Fiscal

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) Then (1949) And Now (2019) Then (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 Our cyclical view is unchanged, … : Despite the evident risks from escalating trade tensions, soft global economic data, and widespread recession concerns, we expect the expansion and the bull markets in spread product and equities will remain intact. … as fiscal largesse has provided the U.S. economy with ample cushion: Per the IMF’s estimates, the fiscal stimulus package centered on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 amounted to about 70 basis points (“bps”) of fiscal thrust in 2018 and another 40 bps in 2019. But how is Congress’ unprecedented experiment shaping up beyond 2019?: The first-order impact of the tax cuts on government revenues is straightforward. The ultimate net effect turns on how lower taxes alter the course of corporate investment and work force participation. The CBO’s latest projections have the federal deficit widening by an additional $1 trillion over the next decade: Supply-side benefits from the 2017 Act have underwhelmed so far, and the fate of the federal budget depends on lawmakers’ restraint. We are long-run bearish on Treasuries and the dollar. Feature The fundamental backdrop remains mixed in the United States and the rest of the world. Global trade has slowed, and the world is experiencing a sharp manufacturing slowdown. The consensus of BCA researchers expects that manufacturing will soon find a footing, and the global economy will revive, helped along by easier monetary policy. A fiscal pick-me-up is long overdue, and would be especially welcome, but we are not holding our breath, especially when Japan finally seems prepared to impose its repeatedly-postponed VAT increase. Opinion within BCA is notably split, and the glass-half-full and glass-half-empty camps remain far apart. The mixed tone of the macro data offers something for bulls and bears, and contributed to the sharp single-day moves that characterized August’s equity action. Although the S&P 500 moved at least 1% in half of its sessions, however, it was down less than 2% for the month through Thursday. After slipping from its 3,000 perch amidst a 5% decline across August’s first three sessions on renewed trade hostilities, it traded in a narrow range between 2,825 and 2,945 the rest of the way (Chart 1). Chart 1Big Daily Swings, But A Tight Monthly Range The Longer Run The Longer Run The Fed is caught in a loop of responding to inorganic shocks. It tightened policy in 2018 while nervously looking over its shoulder at a sizable injection of procyclical fiscal stimulus that wound up exerting less overheating pressure than it had feared. Now it finds itself uncomfortably drawn into the vortex of the trade war, cutting rates to keep the expansion from being snuffed out prematurely by self-inflicted wounds. Various Fed officials seem to be chafing under the burden of serving as a bulwark against the drag from the tariff fights. As Chair Powell admonished in his Jackson Hole address, “[M]onetary policy … cannot provide a settled rulebook for international trade.” Like it or not, the Fed is stuck cleaning up other policymakers’ messes. Jackson Hole would normally have brought down the curtain on any meaningful market news until after Labor Day. But Bill Dudley, the head of the New York Fed from 2009 to 2018, had other ideas. He argued in a Bloomberg opinion column that the Fed should refuse to abet foolhardy trade policy with rate cuts that offset its ill effects. He went on to posit that it is within the Fed’s remit to set policy with an eye toward influencing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Dudley’s grenade enlivened a slow news day and had the effect of unifying the economics community in condemnation of his polemic. The Fed swiftly distanced itself from the comments, reiterating that its “decisions are guided solely by its congressional mandate,” and that “political considerations play absolutely no role.” It is hard to know what Dr. Dudley intended to accomplish, but he ensured that we will be at BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference bright and early on Friday, September 27th when he kicks off its second day. Initial Estimates Soon after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) assessed how its provisions would affect the U.S. economy. Although calculating the components involves myriad complex estimates, the budget equation is quite simple: Budget Surplus/(Deficit) = Revenues – Outlays. Cutting taxes clearly reduces revenues, and the reductions in individual tax rates, partially offset by limits on deductions, were estimated to cost the federal government roughly $300 billion over the next decade. The 10-year tab for lower corporate rates, and immediate expensing of business investments through 2022, was estimated to run about $1 trillion. Relief from some spending constraints brought the total estimated cost to $1.7 trillion. A trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. Though the Act was sure to worsen the deficit, it contained provisions meant to encourage investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full immediate expensing of investments in software and eligible equipment were expected to permanently increase the nation’s capital stock, thereby boosting the trend pace of productivity growth. A reduced individual income tax burden was expected to encourage more people to enter the workforce and incumbents to work longer hours. Ultimately, the CBO projected that the Act would boost the level of real potential GDP by 0.7%, on average, through 2029.  