chart I-18). In the past year, primary dealers have already increased their repo-market borrowing by $300 billion to finance their inventories of securities. They will need to expand these borrowings, which will further lift the cost of hedging U.S. assets. Thus, foreign investors faced with $16 trillion of assets with negative yields will buy more U.S. assets on an unhedged basis. The dollar will rise and global growth conditions will deteriorate. The Fed will have to cut rates two to three more times, otherwise the dangerous feedback loop described above will take hold. These cuts are more than domestic economic conditions warrant. To bring back hedged foreign buying of Treasurys, the Fed will have to engineer a steeper yield curve and lower FX hedging costs. The end of the balance sheet runoff is a step in the right direction, but it will not be enough. The BCA Financial Stress Index and our Fed Monitor are consistent with this view (Chart I-19). Moreover, the intensifying trade war is hurting the outlook for growth, inflation expectations and the stock market. Chart I-18A Large Inventory Build Up By Primary Dealers Chart I-19Two To Three More Cuts Are Coming   Investment Implications Government Bonds We have revised our position on an imminent end to the bull market. We do expect bond yields to be higher in 12 months, but for now the global economy has too many risks to time a bottom in yields. The cyclical picture for bonds is bearish. Treasurys have outperformed cash by 8% in the past year, a performance normally associated with a fed fund rate that is 200 to 300 basis points below what markets anticipated 12 months ago (Chart I-20). In order for Treasurys to continue outperforming cash, the Fed must cut rates to zero next year. Nonetheless, a U.S. recession is not in the offing and the global economy should perk up by early 2020. At most, the Fed will validate current rate expectations of 96 basis points of cuts. Chart I-20The Fed Must Cut To Zero For Bonds To Further Outperform Cash Next Year Valuations are also consistent with Treasurys delivering negative returns in the next 12 months. According to the BCA Bond Valuation Index, Treasurys are extremely overvalued. Moreover, real 10-year yields are two standard deviations below the three-year moving average of real GDP growth, a proxy for potential GDP (Chart I-21). Investors should wait to sell bonds until the Fed cuts rates by another 50 basis points, global and U.S. PMIs stabilize, and our cyclical indicator sends a sell signal. Technicals also point to poor 12-month prospective returns. The 13-week and 52-week rates of change in yields are consistent with tops in bond prices (Chart I-22). Positioning is also very stretched, as highlighted by the J.P. Morgan Duration Survey, the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Investors Survey, ETF flows, and government bonds futures and options holdings of asset managers. As a result, our Composite Technical Indicator is very overbought (Chart I-22, bottom panel). Chart I-21U.S. Bonds Are Very Expensive ... Chart I-22... And Very Overbought   The quickening pace of accumulation of securities on bank balance sheets also points to higher yields in 12 months (Chart I-23). As banks stockpile liquid assets, they accumulate more juice to fuel future lending. However, the rising cost of hedging FX exposure is bullish for the dollar. Hence, increasing Treasury holdings will not lift yields until the Fed cuts rates more aggressively. We are reluctant to recommend shorting / underweighting bonds. As Chart I-24 illustrates, mounting uncertainty over economic policy anchors U.S. yields. Last week’s round of tariff increases, along with the Brexit saga, suggests that the uncertainty has not yet peaked. Chart I-23A Coiled Spring Chart I-24Uncertainty Is Keeping Global Bonds Expensive   The collapse in German yields is also not finished. The fall in bund yields to -0.7% has dragged down rates worldwide as investors seek positive long-term returns. In response, the U.S. 10-year premium dropped to -1.1%. Historically, bunds end their rally when yields decline 120 basis points below their two-year moving average (Chart I-25). If history is a guide, German yields could bottom toward -1%, which is in line with Swiss 10-year yields. The 1995 experience also argues against an imminent end to the bond rally. In a recent Special Report, BCA’s U.S. Equity Strategy service highlighted the parallels between today’s environment and the aftermath of the December 1994 Tequila Crisis.7 In that episode, global growth troughed and the Fed cut rates three times before the U.S. ISM Manufacturing Index bottomed in January 1996. Only then did Treasury yields turn higher (Chart I-26). A similar scenario could easily unfold. Chart I-25More Downside For German Yields Chart I-26Bottom In Yields: Wait For The ISM To Turn And The Fed To Cut More   EM assets are vulnerable and could spark a last stampede into U.S. Treasurys. Investors of EM fixed-income products have not yet capitulated. EM assets perform poorly when global growth is weak, dollar funding is hard to come by and trade uncertainty is rising. Yet, yields on EM local-currency bonds have fallen, indicating little selling pressure. Rather than dispose of their EM holdings, investors have hedged their EM exposure by selling EM currencies. Therefore, EM bonds are rallying with EM currencies falling (Chart I-27), which is a rare occurrence. Recent cracks in EM high-yield bonds and the breakdown in EM currencies suggest investors will not ignore the trade war for much longer. The ensuing flight to safety should pull down Treasury yields. Chart I-27A Rare Occurrence BCA’s Cyclical Bond Indicator has yet to flash a buy signal, which will only happen when the indicator moves above its 9-month moving average (Chart I-28). Investors should wait to sell bonds until the Fed cuts rates by another 50 basis points, global and U.S. PMIs stabilize, and our cyclical indicator sends a sell signal. As a corollary, we remain positive on gold prices and expect the yellow metal to move to $1,600 in the coming months. Chart I-28BCA Cyclical Bond Indicator: Don't Sell Yet Corporate Bonds Chart I-29Corporate Bond Fundamentals Are Worsening The long-term outlook for corporate bonds is deteriorating enough that long-term investors should use any rally to lighten their exposures. However, on a six- to nine-month horizon, stresses will probably remain contained. A significant deterioration in corporate health will hurt this asset class’s long-term returns. Recent data revisions pushed GDP and productivity well below previous estimates. This curtailed corporate profitability, lifted debt-to-cash flow ratios, and hurt interest coverage measures. BCA’s Corporate Health Monitor is flashing its worst reading since the financial crisis. Moreover, the return on capital is at its lowest level in this cycle. Historically, these developments have pointed to higher default rates and spreads (Chart I-29). Worryingly, average interest coverage and profitability levels are distorted. Tech firms only account for 8% of the U.S. corporate bond universe, yet they represent 19% of cash flows generated by the U.S. corporate sector. Outside the tech sector, cash generation is poorer than suggested by our Corporate Health Monitor. This will amplify losses when the default cycle begins. The poor quality of bond issuance in the past 8 years will also hurt recovery rates when defaults rise. Since then, junk bonds constitute 10% of overall issuance, and BBB-rated bonds represent 42% of investment-grade issues. Historical averages are 9% and 27%, respectively. Additionally, covenants have been particularly light in the same period. Investors with horizons of one year or less still have a window to own corporate bonds. Moreover, since the deviation of corporate debt-servicing costs as a percentage of EBITDA remains well below historical trigger points, an imminent and durable jump in spreads is unlikely. Within the corporate universe, BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy service currently favors high-yield to investment-grade bonds.8 Breakeven spreads in the junk space are much more rewarding than those offered by investment-grade issues (Chart I-30). Equities We expect the S&P 500 to remain volatile and below 3,000 for the rest of 2019. Early next year, an upside breakout will end this period of churn. The S&P will probably soon test the 2,700 level. Technically, the selling is not exhausted. The number of stocks above their 40-, 30- and 10-week moving averages have formed successively lower highs and are not yet oversold (Chart I-31). Furthermore, the Fed is unlikely to deliver a dovish surprise in September. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s recent speech at Jackson Hole suggests that the Fed needs to see more pain before moving ahead of the curve. Chart I-30Short-Term Investors Should Favor Junk Over Investment Grade Issues Chart I-31This Correction Can Run Further   Once stocks stabilize, the subsequent rebound will not lead to an immediate breakout this year. Yields will move up when growth picks up or if President Trump becomes less combative on trade. However, falling interest rates have been a crucial support for stock prices in 2019. As the 1995-1996 experience shows, when the ISM turned up, the S&P 500 did not gain much traction. Higher yields pushed down multiples even as earnings estimates strengthened. We are more positive on the outlook for stocks next year with BCA’s Monetary Indicator pointing to higher stock prices (see Section III). Moreover, bear markets materialize only when a recession is roughly six to nine months away (Chart I-32). The S&P still has time to rally because we do not anticipate a recession until early 2022. Chart I-32No Recession, No Bear Market Chart I-33Better Prospects For Non-U.S. Stocks Cyclical investors should move their equity holdings outside the U.S. International markets are comparatively cheap (Chart I-33, top panel). Moreover, a rebound in global growth early next year is congruent with U.S. underperformance. Finally, our earnings models forecast an end to the deterioration of European profit growth in September 2019, but not yet in the U.S. (Chart I-33, bottom two panels). Stocks should outperform bonds on a long-term basis. According to the BCA Valuation Index, U.S. stocks are extremely expensive (see Section III). Our valuation indicator would be as elevated as in 2000 if interest rates were not so depressed today. As Peter Berezin showed in BCA’s Global Investment Strategy service, based on current valuation levels, investors can expect 10-year returns of 3.0%, 4.5%, 11.9% and 7.4% for the U.S., euro area, Japan and EM equities, respectively.9 This is not appealing. Nonetheless, long-term equity expected returns are superior to bonds. If held to maturity, they will return 1.5%, -0.7%, and -0.3% annually in the U.S., Germany and Japan, respectively. Practically, long-term investors should favor the rest of the world over the U.S. Local-currency expected returns are higher outside the U.S., and the dollar will decline during the next 10 years. As our Foreign Exchange Strategy service recently highlighted, the dollar is very expensive on a long-term basis.10 Exchange rates strongly revert to their purchasing-parity equilibria in such investment horizons. The growing U.S. twin deficit and the strong desire of reserve managers to diversify out of the greenback will only exacerbate the dollar’s decline. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 29, 2019 Next Report: September 26, 2019   II. Big Trouble In Greater China The chance of a U.S.-China trade agreement by November 2020 is still only 40% – but an upgrade may be around the corner. Trump is on the verge of a tactical trade retreat due to fears of economic slowdown and a loss in 2020. Xi Jinping is now the known unknown. His aggressive foreign policy is a major risk even if Trump softens. Political divisions in Greater China – Hong Kong unrest and Taiwan elections – could harm the trade talks. Maintain tactical caution but remain cyclically overweight global equities.   “I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it. So I’m taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade. And you know what, we’re winning.” – U.S. President Donald J. Trump, August 21, 2019 On August 1, United States President Donald Trump declared that he would raise a new tariff of 10% on the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not already subject to his administration’s sweeping 25% tariff. Then, on August 13, with the S&P 500 index down a mere 2.4%, Trump announced that he would partially delay the tariff, separating it into two tranches that will take effect on September 1 and December 15 (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Six days later Trump’s Commerce Department renewed the 90-day temporary general license for U.S. companies to do business with embattled Chinese telecom company Huawei, which has ties to the Chinese state and is viewed as a threat to U.S. network security. The same pattern played out on August 23 when President Trump responded to China’s retaliatory tariffs by declaring he would raise tariffs to 30% on the first half of imports and 15% on the remainder by December 15. Within a single weekend he softened his rhetoric and said he still wanted a deal. Trump’s tendency to take two steps forward with coercive measures and then one step back to control the damage is by now familiar to global investors. Yet this backpedaling reveals that like other politicians he is concerned about reelection. After all, there is a clear chain of consequence leading from trade war to bear market to recession to a Democrat taking the White House in November 2020. Trump’s approval rating is already similar to that of presidents who fell short of re-election amid recession (Chart II-2) – an actual recession would consign him to history. Will Trump Stage A Tactical Retreat On Trade? Yes. Trump’s predicament suggests that he will have to adjust his policies. Global trade, capital spending, and sentiment have deteriorated significantly since the last escalation-and-delay episode with China in May and June. Beijing’s economic stimulus measures disappointed expectations, exacerbating the global slowdown (Chart II-3). This leaves him less room for maneuver going forward. The fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. Even “Fortress America” – consumer-driven and relatively insulated from global trade – has seen manufacturing, private investment, and business sentiment weaken. GDP growth is slowing and has been revised downward for 2018 despite a surge in budget deficit projections to above $1 trillion dollars (Chart II-4). Chart II-3China's Gradual Stimulus Yet To Revive Global Economy Chart II-4Trump's Economy Grew Slower Than Thought Despite Fiscal Stimulus   The U.S. Treasury yield curve inversion is deepening. While we at BCA would point out reasons that this may not be a reliable signal of imminent recession, Trump cannot afford to ignore it. He is sensitive to the widening talk of “recession” in American airwaves and is openly contemplating stimulus options (Chart II-5). His approval rating has lost momentum, partly due to his perceived mishandling of a domestic terrorist attack motivated by racist anti-immigrant sentiment in El Paso, Texas, but negative financial and economic news have likely also played a part (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Trump Fears Growing Talk Of Recession In short, the fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The core predicament for Trump continues to be the divergence in American and Chinese policy. In the U.S., the stimulating effect of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act is wearing off just as the deflationary effect of his trade policy begins to bite. In China, the lingering effects of Xi’s all-but-defunct deleveraging campaign are combining with the trade war, and slowing trend growth, to produce a drag on domestic demand and global trade. The result is a rising dollar, which increases the trade deficit – the opposite of what Trump wants and needs (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Trump's Fiscal Policy Undid His Trade Policy   The United States is insulated from global trade, but only to a point – it cannot escape a global recession should one develop (Chart II-8). With global and U.S. equities vulnerable to additional volatility in the near term, Trump will have to make at least a tactical retreat on his trade policy over the rest of the year. First and foremost this would mean: Chart II-8If Total Trade War Causes A Global Relapse, The U.S. Economy Cannot Escape Expediting a trade deal with Japan – this should get done before a China deal, possibly as early as September. Ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada “NAFTA 2.0” agreement – this requires support from moderate Democrats in Congress. The window for passage is closing fast but not yet closed. Removing the threat to slap tariffs on European car and car part imports in mid-November. There is some momentum given Europe’s need to boost growth and recent progress on U.S. beef exports to the EU. Lastly, if financial and economic pressure are sustained, Trump will be forced to soften his stance on China. The problem for global risk assets – in the very near term – is that Trump’s tactical retreat has not fully materialized yet. The new tariff on China is still slated to take effect on September 1. This tariff hike or other disagreements could result in a cancellation of talks or failure to make any progress.11 Even if Trump does pivot on trade, China’s position has hardened. It is no longer clear that Beijing will accept a deal that is transparently designed to boost Trump’s reelection chances. Thus, the biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Is Xi prepared to receive Trump kindly if the latter comes crawling back? How will he handle rising political risk in Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan island,12 and will the outcome derail the trade talks? The biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Bottom Line: Global economic growth is fragile and President Trump has only rhetorically retracted his latest salvo against China. Nevertheless, the clear signal is that he is sensitive to the financial and economic constraints that affect his presidential run next year – and therefore investors should expect U.S. trade policy to turn less market-negative on the margin in the coming months. This is positive for the cyclical view on global risk assets. But the risk to the view is China: whether Trump will take a conciliatory turn and whether Xi will reciprocate. Can Xi Jinping Accept A Deal? Yes. It is extremely difficult for Xi Jinping to offer concessions in the short term. He is facing another tariff hike, U.S. military shows of force, persistent social unrest in Hong Kong, and a critical election in Taiwan. Certainly, he will not risk any sign of weakness ahead of the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, which will be a nationalist rally in defiance of imperialist western powers. After that, however, there is potential for Xi to be receptive to any Trump pivot on trade. China’s strategy in the trade talks has generally been to offer limited concessions and wait for Trump to resign himself to them. Concessions thus far are not negligible, but they can easily be picked apart. They consist largely of preexisting trends (large commodity purchases); minor adjustments (e.g. to car tariffs and foreign ownership rules); unverifiable promises (on foreign investment, technological transfer, and intellectual property); or reversible strategic cooperation (partial enforcement of North Korean and Iranian sanctions) (Table II-1). Many of these concessions have been postponed as a result of Trump’s punitive measures. It is unlikely that Beijing will offer much more under today’s adverse circumstances. The exception is cooperation on North Korea, which should improve. So the contours of a deal are generally known. This is what Trump will have to accept if he seeks to calm markets and restore confidence in the economy ahead of his election. But this slate of concessions is ultimately acceptable for the U.S. Chart II-9China's Ultimate Economic Constraint China’s demands are that Trump roll back all his tariffs, that purchases of U.S. goods must be reasonable in scale, and that any agreement be balanced and conducted with mutual respect. Of these three, the tariffs and the “respect” pose the most trouble. Trade balance: Washington and Beijing can agree on the terms of specific purchases. China can increase select imports substantially – it remains a cash-rich nation with a state sector that can be commanded to buy American goods. Tariff rollback: This is tougher but can be done. The U.S. will insist on some tariffs – or the threat of tech sanctions – as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Beijing implements the structural concessions necessary for an agreement. But China might accept a deal in which tariffs were mostly rolled back – say to the original 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of goods. This would likely offset the degree of yuan appreciation to be expected from the likely currency addendum to any agreement. Balance and respect: This qualitative demand is the sticking point. Fundamentally, China cannot reward Trump for his aggressive and unilateral protectionist measures. This would be to set a precedent for future American presidents that sweeping tariffs on national security grounds are a legitimate way of coercing China into making economic structural reforms. Moreover if the U.S. wants to improve the trade balance, China thinks, it cannot embargo Chinese high-tech imports but must actually increase its high-tech exports. Clearly this is a major impasse in the talks. The last point, mutual respect, is the likeliest deal-breaker. It may ultimately hinge on strategic events outside of the realm of trade. But before discussing it further, it is important to recognize that China is not invincible – it has a pain threshold. Deterioration in China’s labor market is of utmost seriousness to any Chinese leader (Chart II-9). And the economy is still struggling to revive. Xi’s reform and deleveraging campaign of 2017-18 has largely been postponed but the lingering effects are weighing on growth and the property sector remains under tight regulation. Moreover the removal of implicit guarantees, and rare toleration of creative destruction (Chart II-10), have left banks and corporations afraid to take on new risks. The state’s reflationary measures, including a big boost to local government spending, have so far been merely sufficient for domestic stability. Chart II-10Creative Destruction In China These problems can be addressed by additional policy easing. But the domestic political crackdown and the break with the U.S. have shaken manufacturers and private entrepreneurs to the bone, suppressing animal spirits and reducing the demand for loans. Ultimately a short-term trade deal to ease this economic stress would make sense for Xi Jinping, even though he knows that U.S. protectionism and the conflict over technological acquisition will persist beyond 2020 and beyond Trump. The threat of a sharp and destabilizing divorce from the U.S. is a real and present danger to the long-term stability of China’s economy and the Communist regime. Xi is a strongman leader, but is he really ready for Mao Zedong-style austerity? Is he not more like former President Jiang Zemin (ruled 1993-2003), who imposed some austerity while prizing domestic economic and political stability above all? To this question we now turn. Bottom Line: China has become the wild card in the trade war. Trump’s need to prevent a recession is known. Beijing has a higher pain threshold and could walk away from the deal to punish Trump (upsetting the global economy and diminishing Trump’s reelection prospects). This would set the precedent for future American presidents that China will not bow to gunboat diplomacy. Will Xi Jinping Overplay His Hand? Be Afraid. For decades China’s main foreign policy principle has been to “lie low and bide its time,” to paraphrase former leader Deng Xiaoping. In the current context this means maintaining a willingness to engage with the U.S. whenever it engages sincerely. This approach implies making the above concessions to minimize the immediate threat to stability from the trade war, while biding time in the longer run rivalry against the United States. Such an approach would also imply assisting the diplomatic process on the Korean peninsula, avoiding a military crackdown in Hong Kong, and