Six Quarters On It follows that people might work more if they are able to keep more of what they earn, but the data since individual income tax rates were reduced at the beginning of 2018 are inconclusive. The labor force participation rate has been treading water for several years (Chart 2, solid line), as it battles against the drag from baby boomer aging (Chart 2, dashed line). Prime-age labor force participation has risen very slowly off of its 2015 bottom, and has spent 2019 unwinding its gains from late last year (Chart 3). Average weekly hours worked remain locked in the narrow range that has prevailed since 2012 (Chart 4). Though it is difficult to isolate the drivers of participation gains, the part rate’s erratic 2018-9 course suggests that the Act has not yet had a discernible work force impact. Chart 2The Baby Boomers Have Become A Demographic Headwind The Baby Boomers Have Become A Demographic Headwind The Baby Boomers Have Become A Demographic Headwind Chart 3Labor Supply ##br##Gains ... Labor Supply Gains ... Labor Supply Gains ... Chart 4... Have Yet To Materialize ... Have Yet To Materialize ... Have Yet To Materialize Residential investment, which lost some tax subsidies via the Act’s limits on mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions, has declined in every quarter since it was passed, and we back it out of fixed investment to assess the Act’s impact on corporate investment. As with labor supply, the record so far is mixed. Fixed investment (ex-residential investment) built on its 4Q17 acceleration over the first three quarters of 2018 only to slide in the three subsequent quarters (Chart 5). Publicly traded corporations have proven more eager to share their cash windfall with shareholders than they have been to invest it. Chart 5Investment Stimulus? What Investment Stimulus? Investment Stimulus? What Investment Stimulus? Investment Stimulus? What Investment Stimulus? Looking Ahead – Activity Effects We accept that lower individual income tax rates make work more attractive. People respond to incentives, and more after-tax pay, all else equal, should encourage some discouraged workers to rejoin the labor market and push some of the currently employed to want to work more. The changes are modest, though, with take-home pay increasing $324, or 2%, for someone earning $20,000, and $1,299, or 3%, for someone earning $50,000 (Table 1). We see the Act as having no more than a modest marginal effect on labor supply, though it should help boost consumption until households begin to factor in seemingly inevitable future tax hikes. Table 1Take-Home Pay Is Up, But Not By Much The Longer Run The Longer Run If the 2017 Act really is going to boost the potential trend rate of growth, it will have to do so by pushing the rate of productivity growth higher.1 Workers are able to produce more in a given block of time when they’re endowed with more and better tools, and new tools require investment. If fixed investment doesn’t accelerate, there’s no reason to expect that productivity will (Chart 6). The capex outlook from the NFIB survey and the various Fed regional manufacturing surveys is iffy, and BCA has previously noted how an aging population and a shift to more capital-light businesses may restrain investment. Chart 6Investment Drives Productivity Investment Drives Productivity Investment Drives Productivity It will not be an easy matter to boost productivity by boosting capex, though some of businesses’ after-tax cash will likely find its way to investment. To help the process along, Congress incorporated a familiar provision: accelerated depreciation. Accelerated depreciation’s empirical record as an investment catalyst is hardly clear (Box), and we don’t find its theoretical basis terribly compelling. We think the Act’s trend growth impacts are more likely to disappoint the CBO’s expectations than exceed them. Investment confronts demographic headwinds, too. Pushing trend growth higher will not be easy. Box - An Anodyne Prescription A celebrated provision of the Act allows for the immediate expensing of qualified investments until 2022. Accelerated depreciation programs, which allow for more rapid expensing of investments in property, equipment and other depreciable assets in an attempt to stimulate investment, are a stock measure in lawmakers’ stimulus toolkit, but their effectiveness is hardly assured. For one thing, they’re not new, and businesses may have built up an immunity to them, as they have been a continuous feature of the tax code since 1981. The immediate expensing allowed under the 2017 Act is a form of bonus depreciation, which was initially introduced in the wake of the September 11th attacks. It has remained in place for all but one subsequent year, and though investment peaked during the other stretch that provided for immediate write-offs (September 2010 - December 2011), we are skeptical that it will materially increase the size of the capital stock going forward. Accelerated depreciation schemes encourage investment via the time value of money. They do not increase the depreciation benefit provided by a particular investment, they simply speed up its recognition. Savvy businesses may adjust the timing of their investments to take advantage of temporary bonus periods, but they will not necessarily invest more.2 With rock-bottom interest rates squeezing the time value of money, it’s possible that bonus depreciation’s impact may be especially muted this time. Looking Ahead – The Budget Deficit The CBO’s updated projections through 2029, released two weeks ago, call for the budget shortfall to widen by $800 billion more than previously estimated in January. Despite a downward revision of over $1 trillion in projected interest expense, additional spending has weakened the deficit outlook. It appears that elected officials simply can’t help themselves. In a climate in which neither Congress nor voters evince any desire to rein in the deficit, it seems foolishly naïve to assume that future sessions of Congress will abide by built-in expenditure limits like sunset provisions and spending caps. Although the CBO projects that federal revenues will rise across its 10-year forecasting horizon, they will not do so fast enough to keep up with outlays swollen by interest payments on the growing pile of Treasuries (Chart 7). The CBO sees debt as a share of GDP rising to 95% by 2029, within reach of the all-time high recorded after World War II (Chart 8). Financial markets don’t care now, and we don’t think they will any time in the near future, but the CBO’s baseline projections, which assume future Congresses abide by their stated commitments, probably represent an optimistic scenario. We are more inclined to expect the alternative scenarios, in which sunset provisions are ignored, and pre-set spending caps are set aside, to come to pass. Chart 7A Widening Budget Gap ... A Widening Budget Gap ... A Widening Budget Gap ... Chart 8... Leads To An Increased Debt Burden ... Leads To An Increased Debt Burden ... Leads To An Increased Debt Burden Investment Implications Chart 9The Dollar's Long-Run Direction Is Down The Dollar's Long-Run Direction Is Down The Dollar's Long-Run Direction Is Down Treasury yields are currently within sight of their July 2016 Brexit-inspired lows, and may well revisit them. Negative yields are a common feature well out the maturity curve in core Europe and Japan. A sustained move higher is not in the cards in the near term, and though we do expect yields to rise as the global economy gains some traction later this year, we do not foresee a disruptive move higher even over the next couple of years. The very long-term outlook for Treasuries is lousy, however, and the dollar also faces secular pressures (Chart 9). The U.S. is not likely to turn into Japan, but the next decade’s returns will likely pale beside those earned since 1982. We are congenitally optimistic about humanity, and Americans seem to have a particular knack for pulling rabbits out of hats. We do not see the U.S. turning into Argentina, Greece or even Japan. The debt burden will weigh on potential growth down the road, however, as debt service will limit Congress’ ability to deploy countercyclical adjustments and longer-term investments, and debt issuance will eventually crimp private entities’ access to capital. All of these factors will limit potential economic growth and contribute to softening returns on equity and credit. We continue to foresee tepid returns over the next ten years relative to the returns investors have grown accustomed to over the last four decades, and we would much rather borrow at current rates for the next 20 or 30 years than lend at them.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Economic growth is the sum of growth in productivity and growth in the size of the labor force. Since the Act does not bear on immigration or birthrates, productivity represents its best shot at moving the growth needle. 2 Congressional Research Service Report RL31852, The Section 179 and Section 168(k) Expensing Allowances: Current Law and Economic Effects, by Gary Guenther, May 1, 2018.  

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 A Psychological Recession? A Psychological 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 The Total Market Value Of Risk Assets Is Elevated The Total Market Value Of Risk Assets Is Elevated Chart 3Not Much Scope To Cut Rates Not Much Scope To Cut Rates Not 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 The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound The 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) The Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) The Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 5BThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) The Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) The 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 A Psychological Recession? A Psychological Recession? 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 Inventories Are Making A Negative Contribution To Growth Inventories Are Making A Negative Contribution To Growth Chart 8Auto Sector: The Culprit Behind The Manufacturing Slowdown Auto Sector: The Culprit Behind The Manufacturing Slowdown Auto 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 The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Chart 10Auto Stocks Are A Compelling Buy A Psychological Recession? A Psychological Recession?   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 Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower Unemployment 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? Would China Really Be Better Off Negotiating With A Democrat As President? Would 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) Equity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Equity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 13BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) Equity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) Equity 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 The U.S. Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The U.S. Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves EM 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 Stronger Economic Growth Should Lift Long-Term Bond Yields, Causing Yield Curves To Steepen Stronger 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 A Psychological Recession? A Psychological Recession? 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 A Psychological Recession? A Psychological Recession? 