refraining from aggressive military intimidation ahead of Taiwan’s election in January. Chart II-11China's Vast Market Its Most Persuasive Tool After all, there is no better way for the Communist Party to undercut dissidents in Hong Kong and Taiwan than to strike a deal with the United States. This would demonstrate that Xi is a pragmatic leader who is still committed to “reform and opening up.” It would help generate an economic rebound that would bring other countries deeper into Beijing’s orbit (Chart II-11). China’s vast domestic market is ultimately its greatest strength in its contest with the United States. In short, conventional Chinese policy suggests that Xi should perpetuate the long success story since 1978 by striking another deal with another Republican president. The catch is that Xi Jinping is not conventional. Since coming to power in 2012, Xi has eschewed the subtle strategies of Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping in favor of a more ambitious approach: that of declaring China’s arrival as a major power and leveraging its economic and military heft to pursue foreign policy and commercial interests aggressively. Xi’s reassertion of Communist rule and state-guided technological acquisition is the biggest factor behind the new U.S. political consensus – entirely aside from Trump – that China is foe rather than friend. There are several empirical reasons to think that Xi might overplay his hand: Xi failed to make substantive concessions with President Barack Obama’s administration on North Korea, the South China Sea, and cyber security, resulting in Obama’s decision to harden U.S. policy toward both China and North Korea in 2015 – a trend that predates Trump. Xi formally removed presidential term limits from China’s constitution even though he could have attracted less negative attention from the West by ruling from behind the scenes after his term in office, like Deng Xiaoping or Jiang Zemin. China has mostly played for time in negotiations with the Trump administration, as mentioned, and this aggravated tensions. Deep revisions to the draft agreement, and the  extent of tariff rollback which was supposedly 90% complete, broke the negotiations in May, sparking this summer’s standoff. Aggressive policies in territorial disputes have alienated even China’s potential allies. This includes regional states whose current ruling parties have courted China in recent years, in some cases obsequiously – South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The East and South China Seas remain a genuine source of “black swans” – unpredictable, low-probability, high-impact events – due to their status as critical sea lanes for the major Asian economies. China continues to militarize the islands there and aggressively prosecute its maritime-territorial disputes. We calculate that $6.4 trillion worth of goods flowed through this bottleneck in the year ending April 2019, 8% of which consists of energy goods from the Middle East that are vital to China and its East Asian neighbors, none of whom can stomach Chinese domination of this geographic space (Diagram II-1). Even if Washington abandoned the region, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would see Chinese control as a threat to their security. Ultimately, however, China’s adventures in its neighboring seas are a matter of choice. Not so for Greater China – in Hong Kong and Taiwan, political risk is rapidly mounting in a way that enflames the U.S.-China strategic distrust and threatens to prevent a trade agreement. Hong Kong: The Dust Has Not Settled Mass protests in Hong Kong have lost some momentum, based on the size of the largest rally in August versus June. But do not be fooled: the political crisis is deepening. A plurality of Hong Kongers now harbors negative feelings toward mainland Chinese people as well as the government in Beijing – a trend that is spiking amid today’s protests but began with the Great Recession and has roots in the deeper socioeconomic malaise of this capitalist enclave (Chart II-12A & II-12B).   A majority also lacks confidence in the political arrangement that ensures some autonomy from Beijing – known as “One Country, Two Systems” (Chart II-13). This is a particularly worrisome sign since this is the fundamental basis for stable political relations with Beijing. With clashes continuing between protesters and police, students calling for a boycott of school this fall, and Beijing rotating troops into the city and openly drilling its security forces in Shenzhen for a potential intervention, Hong Kong’s unrest is not yet laid to rest and could flare up again ahead of China’s sensitive National Day celebration. U.S. tariffs and sanctions are already in effect, reducing the ability of the U.S. to deter China from using force if it believes instability has gone too far. And as President Trump has warned – and would be true of any U.S. administration – a violent crackdown on civilian demonstrators would greatly reduce the political viability of a trade deal in the United States. Taiwan: The Black Swan Arrives Since Taiwan’s 2016 election, we have argued that it is a potential source of “black swans.” Mass protests in Hong Kong may have taken the cake. But these protests are now affecting the Taiwanese election dynamic and potentially the U.S.-China trade talks. Chart II-14U.S. Approves Big New Arms Sale To Taiwan On August 20, the United States Department of Defense informed Congress that it is proceeding with an $8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets and other military arms and equipment to Taiwan – the largest sale in 22 years and the largest aircraft sale since 1992 (Chart II-14). This sale is not yet complete and delivered, but ultimately will be – the question is the timing. Arms sales to Taiwan are a perennial source of tension between the United States and China – and China is increasingly assertive in using economic sanctions to get its way over such issues, as it showed in the lead up to South Korea’s election in 2017. This sale is not a military “game changer” – the U.S. did not send over fifth-generation F-35s, for instance – but China will respond vehemently. It is threatening to impose sanctions on American companies like Lockheed Martin and General Electric for their part in the deal. The sale does not in itself preclude the chance of a trade agreement but it contributes to a rise in strategic tensions that ultimately could. Chart II-15A 'Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis' Would Have A Seismic Equity Impact The context is Taiwan’s hugely important election in January. Four years ago, President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party swept to power on the back of a popular protest movement – the “Sunflower Movement” – that opposed deeper cross-strait economic integration. It dangerously resembled the kind of anti-Communist “color revolutions” that motivate Xi Jinping’s hardline policies. Tsai shocked the world when she called Trump personally to congratulate him after his election, which violated diplomatic protocol given that Taiwan is a territory of China and not an independent nation-state. Since then Trump has largely avoided provoking the Taiwan issue so as not to strike at a core Chinese interest and obliterate the chance of a trade deal. But the U.S. has always argued that the provision of defensive arms to Taiwan is a condition of the U.S.-China détente – and Trump is so far moving forward with the sale. How will Xi Jinping react if the sale goes through? In 1995-96, China’s use of missile tests to try to intimidate Taiwan produced the opposite effect – driving voters into the arms of Lee Teng-hui, the candidate Beijing opposed. This was the occasion of the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, in which U.S. President Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carriers to the region, one that sailed through the Taiwan Strait. The negative effect on markets at that time was local, whereas anything resembling this level of tensions would today be a seismic global risk-off (Chart II-15). Since the 1990s, leaders in Beijing have avoided direct military coercion ahead of elections. But Xi Jinping has hardened his stance on Taiwan throughout his term. He has dabbled with such coercion in his use of military drills that encircle Taiwan in recent years. While one must assume that he will use economic sanctions rather than outright military threats – as he did with South Korea – saber-rattling cannot be ruled out. The pressure on him is rising. Prior to the Hong Kong unrest, Taiwan’s elections looked likely to return the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) to power and remove the incumbent President Tsai – a boon for Beijing. That outlook has changed and Tsai now has a fighting chance of staying in power (Chart II-16). The prospect of four more years of Tsai would not be too problematic for Beijing if not for the fact that the U.S. political establishment is now firmly in agreement on challenging China. But even if Tsai loses, Taiwan’s outlook is troublesome. And this makes Xi’s decision-making harder to predict. Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. It is not that Tsai or her party will necessarily prevail. The manufacturing slowdown will take a toll and third-party candidates, particularly Ko Wen-je, would likely split Tsai’s vote. Moreover her Democratic Progressives still tie the KMT in opinion polling (Chart II-17). The Taiwanese people are primarily concerned about maintaining the strong economy and cross-strait peace and stability, which her reelection could jeopardize (Chart II-18). Tsai could very well lose, or she could be a lame duck presiding over the KMT in the legislature.   Rather, the problem for Xi Jinping is that the Taiwanese people clearly sympathize with the protesters in Hong Kong (Chart II-19). They fear that their own governance system faces the same fate as Hong Kong’s, with the Communist Party encroaching on traditional political liberties over time.   While Hong Kong ultimately has zero choice as to whether to accept Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan has much greater autonomy – and the military support of outside forces. It is not a foregone conclusion that Taiwan must suffer the same political dependency as Hong Kong. Indeed, Taiwan has a long history of exercising the democratic vote and has even dabbled into the realm of popular referendums. In short, Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. But the Hong Kong events have accentuated this fact, for two key reasons: First, Taiwanese people identify increasingly as exclusively Taiwanese, rather than as both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart II-20). The incidents in Hong Kong reveal that this sentiment is tied to immediate political relations and therefore deterioration would encourage further alienation from the mainland. Second, while a strong majority of Taiwanese wish to maintain the political status quo to avoid conflict with the mainland, a substantial subset – approaching one-fourth – supports eventual or immediate independence (Chart II-21).   This means that relations with the mainland will eventually deteriorate even if the KMT wins the election. The KMT itself must respond to popular demand not to cozy up too much with Beijing, which is how it fell from power in 2016. Meanwhile, under KMT rule, Taiwan’s progressive-leaning youth are likely to set about reviving their protest movement in the subsequent years and imitating their Hong Kong peers, especially if the KMT warms up relations too fast with the mainland. Ultimately these points suggest that Xi Jinping will strive to avoid a violent crackdown in Hong Kong. A crackdown would be the surest way for him to harm the KMT in the Taiwanese election and to hasten the rebuilding of U.S.-Taiwan security ties. Call The President The best argument for Xi to lie low and avoid a larger crisis in Greater China is that it would unify the West and its allies against China. So far Xi’s foreign policy has not been so aggressive as to lead to diplomatic isolation. Europe is maintaining a studied neutrality due to its own differences with the United States; Asian neighbors are wary of provoking Chinese sanctions or military threats. A humanitarian crisis in Hong Kong or a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” would change that. For markets, the best-case scenario is that Xi Jinping exercises restraint. This would help Hong Kong protests lose steam, North Korean diplomacy get back on track, and Taiwanese independence sentiment simmer down. China would be more likely to halt U.S. tariffs and tech sanctions, settle a short-term trade agreement, and delay the upgrade in U.S.-Taiwan defense relations. China would still face adverse long-term political trends in both the U.S. and Taiwan, but an immediate crisis would be averted. The worst-case scenario is that Xi indulges his ambition. Hong Kong protests could explode, relations with Taiwan would deteriorate, and U.S.-China relations would move more rapidly in their downward spiral. Trade talks could collapse. Xi Jinping would face the possibility of a unified Western front, instability within Greater China, and a global recession. This might get rid of Donald Trump, but it would not get rid of the U.S. Congress, Navy, or Department of Defense. The choice seems pretty clear. Xi, like Trump, faces constraints that should motivate a tactical retreat from confrontation, at least after October 1. While this does not necessarily mean a settled trade agreement, it does suggest at least a ceasefire or truce. Our GeoRisk indicators show that market-based political risk in Taiwan – and less so South Korea – moves in keeping with global economic policy uncertainty. The underlying U.S.-China strategic confrontation and trade war are driving both (Chart II-22). A deterioration in this region has global consequences. Chart II-22U.S.-China Strategic Conflict Fuels Global Economic Uncertainty And Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk In Tandem Xi is a markedly aggressive “strongman” Chinese leader who has not been afraid to model his leadership on that of Chairman Mao. He could still overplay his hand. This is why we maintain that the odds of a U.S.-China trade agreement remain 40%, though we are prepared to upgrade that probability if Trump and Xi make pro-market decisions. Investment Implications On the three-month tactical horizon, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy is paring back our tactical safe-haven trades: we are closing our “Doomsday Basket” of long gold and Swiss bonds for a gain of 13.6%, while maintaining our simple gold portfolio hedge going forward.  Trump has not yet decisively staged his tactical retreat on trade policy, while rising political risk in Greater China increases uncertainty over Xi Jinping’s next moves. On the cyclical horizon, the above suggests that there is a light at the end of the tunnel – if both Trump and Xi recognize their political constraints. This means that there is still a political and geopolitical basis to reinforce BCA’s House View to remain optimistic on global and U.S. equities over the next 12 months, with the potential for non-U.S. equities to recover and bond yields to reverse their deep dive.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy   III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 correction is likely to deepen a bit further. A move toward 2700 remains our base case scenario. Short-term oscillators have not yet reached capitulation levels and the Sino-U.S. trade war remains a source of risks, especially as the Chinese side is unlikely to provide any strong concessions until October. However, we still do not expect a deeper correction to unfold. In other words, equities remain stuck in a trading range for the remainder of the year. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continues to shun stocks. 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 readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if strong market momentum is not supported by valuations and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Global growth remains the biggest problem for stocks. Until the global economy finds a floor, the outlook for profits will be poor and our RPI will argue against buying equities. Beyond this year, the outlook remains constructive of stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan is markedly improving. However, it continues to deteriorate in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The WTP therefore argues that investors are still looking to buy the dips in the U.S. and in Japan, which limits the downside in those markets. Yields have collapsed, money growth has picked up, and global central banks are cutting rates in unison. As a result, our Monetary Indicator points to the most accommodative global monetary backdrop since early 2015. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicator is improving and continues to flash a buy signal. In 2015, it was deteriorating after having hit overbought territory. Therefore, unlike four years ago, equities are more likely to avoid the gravitational pull created by their overvaluation, especially as our BCA Composite Valuation index is in fact improving thanks to lower bond yields.  According to our model, 10-year Treasurys have not been this expensive since late 2012. Back then, this level of overvaluation warned of an impending Treasury selloff. Moreover, our technical indicator is now deeply overbought. So are various rate-of-change measures for bond prices. While none of those indicators can tell you if yields will move up in the next few weeks, they do argue that the risk/reward of holding bonds over the coming year is extremely poor. That being said, we are closely monitoring the recent breakdown in the advanced/decline line of commodities, which might herald another down-leg in commodity prices, and therefore, in bond yields as well. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar is only growing ever more expensive. Additionally, despite the dollar’s recent strength, our Composite Technical Indicator has lost enough momentum that the negative divergence we flagged last month remains in place. It is worrisome for dollar bulls that despite growing uncertainty and a deteriorating global economy, the euro is not breaking down. If the dollar’s Technical Indicator deteriorates further and falls below zero, the momentum-continuation behavior of the greenback will likely kick in. The USD would suffer markedly were this to happen. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1       Claudio Borio , Mathias Drehmann, Dora Xia, "The financial cycle and recession risk," BIS Quarterly Review, December 2018. 2       Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China’s Property Market: Making Sense Of Divergences," dated May 9, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Cycles,” dated July 26, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “August 2019,” dated July 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “August 2019,” dated July 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6       For an explanation of the mechanics of the FRP, please see NY Fed’s website: https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed20 7       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Sector Performance And Fed “Mid-Cycle Adjustments”: For Better Or For Worse," dated August 19, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8       Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "The Trump Interruption," dated August 13, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?,” dated August 23, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 10     Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “A Fresh Look At Purchasing Power Parity,” dated August 23, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 11     Negotiations between Trump and Xi are slated for September in Washington. There is a prospect for Trump to hold another summit with Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in late September and at the APEC summit in Chile in mid-November. 12     Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, while Taiwan is recognized as a province or territory. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Special Report

Dear Client, We will not be publishing a report next week as we take an end-of-summer break. Our next report will be published on Tuesday, September 10th. Best regards, Robert Robis  Highlights Canadian Corporates: The small but growing Canadian corporate bond market has delivered performance comparable to other developed market credit over the past decade, with less duration risk and higher average credit quality compared to the larger U.S. corporate debt market. Returns: Our new regression model for Canadian corporate bond excess returns is calling for modest positive gains for Canadian corporate debt over the next year.  Corporate Health: Canadian companies’ financial health remains a positive for corporate bond returns on a cyclical basis, but high leverage and mediocre profitability are longer-term concerns. Allocation: We recommend overweight allocations into Canadian investment grade corporates, versus both Canadian government bonds and U.S. investment grade corporates. Amid elevated global policy uncertainty, favor the moderate spread volatility and attractive valuation in Canadian corporates. Feature Canadian corporate bonds do not get much attention from global fixed income investors due to the relatively small size of the market. Yet Canadian corporates have delivered returns in line with their global peers over the past decade, delivering an average excess return over Canadian government bonds (hedged into U.S. dollars) of 2.8% (Chart  of the Week). Looking ahead, Canadian corporates may present an opportunity for diversification in what is becoming an increasingly challenging environment for corporate bond investors, offering relatively higher yields and better credit quality with an economy that has held up well relative to the current weakening trend in global growth. In this Special Report, we outline the contours of the Canadian corporate bond market, assess the macroeconomic factors driving Canadian corporate bond returns, and survey the current overall financial health of Canadian companies. We also take a high-level look at the state of Canadian corporate debt at the sector level, while offering our recommendations on which ones to favor over the next 6-12 months. A Brief Overview The bulk of outstanding Canadian corporate debt is rated investment grade (IG), but this represents only 5% of the global IG market (Chart 2), using the Bloomberg Barclays Global Corporates Index as a proxy.1 However, the total market capitalization of Canadian corporate bonds is 30% of Canadian GDP – a ratio as large as seen in other major developed countries like the U.S., U.K. and Switzerland (Chart 3).  Like those other markets, Canadian companies have taken advantage of historically low borrowing rates and increased demand for income-generating assets to add leverage to their balance sheets.   On the demand side, Canadian corporates have traditionally been more of an institutional investment product, although domestic retail investor interest has picked up in recent years (mostly through mutual funds and exchange traded funds). The buy-and-hold nature of those local institutional investors reduces liquidity, particularly in comparison to the more widely-traded debt of Canadian federal and provincial governments. Yet according to a September 2018 Bank of Canada (BoC) report, domestic investor concerns over a perceived deterioration of Canadian corporate bond market liquidity appeared overstated.2 The report concluded that corporate bond market liquidity had generally been improving since 2010, with only short-lived bouts of illiquidity around events such as the 2011 European Debt Crisis and the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices. That medium-term improvement in liquidity was especially concentrated in high-grade corporate debt and bonds issued by banks, although the BoC concluded that liquidity and trading activity in low-grade and non-bank bonds have generally been stable. Issuance is dominated by financials, utilities, and energy companies. Unsurprisingly, the defensive utilities sector, which has high borrowing requirements, has been the top-performing industry group in 2019 (total return of +14% year-to-date) against a backdrop of falling bond yields and increased investor nervousness about future global growth (Chart 4). Yet all Canadian corporate bonds have generally performed well, with the overall Bloomberg Barclays Canadian Corporate Index delivering a total return of +8.2% so far in 2019, compared to 11.4% for Canadian equities and 5.6% for Canadian government bonds. Canadian corporate credit spreads have been remarkably stable since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.  