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 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 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) Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 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 Pound Can Only Go So Low Pound 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 Markets Cheer New Italian Coalition Markets 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 Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Chart 5Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash Even 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 Election Would Have Meant More Stimulus ... And More Political Risk Election 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 German Economy Gets Pummeled German Economy Gets Pummeled Chart 8Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Germany: 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 Brazil: Signs Of Improvement Brazil: Signs Of Improvement   Chart 10Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Chart 11Bolsonaro’s Honeymoon Is Long Gone Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 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 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 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 ... Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Chart 12B... And Should Pass Senate In Time Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 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 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Chart 14Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough Brazil: 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 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 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 Brazil: Time To Mend Ties With China Brazil: 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 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019   Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019   Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Economic data suggest the current business cycle in China has not yet reached a bottom. Stimulus measures have not been forceful enough to fully offset a slowing domestic economy and weakening global demand. With possibly more U.S. tariffs to come, intensifying political unrest in Hong Kong and a currency set to depreciate further, the potential downside risks outweigh any potential upside over the near term. Investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long. We are still early in a credit expansionary cycle, and we expect further economic weakness to pave the way for more policy support in China. However, we recommend investors who are not yet invested in Chinese assets to remain on the sidelines until clearer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. Feature Chart 1A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks Financial market volatility surged in the first half of the month following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet, vowing to impose a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods by September 1st. By the end of last week, prices of China investable stocks relative to global equities had nearly wiped out all their 2019 year-to-date gains. (Chart 1) The extent of the decline has left some investors wondering whether the time has come to bottom-fish Chinese assets. In our view, the answer is no. In this week’s report we detail five reasons why the near-term outlook for China-related assets remains negative. We remain bullish on Chinese stocks over the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) horizon and recommend investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets stay long. However, we also recommend investors who are not yet invested to remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. As we go to press, the U.S. Trade Representative Office announced that the Trump administration would delay imposing the 10% tariff on a series of consumer goods imported from China — including laptops and cell phones — until December.1 Stocks in the U.S. surged on the news. Today’s rally in the equity market highlights our view, that short-term market performance can be dominated and distorted by news on the trade front. However, market rallies based on headline news will not sustain without the support of economic fundamentals. Reason #1: Chinese Economic Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed In a previous China Investment Strategy report,2  we presented some simple arithmetic to help investors formulate their outlook on the Chinese economy. We argued that in a full-tariff scenario, investors should focus on the likely outcome of one of the two following possibilities: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. Scenario 2 denotes an outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock. For now, we remain in scenario 2 due to Chinese policymakers’ continual reluctance to allow the economy to re-leverage. The magnitude of the credit impulse so far has been “half measured” relative to previous cycles.3  More than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom. As a result, more than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom, with the main pillars supporting China’s “old economy” still in the doldrums (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Chart 2No Clear Bottom, Yet No Clear Bottom, Yet No Clear Bottom, Yet Chart 3Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher   In addition to a weakening domestic economy, China’s external sector has been weighed down by U.S. import tariffs as well as slowing global demand. (Chart 4).  