The overall index option-adjusted spread (OAS) has stayed in a range between 100-200bps, while both total and excess (duration-matched versus government debt) returns exhibiting fairly low volatility since 2008 (Chart 5). Canadian corporate credit spreads have been remarkably stable since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.  The overall index option-adjusted spread (OAS) has stayed in a range between 100-200bps, while both total and excess (duration-matched versus government debt) returns exhibiting fairly low volatility since 2008 The duration of the benchmark Canadian IG corporate index is now 6.4 years, well below the equivalent level for U.S IG (7.9 years) even though it has steadily increased over the past decade.  Over that same period, the average credit quality has deteriorated, with 40% of the Canadian corporate index now rated BBB (Chart 6). This is below the BBB share seen in the U.S. (50%) and euro area (52%), though, making Canadian IG relatively less exposed to potential downgrades to junk bond status. Chart 5Low Volatility Of Spreads & Returns Since 2008 Chart 6Lower Share Of BBBs Compared To The U.S. & Europe Bottom Line: The small but growing Canadian corporate bond market has delivered performance comparable to other developed market credit over the past decade, with less duration risk and higher average credit quality compared to the large U.S. corporate debt market. A Fundamental Model To Forecast Canadian Corporate Bond Returns In order to help forecast Canadian corporate bond performance, we have developed a factor-based regression model of Canadian IG excess returns (in local currency terms). We first determined the independent variables in the regression by compiling a list of potential drivers of bond returns which map to four factor groups: growth, inflation, financial variables, and other miscellaneous factors. After statistically testing those factors, the insignificant and unrelated ones were dropped. The final result of this analysis is shown in Table 1. Table 1Regression Details Of The Fundamental Canadian Corporate Bond Return Model We concluded that five variables explain the bulk of Canadian corporate bond returns:  the annual percentage change in oil prices (using the Canadian benchmark, Western Canadian Select), non-residential fixed investment growth, the M3 measure of money supply growth, the Canadian dollar trade-weighted index (CAD TWI), and the level of Canadian industrial capacity utilization. We concluded that five variables explain the bulk of Canadian corporate bond returns:  the annual percentage change in oil prices (using the Canadian benchmark, Western Canadian Select), non-residential fixed investment growth, the M3 measure of money supply growth, the Canadian dollar trade-weighted index (CAD TWI), and the level of Canadian industrial capacity utilization. Chart 7A Fundamental Model Of Canadian Corporate Bond Returns Looking at recent excess return history (Chart 7), it is not surprising that oil prices significantly affect returns given the importance of Canada’s energy sector to the overall Canadian economy.  Moreover, growth in non-residential fixed asset investment also positively influences excess returns as faster capital spending can potentially increase the profitability of Canadian firms. In contrast, the inflation factors - money supply and capacity utilization – are detrimental to returns. Increases in both of those factors can result in higher inflation and rising bond yields as the BoC is forced to tighten monetary policy, which often results in rising risk premiums and wider corporate credit spreads (falling excess returns). Finally, the CAD TWI is (weakly) positively correlated to corporate bond excess returns. A stronger currency is a reflection of a strong domestic economy, but it also helps lower imported input costs for Canadian companies – both of which boost corporate profits and corporate bond returns. We now turn to the outlook for these factors over the next 6-12 months, which remain generally supportive for moderate positive excess returns for Canadian corporates: Oil prices: BCA’s commodity strategists expect global oil prices to increase moderately over the next year as global inventory drawdowns outpace expectations (Iran sanctions, Venezuela production collapsing and OPEC 2.0 production discipline are likely sources of supply restraint). In addition, if global growth starts to rebound from the end of this year, as we expect, oil demand will also rise. Non-residential fixed investment: According to the BoC’s most recent Business Outlook Survey of Canadian companies, investment spending plans of firms remain healthy – although that survey was taken at the end of June before the latest increase in uncertainty over global trade and economic growth.3  Moreover, relatively easy credit conditions have made it easier for firms to finance capex. Therefore, our baseline scenario is still to expect moderate growth in non-residential fixed capital investment, although risks are to the downside given the global macro uncertainties. Money supply: The most recent reading of the annual growth of Canadian M3 from June was a solid +7.5%. The BoC is expected to maintain an accommodative monetary policy stance, keeping the current policy rate on hold until the end of 2020. Therefore, money supply growth is likely to remain firm – a negative for Canadian corporate bond returns in our model, although perhaps less so than in the past since rapid money growth will not generate the same type of monetary tightening response from the BoC. Capacity utilization: The Canadian capacity utilization rate is currently at 81%, a meaningful pullback from the 84% level seen in early 2018. According to the latest BoC Monetary Policy Report, the Canadian economy is operating below potential (the output gap in Q1 was estimated to be between -1.25% to -0.25% of potential GDP) and that gap is only expected to close over the next two years.  Thus, capacity utilization is not expected to have a major impact on corporate excess returns over the next 6-12 months. Canadian Dollar: The CAD TWI has shown no change over the past year, and will likely remain near current levels in the short term. Although we do not expect the BoC to cut interest rates as much as currently discounted by markets (-40bps over the next twelve months), Canadian monetary policy will still remain accommodative and will likely keep the CAD relatively soft until global manufacturing growth and trade activity stabilize and begin to revive. The CAD is likely to be a neutral factor for Canadian corporate returns over the next year. Bottom Line: Our new regression model for Canadian corporate bond excess returns is calling for modest positive gains for Canadian corporate debt over the next year.  Canadian Corporate Balance Sheet Health: OK For Now, But At Risk If The Economy Weakens Chart 8The BCA Canadian Corporate Health Monitors Regular readers of our work will be familiar with our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) framework. In this approach, we combine financial ratios that are most important for corporate creditworthiness of the entire non-financial corporate sector of a given country into a summary indicator that is designed to track corporate credit spreads. We introduced a Canadian CHM in April 2018, both using top-down national accounts data and aggregated bottom-up ratios from actual company financial statements.4  The latest reading from our top-down and bottom-up Canadian CHMs suggest that the overall health of Canadian corporates is decent, with the CHMs both below the zero line (Chart 8).5  Digging into the individual ratios, however, does reveal some potential signs of future weakness.  Leverage is relatively high, while profitability metrics and interest coverage ratios are at the low end of the historical range.  However, in our CHM framework, how the latest data compares to the medium-term trend – rather than the absolute level of the ratios - is most relevant for corporate bond performance. On that front, the latest data points for the CHM ratios do represent modest improvements versus the levels seen in 2014 and 2015, which is why our CHMs remain in the “improving health” zone. The more cyclically-driven ratios (profit margins, return on capital, interest coverage) declined amid the sharp plunge in Canadian economic growth at the end of 2018. However, given the recent reacceleration visible in some Canadian economic data, those cyclically-driven ratios may end up showing signs of stabilization, if not improvement, once the underlying CHM data for Q2/2019 and Q3/2019 are available. Looking ahead, Canadian corporate debt would be vulnerable to spread widening (rising risk premiums) in the event of a sustained slowing of the Canadian economy, given the poor absolute levels of the CHM component ratios. With the BoC maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance, however, and the Canadian economy likely to continue growing at a trend-like pace supported by consumer spending, we think the backdrop will remain conducive to credit spread stability in Canada over the next 6-12 months. With the BoC maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance, however, and the Canadian economy likely to continue growing at a trend-like pace supported by consumer spending, we think the backdrop will remain conducive to credit spread stability in Canada over the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: The financial health of Canadian companies remains a positive for corporate bond returns on a cyclical basis, but there are longer-term concerns given high leverage and mediocre profitability. Canadian Corporate Bond Sector Valuation For IG corporate sectors in the U.S., euro area and the U.K., we utilize a relative value framework to rank credit spreads within the benchmark corporate universe.  We can apply that same approach to assess valuations of Canadian corporate bond sectors. In our sector relative value model, the “fair value” option-adjusted spread (OAS) for each sector within the Bloomberg Barclays Canadian IG Corporate index is estimated based on a panel regression. The explanatory variables in the regression are the modified duration, convexity and credit rating of each industry sub-sector within the index. The regression produces a set of common coefficients for all sectors that can be used to estimate a fair value OAS for each industry group as a function of its own interest rate duration, convexity and credit quality – all important drivers of corporate bond returns. The Risk-Adjusted Valuation is the difference between each sector’s current OAS and the model estimate of the sector’s fair value OAS.  A positive Risk-Adjusted Valuation implies undervaluation for the sector in question, and a negative reading implies overvaluation. Table 2 shows the recommended positioning of the Canadian IG industry sectors based on our relative value model. Sectors with positive Risk-Adjusted Valuations have overweight allocations versus the benchmark, with the opposite holds true for sectors with negative valuations. Sectors with spreads that are very close to fair value (within a range of +5bps to -5bps) have only a neutral recommended weighting versus the benchmark. Table 2Canada Investment Grade Corporate Bond Aggregate: Sector Relative Valuation* Chart 9 depicts the risk/reward tradeoff between the valuation metric and the riskiness of each sector as measured by its duration-times-spread (DTS).  Valuation is measured along the vertical axis of the chart, while DTS is measured along the horizontal axis. Sectors with higher DTS exhibit greater excess return volatility and are thus riskier. In the current environment of heightened uncertainty and slowing global growth, but with the BoC and other global central banks responding with a more dovish monetary policy stance, targeting cheap sectors that are less risky (i.e. DTS scores close to or below the average DTS of all sectors) is a prudent strategy.  Those would be sectors that appear in the upper left quadrant of Chart 9, like Metals & Mining, Finance Companies and Office REITs. Chart 10Positive Support For Canadian Consumer Cyclicals We also see a case for overweighting the cheap Consumer Cyclical Services sector, even with a DTS that is modestly higher than the overall index, given the continued strength in the Canadian labor market which supports consumer confidence through rising earning power (Chart 10). Recommended underweights are in the bottom right quadrant of Chart 9, with expensive valuations and high DTS scores, like Utilities: Natural Gas, Utilities: Electric, Supermarkets and Food & Beverage. Bottom Line: Favor Canadian corporate bond sectors with cheap valuations and spread volatility close to that of the overall benchmark index. Investment Conclusions Chart 11Canadian Corporates Outperformance Vs U.S. Will Continue Canadian IG corporates now offer a potential opportunity to diversify corporate bond exposure away from the larger markets in the U.S. and Europe.  The Canadian economy remains resilient despite slowing global growth, while the fundamental drivers of Canadian corporate bond returns are stabilizing or even improving. At the same time, the economic weakness abroad and heightened trade/political uncertainty will ensure that the BoC maintains an accommodative monetary stance over the next 6-12 months. That is not to say that Canadian corporates are not without risk. Canada is not a low-beta market - spreads do widen during “risk-off” periods in global financial markets. Also, underlying Canadian corporate credit fundamentals look poor on a long-term basis; Canadian private sector debt levels are high (especially for households); and the export-intensive Canadian economy is vulnerable to any incremental deceleration of global growth in particular, and the US more specifically.  Yet as a relative value trade versus the much larger corporate bond market to the south, Canadian corporates are well positioned to continue their recent bout of outperformance versus U.S. equivalents over the next 6-12 months, for the following reasons (Chart 11): While markets are priced for rate cuts from both the Fed and the BoC, the starting point for monetary conditions is easier in Canada than in the U.S. given the much weaker level of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. There is a wide gap between the corporate credit fundamentals in Canada and the U.S. according to our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both countries, such that Canadian balance sheets are more robust. There is a wide gap between the corporate credit fundamentals in Canada and the U.S. according to our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both countries, such that Canadian balance sheets are more robust. Bottom Line: We recommend that domestic Canadian investors continue to stay overweight Canadian corporates versus Canadian government bonds, while keeping an overall level of spread risk close to benchmark. Global credit investors that have access to the Canadian corporate bond market should consider allocations out of U.S. investment grade corporates into Canadian equivalents. Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA,  Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com  Footnotes 1 Throughout this report, we solely use data on Canadian corporate debt from the Bloomberg Barclays bond indices, which is the main index data we use in all our global bond research. Comprehensive data is also available from other providers such as FTSE Russell and S&P Global. 2 Bank of Canada September 2018 Staff Analytical Note 2018-31, “Have Liquidity and Trading Activity in the Canadian Corporate Bond Market Deteriorated?” 3 https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/06/business-outlook-survey-summer-2019/ 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook Update: Growth Is Papering Over The Cracks”, dated April 24, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 A CHM below zero implies improving financial health, while a CHM above zero indicates deteriorating financial health. Thus, the direction of the CHM is designed to be positively correlated with corporate credit spreads.