The possibility of adding a 10% tariff by year end on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods exports to the U.S. may trigger another tariff “front-running” episode in the 3rd quarter. However, Chart 5 and Chart 6 highlight that any front-running would be against the backdrop of sluggish global demand. Therefore, not only the upside in Chinese export growth will be very limited in the subsequent months following the front-running, but export growth is also likely to fall deeper into contraction. Chart 4Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Chart 5Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Chart 6Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Reason # 2: A-Shares Are Not Yet Signaling A Sizeable Policy Response Chart 7 In previous China Investment Strategy reports, we have written at length about how Chinese policymakers are reluctant to undo their financial deleveraging efforts and push for more stimulus. After incorporating July credit data, our credit impulse, at a very subdued 26% of nominal GDP, was in fact a pullback from June’s credit growth number (Chart 7). This confirms our view that the current stimulus is clearly falling short compared to the 2015-2016 credit expansionary cycle. It underscores Chinese policymakers’ commitment to keep their foot off the stimulus pedal. What’s more, the recent performance of China’s domestic financial markets has been consistent with a half-measured credit response, and is not yet signaling a meaningful change in China’s policy stance. The A-share market since last summer has been trading off of the likely policy response to the trade war. Chart 8Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Chart 8 (top panel) shows that the A-share market has closely tracked China’s domestic credit growth over the past year. Given this, we believe that the A-share market is reacting more to the likely policy response to the trade war, in contrast to the investable market which rises and falls in near-lockstep with trade-related news (middle panel). The fact that A-share stocks have been trending sideways underscores that China’s domestic equity market continues to expect “half measured” stimulus. This week’s sharp decline in China’s 10-year government bond yield is in part related to escalating political unrest in Hong Kong (bottom panel), and in our view does not yet signal any major change in the PBOC’s stance. Finally, our corporate earnings recession probability model provides another perspective on the equity market implications of the current path of stimulus. If the current size of stimulus holds through the end of 2019, our model suggests that the probability of an outright contraction in corporate earnings lasting through year end remains quite elevated, at close to 50% (first X in Chart 9). The July Politburo statement signaled a greater willingness to stimulate the economy; as a result, we are penciling in a slightly more optimistic scenario on forthcoming credit growth through the remainder of the year, by adding 300 billion yuan of debt-to-bond swaps4 and 800 billion yuan of extra infrastructure spending5 to our baseline estimate for the rest of 2019. However, this would only add a credit impulse equivalent of 1 percentage point of nominal GDP and would only marginally reduce the probability of an earnings recession to 40% (second X in Chart 9). A 40% chance of an earnings recession is well above “normal” levels that would be consistent with a durable uptrend in stock prices, and in previous cycles, Chinese stock prices picked up only after business cycles and corporate earnings had bottomed (Chart 10). In sum, the current pace of credit growth, signals from the domestic equity market, and our earnings recession model all suggest that it is too early to bottom fish Chinese stocks. Chart 9A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer Chart 10Too Early To Bottom Fish Too Early To Bottom Fish Too Early To Bottom Fish Reason #3: The Trade War Is Far From Over Our Geopolitical Strategy team maintains that the U.S. and China have only a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020, and that any trade truce is likely to be shallow.6 We agree with this assessment, which has clear negative near-term implications for Chinese investable stocks, even if temporary rallies such as what took place yesterday periodically occur. Since the onset of the trade war, Chinese investable stocks appear to have traded nearly entirely in reaction to trade-related events. Hence, until global investors are given proof that much stronger stimulus can and will offset the impact of the trade war on corporate earnings, Chinese stocks are likely to continue to underperform their global peers. Reason #4: The Hong Kong Crisis Is A Near-Term Risk Another near-term catalyst for financial market turbulence in China is the worsening situation in Hong Kong. For now, we hold the view that a full-blown crisis (i.e. China intervening with military force) can be avoided, but we are not ruling out the possibility of a severe escalation or its potential impact on market sentiment towards Chinese assets.  On the surface, China investable stocks (the MSCI China Index, the predominantly investable index that now includes some mainland A-shares) are not directly linked to businesses in Hong Kong: Out of the top 10 constituents of the MSCI China Index, which account for roughly 50% of the index’s market capitalization, seven are headquartered in mainland China and do not appear to have significant revenue exposure to Hong Kong. By contrast, at least 30% of Hang Seng Index-listed companies have business operations in Hong Kong. The remaining three companies in the top 10 MSCI China Index are Tencent (the largest component of the index, with a weight of approximately 15%), Ping An Insurance (4% weight), and China Mobile (3% weight) – all of which registered large losses in the past week. Both Tencent and Ping An Insurance are headquartered in Shenzhen, a southeastern China metropolis that links Hong Kong to mainland China. China Mobile appears to have the most revenue exposure to Hong Kong of any top constituent through its CMHK subsidiary, which is the largest telecommunications provider in Hong Kong. It is true that there has been little evidence so far that Chinese investable stocks have been more impacted by the escalation in political unrest in Hong Kong than by the escalation in the trade war. Indeed, the fact that the two escalations were overlapping this past week makes it difficult to isolate their effects. But if unrest in Hong Kong spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China intervening. According to an analysis done by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team,6 the deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions. Should this to occur, the near-term idiosyncratic risk to Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore markets will be significant. Reason #5: Further RMB Depreciation May Weigh On Stock Prices Whether due to manipulation or market forces, last week’s depreciation in the Chinese currency (RMB) was economically justified and long overdue. Chart 11RMB Depreciation Long Overdue RMB Depreciation Long Overdue RMB Depreciation Long Overdue Chart 11 shows the close relationship between the U.S.-China one-year swap rate differential and the USD/CNY exchange rate. The true source of the correlation shown in the chart remains somewhat of a mystery, given that Chinese capital controls, particularly following the 2015 devaluation episode, prevent the arbitrage activities that link rate differentials and exchange rates in economies with fully open capital accounts. However, Chart 11 clearly shows that China’s currency would have already weakened by now if it was fully market-driven, and we do not believe that the People’s Bank of China will be inclined to tighten monetary policy in order to reverse the recent devaluation. Hence, the path of least resistance for the CNY is further depreciation.  If the threatened 10% tariff on all remaining U.S. imports from China is imposed this year, our back-of-the-envelope calculation based on Chart 12 suggests that a market-driven “equilibrium” USD/CNY exchange rate should be at around 7.6. We have high conviction, based on previous RMB devaluation episodes, that China’s central bank will not allow its currency to depreciate in a manner that invites speculation of meaningful further weakness – meaning we are not likely to see a straight-lined or rapid depreciation down to the 7.6 mark. Chart 12Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the Chinese economy. At the same time, aggressive market intervention via the PBoC burning through its foreign exchange reserves is also unlikely: A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the economy. It improves Chinese export goods’ price competitiveness and helps mitigate some of the pain caused by increased tariffs. Therefore it is in the PBoC’s every interest to allow such depreciation. However, no matter how “orderly” RMB depreciation may be, the fact that the PBoC has signaled it is no longer defending a “line in the sand” exchange-rate mark is likely to trigger another round of “race to the bottom” currency devaluation from other regional, export-dependent economies.7 A weaker RMB and emerging market currencies will also contribute to USD strength. A strong dollar has been negatively correlated with global risky assets, implying that for a time, a weaker RMB will be a risk-off event for risky assets and thus presumably for Chinese and EM equity relative performance. Investment Implications Our analysis above highlights that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is fraught with risk, and it is for this reason that we recommended an underweight tactical position in Chinese stocks for the remainder of the year in our July 24 Weekly Report.8 However, by next summer (the tail-end of our cyclical investment horizon), it is our judgement that one of two things will have likely occurred: The trade war with the U.S. will have abated or been called off, and investors will have determined that a “half-strength” credit cycle is likely enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand and the earnings outlook. In this scenario, Chinese stocks are likely to rise US$ terms over the coming year, relative to global stocks. The trade war with the U.S. will have continued, and Chinese policymakers will have acted on the need to stimulate aggressively further in order to stabilize domestic demand. In combination with an ultimately stimulative (although near-term negative) decline in the RMB, the relative performance of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark will likely be higher in hedged currency terms. Because of the near-term risks to the outlook, we agree that investors who are not yet invested should remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. But investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long, and should bet on the latter scenario: rising relative Chinese equity performance in local currency terms, alongside a falling CNY-USD / appreciating USD-CNY exchange rate.   Jing Sima  China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “US to delay some tariffs on Chinese goods”, Financial Times, August 13, 2019. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC”, dated July 10, 2019, and “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4      The remaining of 14 trillion debt-to-bond swap program rounds up to 315 billion yuan. 5      The relaxed financing requirement for infrastructure projects can add 800 billion yuan. 6      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch. 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “The RMB: Depreciation Time?”, dated May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations