Geopolitics

Highlights Geopolitical risks are starting to abate as a result of material constraints influencing policymakers. China needs to ensure its economy bottoms and a debt-deflationary tendency does not take hold. President Trump needs to avoid further economic deterioration arising from the trade war. The U.K. is looking to prevent a recession induced by leaving the EU without an agreement. Iran and the risk of an oil price shock is the outstanding geopolitical tail risk. Feature Readers of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy know that what defines our research is our analytical framework – specifically the theory of constraints. Chart 1The Electoral College – An Overlooked Constraint Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter The theory holds that policymakers are trapped by the pressures of their office, their nation’s global position, and the stream of events. These pressures emerge from the material world that we inhabit and as such are measurable. If a leader lacks popular approval, cannot command a majority in the legislature, rides atop a sinking economy, or suffers under stronger or smarter foreign enemies, then his policy preferences will be compromised. He will have to change his preferences to accommodate the constraints, rather than the other way around. Case in point is the U.S. electoral college: it proved an insurmountable political constraint on the Democratic Party in 2016. The college is intended to restrain direct democracy or popular passions; it also restrains the concentration of regional power. In 2012, Barack Obama won a larger share of the electoral college than the popular vote, while in 2016 Hillary Clinton won a smaller share (Chart 1). Clinton’s lack of appeal in the industrial Midwest turned the college and deprived her of the prize. The rest is history. In this report we highlight five key constraints that will shape the direction of the major geopolitical risks in the fourth quarter. We recommend investors remain tactically cautious on risk assets, although we have not yet extended this recommendation to the cyclical, 12-month time frame. China’s Policy: The Debt-Deflation Constraint We have a solid record of pessimism regarding Chinese President Xi Jinping’s willingness and ability to stimulate the economy – but even we were surprised by his tenacity this year. His administration’s effort to contain leverage, while still stimulating the economy, has prevented a quick rebound in the global manufacturing cycle. The constraint limiting this approach is the need to avoid a debt-deflation spiral. This is a condition in which households and firms become pessimistic about the future and cut back their spending and borrowing. The general price level falls and drives up real debt burdens, which motivates further cutbacks. A classic example is Japan, which saw a property bubble burst, destroying corporate balance sheets and forcing the country into a long phase of paying down debt amid falling prices. China has not seen its property bubble burst yet. Prices have continued to rise despite the recent pause in the non-financial debt build-up (Chart 2). Looser monetary and fiscal policy have sustained this precarious balance. But the result is a tug-of-war between the government and the private sector. If the government miscalculates, and the asset bubble bursts, then it will be extremely difficult for the government to change the mindset of households and companies bent on paying down debt. It will be too late to avoid the vicious spiral that Japan experienced – with the critical proviso that Chinese people are less wealthy than the Japanese in 1990 and the country’s political system is less flexible. A Japan-sized economic problem would lead to a China-sized political problem. This is why the recent drop in Chinese producer prices below zero is a worrisome sign (Chart 3). Policymakers have loosened monetary and fiscal policy incrementally since July 2018 and they are signaling that they will continue to do so. This is particularly likely in an environment in which trade tensions are reduced but remain fundamentally unresolved – which is our base case. Chart 2China's Property Bubble Intact China's Property Bubble Intact China's Property Bubble Intact Chart 3China's Constraint Is Debt-Deflation China's Constraint Is Debt-Deflation China's Constraint Is Debt-Deflation Are policymakers aware of this constraint? Absolutely. If the trade talks collapse, or the global economy slumps regardless, then China will have to stimulate more aggressively. Xi Jinping is not truly a Chairman Mao, willing to impose extreme austerity. He oversaw the 2015-16 stimulus and would do it again if he came face to face with the debt-deflation constraint. Is China still capable of stimulating? High debt levels, the reassertion of centralized state power, and the trade war have all rendered traditional stimulus levers less effective by dampening animal spirits. Yet policymakers are visibly “riding the brake,” so they can remove restraints and increase reflation if necessary. Most obviously, authorities can inject larger fiscal stimulus. They have insisted that they will prevent easy monetary and credit policies from feeding into property prices – and this could change. They could also pick up the pace when it comes to reducing average bank lending rates for small and medium-sized businesses.1 In short, stimulus is less effective, but the government is also preferring to save dry powder. This preference will be thrown by the wayside if it hits the critical constraint. The implication is that Chinese stimulus will continue to pick up over a cyclical, 12-month horizon. There is impetus to reduce trade tensions with the U.S., discussed below, but a lack of final resolution will ensure that policy tightening is not called for. Bottom Line: China’s chief economic constraint is a debt-deflation trap. This would engender long-term economic difficulties that would eventually translate into political difficulties for Communist Party rule. If a trade deal is reached, it is unlikely alone to require a shift to tighter policy. If the trade talks collapse, stimulus will overshoot to the upside. Trade War: The Electoral Constraint The U.S. and China are holding the thirteenth round of trade negotiations this week after a summer replete with punitive measures, threats, and failed restarts. Tensions spiked just ahead of the talks, as expected. Immediately thereafter President Trump declared he will meet with Chinese negotiators to give a boost to the process and reassure the markets.2 Trump’s major constraint in waging the trade war is economic, not political. Americans are generally sympathetic to his pressure campaign against China. Public opinion polls show that a strong majority believes it is necessary to confront China even though the bulk of the economic pain will be borne by consumers themselves (Chart 4). Yet Americans could lose faith in Trump’s approach once the economic pain fully materializes. Critically, the decline in wage growth that is occurring as a result of the global and manufacturing slowdown is concentrated in the states that are most likely to swing the 2020 election, e.g. the “purple” or battleground states (Chart 5). Chart 4Americans To Confront China Despite The Costs? Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Chart 5Trump Faces Pressure To Stage A Tactical Trade Retreat Trump Faces Pressure To Stage A Tactical Trade Retreat Trump Faces Pressure To Stage A Tactical Trade Retreat Furthermore, a rise in unemployment, which is implied by the recent decline in the University of Michigan’s survey of consumer confidence regarding the purchase of large household goods, would devastate voters’ willingness to give Trump’s tariff strategy the benefit of the doubt (Chart 6). Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two critical states, have seen a net loss of manufacturing jobs on the year. The fear of an uptick in U.S. unemployment will prevent Trump from escalating the trade war. An uptick in unemployment would be a major constraint on Trump’s trade war – he cannot escalate further until the economy has stabilized. And that may very well require tariff rollback while trade talks “make progress.” We expect that Trump is willing to do this in the interest of staying in power. As highlighted above, the Xi administration is not without its own constraints. Our proxies for China’s marginal propensity to consume show that Chinese animal spirits are still vulnerable, particularly on the household side, which has not responded to stimulus thus far (Chart 7). Since this constraint is less immediate than Trump’s election date, Xi cannot be expected to capitulate to Trump’s biggest demands. Hence a ceasefire or détente is more likely than a full bilateral trade agreement. Chart 6Waning Consumer Confidence On Big Ticket Items Foreshadows Rise In Unemployment Waning Consumer Confidence On Big Ticket Items Foreshadows Rise In Unemployment Waning Consumer Confidence On Big Ticket Items Foreshadows Rise In Unemployment Trump’s electoral constraint also suggests that he needs to remove trade risks such as car tariffs on Europe and Japan (which we expect he will do). We have been optimistic on the passage of the USMCA trade deal but impeachment puts this forecast in jeopardy. Chart 7China's Trade War Constraint? Animal Spirits China's Trade War Constraint? Animal Spirits China's Trade War Constraint? Animal Spirits   Bottom Line: Trump will stage a tactical retreat on trade in order to soften the negative impact on the economy and reduce the chances of a recession prior to the November 3, 2020 election. China’s economic constraints are less immediate and it is unlikely to make major structural concessions. Hence we expect a ceasefire that temporarily reduces tensions and boosts sentiment rather than a bilateral trade agreement that initiates a fundamental deepening of U.S.-China economic engagement. U.S. Policy: The Economic Constraint The 2020 U.S. election is a critical political risk both because of the volatility it will engender and because of what we see as a 45% chance that it will lead to a change in the ruling party governing the world’s largest economy. Will Trump be the candidate? Yes. If Trump’s approval among Republicans breaks beneath the lows plumbed during the Charlottesville incident in 2017 (Chart 8A), then Trump has an impeachment problem, but otherwise he is safe from removal. Judging by the Republican-leaning pollster Rasmussen, which should reflect the party’s mood, Trump’s approval rating has not broken beneath its floor and may already be bouncing back from the initial hit of the impeachment inquiry (Chart 8B). The rise in support for impeachment and removal in opinion polls is notable, but it is also along party lines and will fade if the Democrats are seen as dragging on the process or trying to circumvent an election that is just around the corner. Chart 8ARepublican Opinion Precludes Trump’s Removal Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Chart 8BRepublican-Leaning Pollster Shows Support Holding Thus Far Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter How will all of this bear on the 2020 election? Turnout will be high so everything depends on which side will be more passionate. A critical factor will be the Democratic nominee. Former Vice President Joe Biden, the establishment pick, has broken beneath his floor in the polling. His rambling debate performances have reinforced the narrative that he is too old, while the impeachment of Trump will fuel counteraccusations of corruption that will detract from Biden’s greatest asset: his electability. According to a Harvard-Harris poll from late September, 61% of voters believe it was inappropriate for Biden to withhold aid from Ukraine to encourage the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor even when the polling question makes no mention of any connection with Biden’s son’s business interest there. Moreover, 77% believe it is inappropriate that Biden’s son Hunter traveled with his father to China while soliciting investments there. With Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s candidacy now defunct as a result of his heart attack and old age, Elizabeth Warren, the progressive senator from Massachusetts, will become the indisputable front runner (which she is not yet). In the fourth primary debate on October 15, she will face attacks from all sides reflecting this new status. Given her debate performances thus far, she will sustain the heightened scrutiny and come out stronger. This is not to say that Warren is already the Democratic candidate. Biden is still polling like a traditional Democratic primary front runner (Chart 9), while Warren has some clear weaknesses in electability, as reflected in her smaller lead over Trump in head-to-head polls in swing states. Nevertheless Warren is likely to become the front runner. Chart 9Biden Polling About Average Relative To Previous Democratic Primary Front Runners Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter The recession call remains the U.S. election call. Two further considerations: Impeachment and removal of President Trump ensure a Democratic victory. There are hopes in some quarters that President Trump could be impeached and removed and yet his Vice President Mike Pence could go on to win the 2020 election, preserving the pro-business policy status quo. The problem with this logic is that Trump cannot be removed unless Republican opinion shifts. This will require an earthquake as a result of some wrongdoing by Trump. Such an earthquake will blacken Pence’s and the GOP’s name and render them toxic in the general election. Not to mention that Pence’s only act as president in the brief interim would likely be to pardon Trump and his accomplices. He would suffer Gerald Ford’s fate in 1976. Which means that a significant slide in Trump’s approval among Republicans will translate to higher odds of a Democratic win in 2020 and hence higher taxes and regulation, i.e. a hit to corporate earnings expectations. We expect this approval to hold up, but the market can sell off anyway because … The market is overrating the Senate as a check on Warren in the event she wins the White House. It is true that relative to Biden, Warren is less likely to carry the Senate. Democrats need to retain their Senate seat in Alabama, while capturing Maine, Colorado, and Arizona (or Georgia) in addition to the White House in order to control the Senate. Biden is more competitive in Arizona and Georgia than Warren. But this is a flimsy basis to feel reassured that a Warren presidency will be constrained. In fact, it is very difficult to unseat a sitting president. If the Democrats can muster enough votes to kick out an incumbent and elect an outspoken left-wing progressive from the northeast, they most likely will have mustered enough votes to take the Senate as well. For instance, unemployment could be rising or Trump’s risky foreign policy could have backfired. Chart 10Business Sentiment Threatens Trump Re-Election Business Sentiment Threatens Trump Re-Election Business Sentiment Threatens Trump Re-Election In our estimation the Democrats have about a 45% chance of winning the presidency, and Warren does not significantly reduce this chance. The resilient U.S. economy is Trump’s base case for success. But Trump’s trade policy and the global slowdown are rapidly eating away at the prospect that voters see improvement (Chart 10). This speaks to the constraint driving a ceasefire with China above, but it also speaks to the broader probability of policy continuity in the U.S. As Warren’s path to the White House widens, there is a clear basis for equities to sell off in the near term. Bottom Line: Trump’s approval among Republicans is a constraint on his removal via impeachment. But the status of the economy is the greater constraint. The recession call remains the election call. While we expect downside in the near term, we are still constructive on U.S. equities on a cyclical basis. War With Iran: The Oil Price Constraint The Senate will remain President Trump’s bulwark amid impeachment, notwithstanding the controversial news that Trump is moving forward with the withdrawal of troops from Syria, specifically from the so-called “safe zone” agreed with Turkey, giving Ankara license to stage a larger military offensive in Syria. This abandonment of the U.S.’s Kurdish allies at the behest of Turkey (which is a NATO ally but has been at odds with Washington) has provoked flak from Republican senators. However, it is well supported in U.S. public opinion (Chart 11). Trump is threatening to impose economic sanctions on Turkey if it engages in ethnic cleansing. The Turkish lira is the marginal loser, Trump’s approval rating is the marginal winner. The withdrawal sends a signal to the world that the U.S. is continuing to deleverage from the Middle East – a corollary with the return of focus on Asia Pacific. While the Iranians are key beneficiaries of this pivot, the Trump administration is maintaining maximum sanctions pressure on the Iranians. The firing of hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton did not lead to a détente, as President Rouhani has too much to risk from negotiating with Trump. Instead the Iranians smelled U.S. weakness and went on the attack in Saudi Arabia, briefly shuttering 6 million barrels of oil per day. The response to the attack – from both Saudi Arabia and the U.S. – revealed an extreme aversion to military conflict and escalation. Instead the U.S. has tightened its sanctions regime – China is reportedly withdrawing from its interest in the South Pars natural gas project, a potentially serious blow to Iran, which had been hyping its strategic partnership with China. This reinforces the prospect for a U.S.-China ceasefire even as it redoubles the economic pressure on Iran. As long as the U.S. maintains the crippling sanctions on Iran, there is no guarantee that Tehran will not strike out again in an effort to weaken President Trump’s resolve. The fact that about 18% of global oil supply flows through the critical chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ace in the hole (Chart 12). It is the chief constraint on Trump’s foreign policy, as greater oil supply disruptions could shock the U.S. economy ahead of the election. Trump can benefit from minor or ephemeral disruptions but he is likely to get into trouble if a serious shock weakens the economy at this juncture. Chart 11U.S. Opinion Constrains Foreign Policy Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Chart 12Oil Price Constrains U.S. Policy Toward Iran Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter An oil shock does not have to originate in Hormuz shipping or sneak attacks on regional oil infrastructure. Iran is uniquely capable of fomenting the anti-government protests that have erupted in southern Iraq. The restoration of stability in Iraq has resulted in around 2 million barrels of oil per day coming onto international markets (Chart 13). If this process is reversed through political instability or sabotage, it will rapidly push up against global spare oil capacity and exert an upward pressure on oil prices that would come at an awkward time for a global economy experiencing a manufacturing recession (Chart 14). Chart 13Iran's Leverage Over Iraq Iran's Leverage Over Iraq Iran's Leverage Over Iraq Chart 14Global Oil Spare Capacity Constrains Response To Crisis Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter Bottom Line: Iran’s power over regional oil production is the biggest constraint on Trump’s foreign policy in the region, yet Trump is apparently tightening rather than easing the sanctions regime. The failure of the Abqaiq attack to generate a lasting impact on oil prices amid weak global demand suggests that Iran could feel emboldened. The U.S. preference to withdraw from Middle Eastern conflicts could also encourage Iran, while the tightening of the sanctions regime could make it desperate. An oil shock emanating from the conflict with Iran is still a significant risk to the global bull market. Brexit: The No-Deal Constraint The fifth and final constraint to discuss in this report pertains to the U.K. and Brexit. We do not consider the October 31 deadline a no-deal exit risk. Parliament will prevail over a prime minister who lacks a majority. Nevertheless the expected election can revive no-deal risk, especially if Boris Johnson is returned to power with a weak minority government. Chart 15U.K.: Public Opinion Constrains Parliament And No-Deal Brexit U.K.: Public Opinion Constrains Parliament And No-Deal Brexit U.K.: Public Opinion Constrains Parliament And No-Deal Brexit While parliament is the constraint on the prime minister, the public is the constraint on parliament. From this point of view, support for Brexit has weakened and the Conservative Party is less popular than in the lead up to the 2015 and 2017 general elections. The public is aware that no-deal exit is likely to cause significant economic pain and that is why a majority rejects no-deal, as opposed to a soft Brexit. Unless the Tory rally in opinion polling produces another coalition with the Northern Irish, albeit with Boris Johnson at the helm, these points make it likely that a no-deal Brexit will become untenable when all is said and done (Chart 15). If Johnson achieves a single party majority the EU will be more likely to grant concessions enabling him to get a withdrawal deal over the line. We remain long GBP-USD but will turn sellers at the $1.30 mark. Investment Implications The path of least resistance is for China’s stimulus efforts to increase – incrementally if trade tensions are contained, and sharply if not. This should help put a floor beneath growth, but the Q1 timing of this floor means that global risk assets face additional downside in the near term. We continue to recommend going long our “China Play” index. U.S.-China trade tensions should decline as President Trump looks to prevent higher unemployment ahead of his election. China has reason to follow through on small concessions to encourage Trump’s tactical trade retreat, but it does not face pressure to make new structural concessions. We expect a ceasefire – with some tariff rollback likely – but not a big bang agreement that removes all tariffs or deepens the overall bilateral economic engagement. Stay long our “China Play” index. We remain short CNY-USD on a strategic basis but recognize that a ceasefire presents a short term (maximum 12-month) risk to this view, so clients with a shorter-term horizon should close that trade. We are long European equities relative to Chinese equities as a result of the view that China will stimulate but that a trade ceasefire will leave lingering uncertainties over Chinese corporates. U.S. politics are highly unpredictable but constraint-based analysis indicates that while the House may impeach, the Senate will not remove. This, combined with Warren’s likely ascent to the head of the pack in the Democratic primary race, means that Trump remains favored to win reelection, albeit with low conviction (55% chance) due to a weak general approval rating and economic risks. The risk to U.S. equities is immediate, but should dissipate. The U.S. is rotating its strategic focus from the Middle East to Asia Pacific, which entails a continued rotation of geopolitical risk. However, recent developments reinforce our argument in July that Iranian geopolitical risk is frontloaded relative to the China risk. This is true as long as Trump maintains crippling sanctions. Iran may be emboldened by its successes so far and has various mechanisms – including Iraqi instability – by which it can threaten oil supply to pressure Trump. This is a tail risk, but it does support our position of being long EM energy producers.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research, China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Mild Deflation Means Timid Easing,” October 9, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 China knows that Trump wants to seal a deal prior to November 2020 to aid his reelection campaign, while Trump needs to try to convince China that he does not care about election, the stock market, or anything other than structural concessions from China. Hence the U.S. blacklisted several artificial intelligence companies and sanctioned Chinese officials in advance of the talks. The U.S. opened a new front in the conflict by invoking China’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang, which is also an implicit warning not to create a humanitarian incident in Hong Kong where protests continue to rage. These are pressure tactics but have not yet derailed the attempt to seal a deal in Q4.

Brief Market Overview The S&P 500 convulsed last week, as a slew of weaker-than-expected data shattered investors’ confidence in the longevity of the business and profit cycles. Importantly, both ISM surveys declined month-over-month, arguing that the manufacturing sector’s ails are infecting services industries (second panel, Chart 1). Chart 1The U.S. Dollar Is The Key Indicator To Monitor The U.S. Dollar Is The Key Indicator To Monitor The U.S. Dollar Is The Key Indicator To Monitor The “In Fed We Trust” doctrine will get severely tested in upcoming weeks. The Federal Reserve’s reaction function to the poor data took center stage with bond investors pricing a 75% probability of a rate cut in late October. However, our four factor EPS growth model continues to predict that earnings will remain weak for the rest of 2019 (not shown). Thus, next year’s 10% EPS growth is wishful thinking and profit growth will begin to bottom in Q1/2020 at the earliest. Absent profit growth, stocks will have to face reality and continue to drift lower. Importantly, the U.S. dollar – the great reflator – is the key determinant of both profit and global economic growth in coming quarters. The third panel of Chart 1 shows that currently that are no advanced economy central banks that have a policy rate higher than the Fed. Historically, this has been U.S. dollar bullish and has weighed on SPX momentum (trade-weighted U.S. dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 1). It remains to be seen if aggressive Fed easing can change this relationship, stave off recession and engineer a soft landing. U.S. Equity Strategy’s view remains intact that things will get worse before they get better and therefore a cautious overall U.S. equity market stance is still warranted on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. NIPA VS. SPX Profit Margins On the eve of earnings season, we decided to delve deeper into corporate profits and margins, and tally where we are in the cycle, specifically with regard to profit margin drivers. To start off, we compare overall economy profits, as measured by the NIPA accounts, with SPX earnings (Chart 2). While a lot of ink has been spent on this topic and the differences between these two profit measures are more or less well recognized and understood, Kenneth A. Petrick’s commentary on the issue is worth re-reading. Without going into much detail, according to Petrick four key reasons explain the differences between NIPA and S&P 500 profits: “coverage, changing shares, industry representation and accounting principles”.1 What interests us is the leading property of NIPA profits. Importantly, NIPA profits have peaked in advance of SPX earnings in the previous three cycles. Economy-wide profits may have already peaked this cycle, warning that the SPX earnings juggernaut is long in the tooth (top panel, Chart 2). Chart 2Earnings Fatigue Earnings Fatigue Earnings Fatigue Given that NIPA profits include a broader universe of firms, small and medium enterprise (SME) profits are weighing on the overall NIPA number. The recent drubbing in economically hypersensitive S&P 400 (mid-caps) and S&P 600 (small-caps) profit estimates confirms this SME profit deterioration and forewarns that SPX profits are likely running out of fuel. While the SPX has not cracked yet courtesy of the heavyweight S&P software index, the Value Line Arithmetic (VLA, gauging the average stock) and Value Line Geometric (VLG, gauging the median stock) indexes appear to have peaked and correspond better to the NIPA profits as these indexes are broad-based are not market capitalization weighted (bottom panel, Chart 3). Chart 3Top Chart Of The Year Top Chart Of The Year Top Chart Of The Year Worryingly for the S&P 500, the VLG index is an excellent leading indicator of the SPX. Based on empirical evidence, it has led the SPX tops in the past three cycles, making it a serious contender for our “Chart Of The Year” award (top panel, Chart 3). Not only have NIPA profits likely crested, but NIPA profit margins are in steep retreat and have definitively peaked. Similar to earnings, NIPA margins lead SPX profit margins (top panel, Chart 4). Importantly, the delta between the two margin gauges is surprisingly wide. This margin gap now sits nearly three standard deviations above the historical mean and has only been wider during the dotcom bubble (bottom panel, Chart 4). Our sense is that such an acute divergence is unsustainable and will likely narrow via a mean reversion in SPX margins. Chart 4Mind The Gap Mind The Gap Mind The Gap Primary Margin Drivers Taking a deeper dive into traditional margin drivers is instructive. We use SPX margins since 1960 and prior to that we have used reconstructed SPX earnings divided by U.S. GDP (gauging SPX sales) to recreate a longer-term equity market profit margin proxy. The primary net-profit margin drivers are: Interest rates, Tax rates, Labor costs / Globalization, And corporate pricing power. Globalization has been another significant profit margin booster in the U.S. As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit maximizing projects. The bond bull market since the early 1980s has been a clear contributor to the secular advance in profits margins. Interest rates cut both ways and the big rise in long-term bond yields post World War II ate into margins. If the bond bull market is ending, then interest rates will start eating into margins anew (interest rates shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5). Intuitively, taxes and margins are also inversely correlated (tax rate shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 5). Following the 2018 fiscal easing package, the effective corporate tax rate is now hovering in the mid-teens and explains the jump to all-time highs in SPX margins. We doubt corporate tax rates will drop further. At best, taxes will be margin-neutral in the coming years. Rising labor input costs squeeze margins and declining wages boost corporate profit margins. While labor’s share of income tentatively peaked in 1980, the late-1990s is this series’ ultimate peak and since then, it has been in a steady decline (employee compensation shown inverted, second panel, Chart 5). This labor input cost suppression has likely run its course and given that the U.S. economy is at full employment, wage inflation should also start denting margins. Globalization has been another significant profit margin booster in the U.S. As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit maximizing projects. Following the end of the Great Recession and similar to the Great Depression, de-globalization has commenced (third panel, Chart 5). Chart 5Primary... Primary... Primary... Clearly, the Sino-U.S. war has accentuated and accelerated the inward movement of countries including Korea and Japan, and has had negative knock on effects on trade as evidenced by the now nearly two-year old global growth deceleration. The longer the U.S./China trade war remains unresolved, the deeper the cracks in the foundations of global trade. Such a backdrop is negative for profit margins, as inward looking countries prevent capital from being allocated most efficiently. Moreover, the uprooting of supply chains due to the trade war hurts margins and the redeployment of equipment in different jurisdictions will weigh on margins at a time when final demand suffers a setback. Corporate pricing power is deteriorating, which will negatively impact profit margins, given that they are joined at the hip. The current global manufacturing recession is wreaking havoc on selling prices around the world as a number of countries are experiencing outright producer price deflation. To compete, the U.S. corporate sector is doomed to suffer the same fate, which is depressing our Corporate Pricing Power proxy, an indicator composed of 60 top-down sector price series (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 6...And Secondary Profit Margin Drivers ...And Secondary Profit Margin Drivers ...And Secondary Profit Margin Drivers Secondary Margin Drivers The ability of the overall corporate sector to lift prices is largely a function of firming final demand (i.e. volumes) and a falling greenback for the 40% of SPX sales that are international. This leads us to two secondary profit margin drivers: The trade-weighted U.S. dollar, And the yield curve. The ability of the overall corporate sector to lift prices is largely a function of firming final demand (i.e. volumes) and a falling greenback for the 40% of SPX sales that are international. Thus, not only is S&P 500 revenue growth and the trade-weighted U.S. dollar tightly inversely correlated, but also the same holds true for the greenback and profit margins (U.S. dollar shown inverted, top panel, Chart 6). Given that the U.S. dollar refuses to fall and is breaking out according to some Federal Reserve trade-weighted indexes, the path of least resistance for profit margins points south. The yield curve is related to the primary “interest rate” driver discussed above, but its most important signal concerns the business cycle. Empirically, profit margins mean revert at the onset of recession (yield curve shown advanced, middle panel, Chart 6). As a reminder, parts of the yield curve inverted last December, signaling that a corporate profit margin squeeze is looming. Income Inequality And Margins Finally, we make an interesting geopolitical observation. Rising profit margins are synonymous with wealth accruing to the top 1% of U.S. families and vice versa. This relationship dates back to the late-1920s, as far back as our dataset goes. Using Piketty and Saez data excluding capital gains it is clear that profit margin expansion accentuates income inequality (Chart 7).2 Chart 7Income Inequality And Margins Income Inequality And Margins Income Inequality And Margins Rising profit margins lead to rising profits. Because families at the top of the income distribution are more often than not business owners, income disparities are the widest when margins are in overshoot territory. Eventually this income chasm comes to a head and potentially explains the rise of populism. Income re-distribution is therefore a rising probability event in the coming decades.3 Bottom Line: Unequivocally, all six key drivers we have identified (interest rates, tax rates, labor costs / globalization, corporate pricing power, yield curve and the U.S. dollar) are firing warning shots that profit margins have peaked and a “catch down” phase of SPX margins to NIPA margins is in store in the coming quarters.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      https://apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/national/niparel/2001/0401cpm.pdf 2      https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2017.xls 3      Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?” dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The Cold War is a limited analogy for the U.S.-China conflict; In a multipolar world, complete bifurcation of trade is difficult if not impossible; History suggests that trade between rivals will continue, with minimal impediments; On a secular horizon, buy defense stocks, Europe, capex, and non-aligned countries. Feature There is a growing consensus that China and the U.S. are hurtling towards a Cold War. BCA Research played some part in this consensus – at least as far as the investment community is concerned – by publishing “Power and Politics in East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” in September 2012.1 For much of this decade, Geopolitical Strategy focused on the thesis that geopolitical risk was rotating out of the Middle East, where it was increasingly irrelevant, to East Asia, where it would become increasingly relevant. This thesis remains cogent, but it does not mean that a “Silicon Curtain” will necessarily divide the world into two bifurcated zones of capitalism. Trade, capital flows, and human exchanges between China and the U.S. will continue and may even grow. But the risk of conflict, including a military one, will not decline. In this report, we first review the geopolitical logic that underpins Sino-American tensions. We then survey the academic literature for clues on how that relationship will develop vis-à-vis trade and economic relations. The evidence from political theory is surprising and highly investment relevant. We then look back at history for clues as to what this means for investors. Our conclusion is that it is highly likely that the U.S. and China will continue to be geopolitical rivals. However, due to the geopolitical context of multipolarity, it is unlikely that the result will be “Bifurcated Capitalism.” Rather, we expect an exciting and volatile environment for investors where geopolitics takes its historical place alongside valuation, momentum, fundamentals, and macroeconomics in the pantheon of factors that determine investment opportunities and risks. The Thucydides Trap Is Real … Speaking in the Reichstag in 1897, German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow proclaimed that it was time for Germany to demand “its own place in the sun.”2 The occasion was a debate on Germany’s policy towards East Asia. Bülow soon ascended to the Chancellorship under Kaiser Wilhelm II and oversaw the evolution of German foreign policy from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik. While Realpolitik was characterized by Germany’s cautious balancing of global powers under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Weltpolitik saw Bülow and Wilhelm II seek to redraw the status quo through aggressive foreign and trade policy. Imperial Germany joined a long list of antagonists, from Athens to today’s People’s Republic of China, in the tragic play of human history dubbed the “Thucydides Trap.”3 Chart 1Imperial Overstretch Imperial Overstretch Imperial Overstretch The underlying concept is well known to all students of world history. It takes its name from the Greek historian Thucydides and his seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides explains why Sparta and Athens went to war but, unlike his contemporaries, he does not moralize or blame the gods. Instead, he dispassionately describes how the conflict between a revisionist Athens and established Sparta became inevitable due to a cycle of mistrust. Graham Allison, one of America’s preeminent scholars of international relations, has argued that the interplay between a status quo power and a challenger has almost always led to conflict. In 12 out of the 16 cases he surveyed, actual military conflict broke out. Of the four cases where war did not develop, three involved transitions between countries that shared a deep cultural affinity and a respect for the prevailing institutions.4 In those cases, the transition was a case of new management running largely the same organizational structure. And one of the four non-war outcomes was nothing less than the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The fundamental problem for a status quo power is that its empire or “sphere of influence” remains the same size as when it stood at the zenith of power. However, its decline in a relative sense leads to a classic problem of “imperial overstretch.” The hegemonic or imperial power erroneously doubles down on maintaining a status quo that it can no longer afford (Chart 1). The challenger power is not blameless. It senses weakness in the hegemon and begins to develop a regional sphere of influence. The problem is that regional hegemony is a perfect jumping off point towards global hegemony. And while the challenger’s intentions may be limited and restrained (though they often are ambitious and overweening), the status quo power must react to capabilities, not intentions. The former are material and real, whereas the latter are perceived and ephemeral. The challenging power always has an internal logic justifying its ambitions. In China’s case today, there is a sense among the elite that the country is merely mean-reverting to the way things were for many centuries in China’s and Asia’s long history (Chart 2). In other words, China is a “challenger” power only if one describes the status quo as the past three hundred years. It is the “established” power if one goes back to an earlier state of affairs. As such, the consensus in China is that it should not have to pay deference to the prevailing status quo given that the contemporary context is merely the result of western imperialist “challenges” to the established Chinese and regional order. Chart 2China’s Mean Reverting Narrative Back To The Nineteenth Century Back To The Nineteenth Century In addition, China has a legitimate claim that it is at least as relevant to the global economy as the U.S. and therefore deserves a greater say in global governance. While the U.S. still takes a larger share of the global economy, China has contributed 23% to incremental global GDP over the past two decades, compared to 13% for the U.S. (Chart 3). Chart 3The Beijing Consensus Back To The Nineteenth Century Back To The Nineteenth Century Bottom Line: The emerging tensions between China and the U.S. fit neatly into the theoretical and empirical outlines of the Thucydides Trap. We do not see any way for the two countries to avoid struggle and conflict on a secular or forecastable horizon. What does this mean for investors? For one, the secular tailwinds behind defense stocks will persist. But what beyond that? Is the global economy destined to witness complete bifurcation into two armed camps separated by a Silicon Curtain? Will the Alibaba and Amazon Pacts suspiciously glare at each other the way that NATO and Warsaw Pacts did amidst the Cold War? The answer, tentatively, is no. … But It Will Not Lead to Economic Bifurcation President Trump’s aggressive trade policy also fits neatly into political theory, to a point. Realism in political science focuses on relative gains over absolute gains in all relationships, including trade. This is because trade leads to economic prosperity, prosperity to the accumulation of economic surplus, and economic surplus to military spending, research, and development. Two states that care only about relative gains due to rivalry produce a zero-sum game with no room for cooperation. It is a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” that can lead to sub-optimal economic outcomes in which both actors chose not to cooperate. The U.S.-China conflict will not lead to complete bifurcation of the global economy. Diagram 1 illustrates the effects of relative gain calculations on the trade behavior of states. In the absence of geopolitics, demand (Q3) is satisfied via trade (Q3-Q0) due to the inability of domestic production (Q0) to meet it. Diagram 1Trade War In A Bipolar World Back To The Nineteenth Century Back To The Nineteenth Century However, geopolitical externality – a rivalry with another state – raises the marginal social cost of imports – i.e. trade allows the rival to gain more out of trade and “catch up” in terms of geopolitical capabilities. The trading state therefore eliminates such externalities with a tariff (t), raising domestic output to Q1, while shrinking demand to Q2, thus reducing imports to merely Q2-Q1, a fraction of where they would be in a world where geopolitics do not matter. The dynamic of relative gains can also have a powerful pull on the hegemon as it begins to weaken and rethink its originally magnanimous trade relations. As political scientist Duncan Snidal argued in a 1991 paper, When the global system is first set up, the hegemon makes deals with smaller states. The hegemon is concerned more with absolute gains, smaller states are more concerned with relative, so they are tougher negotiators. Cooperative arrangements favoring smaller states contribute to relative hegemonic decline. As the unequal distribution of benefits in favor of smaller states helps them catch up to the hegemonic actor, it also lowers the relative gains weight they place on the hegemonic actor. At the same time, declining relative preponderance increases the hegemonic state’s concern for relative gains with other states, especially any rising challengers. The net result is increasing pressure from the largest actor to change the prevailing system to gain a greater share of cooperative benefits.5 The reason small states are initially more concerned with relative gains is because they are far more concerned with national security than the hegemon. The hegemon has a preponderance of power and is therefore more relaxed about its security needs. This explains why Presidents George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jr. all made “bad deals” with China. Writing nearly thirty years ago, Snidal cogently described the current U.S.-China trade war. Snidal thought he was describing a coming decade of anarchy. But he and fellow political scientists writing in the early 1990s underestimated American power. The “unipolar moment” of American supremacy was not over, it was just beginning! As such, the dynamic Snidal described took thirty years to come to fruition. When thinking about the transition away from U.S. hegemony, most investors anchor themselves to the Cold War as it is the only world they have known that was not unipolar. Moreover the Cold War provides a simple, bipolar distribution of power that is easy to model through game theory. If this is the world we are about to inhabit, with the U.S. and China dividing the whole planet into spheres like the U.S. and Soviet Union, then the paragraph we lifted from Snidal’s paper would be the end of it. America would abandon globalization in totality, impose a draconian Silicon Curtain around China, and coerce its allies to follow suit. But most of recent human history has been defined by a multipolar distribution of power between states, not a bipolar one. The term “cold war” is applicable to the U.S. and China in the sense that comparable military power may prevent them from fighting a full-blown “hot war.” But ultimately the U.S.-Soviet Cold War is a poor analogy for today’s world. In a multipolar world, Snidal concludes, “states that do not cooperate fall behind other relative gains maximizers that cooperate among themselves. This makes cooperation the best defense (as well as the best offense) when your rivals are cooperating in a multilateral relative gains world.” Snidal shows via formal modeling that as the number of players increases from two, relative-gains sensitivity drops sharply.6 The U.S.-China relationship does not occur in a vacuum — it is moderated by the global context. Today’s global context is one of multipolarity. Multipolarity refers to the distribution of geopolitical power, which is no longer dominated by one or two great powers (Chart 4). Europe and Japan, for instance, have formidable economies and military capabilities. Russia remains a potent military power, even as India surpasses it in terms of overall geopolitical power. Chart 4The World Is No Longer Bipolar The World Is No Longer Bipolar The World Is No Longer Bipolar A multipolar world is the least “ordered” and the most unstable of world systems (Chart 5). This is for three reasons: Chart 5Multipolarity Is Messy Multipolarity Is Messy Multipolarity Is Messy Math: Multipolarity engenders more potential “conflict dyads” that can lead to conflict. In a unipolar world, there is only one country that determines norms and rules of behavior. Conflict is possible, but only if the hegemon wishes it. In a bipolar world, conflict is possible, but it must align along the axis of the two dominant powers. In a multipolar world, alliances are constantly shifting and producing novel conflict dyads. Lack of coordination: Global coordination suffers in periods of multipolarity as there are more “veto players.” This is particularly problematic during times of stress, such as when an aggressive revisionist power uses force or when the world is faced with an economic crisis. Charles Kindleberger has argued that it was exactly such hegemonic instability that caused the Great Depression to descend into the Second World War in his seminal The World In Depression.7 Mistakes: In a unipolar and bipolar world, there are a very limited number of dice being rolled at once. As such, the odds of tragic mistakes are low and can be mitigated with complex formal relationships (such as U.S.-Soviet Mutually Assured Destruction, grounded in formal modeling of game theory). But in a multipolar world, something as random as an assassination of a dignitary can set in motion a global war. The multipolar system is far more dynamic and thus unpredictable. In a multipolar world, the U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system. Diagram 2 is modified for a multipolar world. Everything is the same, except that we highlight the trade lost to other great powers. The state considering using tariffs to lower the marginal social cost of trading with a rival must account for this “lost trade.” In the context of today’s trade war with China, this would be the sum of all European Airbuses and Brazilian soybeans sold to China in the place of American exports. For China, it would be the sum of all the machinery, electronics, and capital goods produced in the rest of Asia and shipped to the United States. Diagram 2Trade War In A Multipolar World Back To The Nineteenth Century Back To The Nineteenth Century Could Washington ask its allies – Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. – not to take advantage of the lucrative trade (Q3-Q0)-(Q2-Q1) lost due to its trade tiff with China? Sure, but empirical research shows that they would likely ignore such pleas for unity. Alliances produced by a bipolar system produce a statistically significant and large impact on bilateral trade flows, a relationship that weakens in a multipolar context. This is the conclusion of a 1993 paper by Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield.8 The authors draw their conclusion from an 80-year period beginning in 1905, which captures several decades of global multipolarity. Unless the U.S. produces a wholehearted diplomatic effort to tighten up its alliances and enforce trade sanctions – something hardly foreseeable under the current administration – the self-interest of U.S. allies will drive them to continue trading with China. The U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system; nor will China be able to achieve Xi Jinping’s vaunted “self-sufficiency.” A risk to our view is that we have misjudged the global system, just as political scientists writing in the early 1990s did. To that effect, we accept that Charts 1 and 4 do not really support a view that the world is in a balanced multipolar state. The U.S. clearly remains the most powerful country in the world. The problem is that it is also clearly in a relative decline and that its sphere of influence is global – and thus very expensive – whereas its rivals have merely regional ambitions (for the time being). As such, we concede that American hegemony could be reasserted relatively quickly, but it would require a significant calamity in one of the other poles of power. For instance, a breakdown in China’s internal stability alongside the recovery of U.S. political stability. Bottom Line: The trade war between the U.S. and China is geopolitically unsustainable. The only way it could continue is if the two states existed in a bipolar world where the rest of the states closely aligned themselves behind the two superpowers. We have a high conviction view that today’s world is – for the time being – multipolar. American allies will cheat and skirt around Washington’s demands that China be isolated. This is because the U.S. no longer has the preponderance of power that it enjoyed in the last decade of the twentieth and the first decade of the twenty-first century. Insights presented thus far come from formal theory in political science. What does history teach us? Trading With The Enemy In 1896, a bestselling pamphlet in the U.K., “Made in Germany,” painted an ominous picture: “A gigantic commercial State is arising to menace our prosperity, and contend with us for the trade of the world.”9 Look around your own houses, author E.E. Williams urged his readers. “The toys, and the dolls, and the fairy books which your children maltreat in the nursery are made in Germany: nay, the material of your favorite (patriotic) newspaper had the same birthplace as like as not.” Williams later wrote that tariffs were the answer and that they “would bring Germany to her knees, pleading for our clemency.”10 By the late 1890s, it was clear to the U.K. that Germany was its greatest national security threat. The Germany Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900 launched a massive naval buildup with the singular objective of liberating the German Empire from the geographic constraints of the Jutland Peninsula. By 1902, the First Lord of the Royal Navy pointed out that “the great new German navy is being carefully built up from the point of view of a war with us.”11 There is absolutely no doubt that Germany was the U.K.’s gravest national security threat. As a result, London signed in April 1904 a set of agreements with France that came to be known as Entente Cordiale. The entente was immediately tested by Germany in the 1905 First Moroccan Crisis, which only served to strengthen the alliance. Russia was brought into the pact in 1907, creating the Triple Entente. In hindsight, the alliance structure was obvious given Germany’s meteoric rise from unification in 1871. However, one should not underestimate the magnitude of these geopolitical events. For the U.K. and France to resolve centuries of differences and formalize an alliance in 1904 was a tectonic shift — one that they undertook against the grain of history, entrenched enmity, and ideology.12 History teaches us that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime. Political scientists and historians have noted that geopolitical enmity rarely produces bifurcated economic relations exhibited during the Cold War. Both empirical research and formal modeling shows that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime.13 This was certainly the case between the U.K. and Germany, whose trade steadily increased right up until the outbreak of World War One (Chart 6). Could this be written off due to the U.K.’s ideological commitment to laissez-faire economics? Or perhaps London feared a move against its lightly defended colonies in case it became protectionist? These are fair arguments. However, they do not explain why Russia and France both saw ever-rising total trade with the German Empire during the same period (Chart 7). Either all three states were led by incompetent policymakers who somehow did not see the war coming – unlikely given the empirical record – or they simply could not afford to lose out on the gains of trade with Germany to each other. Chart 6The Allies Traded With Germany… Back To The Nineteenth Century Back To The Nineteenth Century Chart 7… Right Up To WWI Back To The Nineteenth Century Back To The Nineteenth Century Chart 8Japan And U.S. Never Downshifted Trade Back To The Nineteenth Century Back To The Nineteenth Century A similar dynamic was afoot ahead of World War Two. Relations between the U.S. and Japan soured in the 1930s, with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In 1935, Japan withdrew from the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty – the bedrock of the Pacific balance of power – and began a massive naval buildup. In 1937, Japan invaded China. Despite a clear and present danger, the U.S. continued to trade with Japan right up until July 26, 1941, few days after Japan invaded southern Indochina (Chart 8). On December 7, Japan attacked the U.S. A skeptic may argue that precisely because policymakers sleepwalked into war in the First and Second World Wars, they will not (or should not) make the same mistake this time around. First, we do not make policy prescriptions and therefore care not what should happen. Second, we are highly skeptical of the view that policymakers in the early and mid-twentieth century were somehow defective (as opposed to today’s enlightened leaders). Our constraints-based framework urges us to seek systemic reasons for the behavior of leaders. Political science provides a clear theoretical explanation for why London and Washington continued to trade with the enemy despite the clarity of the threat. The answer lies in the systemic nature of the constraint: a multipolar world reduces the sensitivity of policymakers to relative gains by introducing a collective action problem thanks to changing alliances and the difficulty of disciplining allies’ behavior. In the case of U.S. and China, this is further accentuated by President Trump’s strategy of skirting multilateral diplomacy and intense focus on mercantilist measures of power (i.e. obsession with the trade deficit). An anti-China trade policy that was accompanied by a magnanimous approach to trade relations with allies could have produced a “coalition of the willing” against Beijing. But after two years of tariffs and threats against the EU, Japan, and Canada, the Trump administration has already signaled to the rest of the world that old alliances and coordination avenues are up for revision. There are two outcomes that we can see emerging over the course of the next decade. First, U.S. leadership will become aware of the systemic constraints under which they operate, and trade with China will continue – albeit with limitations and variations. However, such trade will not reduce the geopolitical tensions, nor will it prevent a military conflict. In facts, the probability of military conflict may increase even as trade between China and the U.S. remains steady. Second, U.S. leadership will fail to correctly assess that they operate in a multipolar world and will give up the highlighted trade gains from Diagram 2 to economic rivals such as Europe and Japan. Given our methodological adherence to constraint-based forecasting, we highly doubt that the latter scenario is likely. Bottom Line: The China-U.S. conflict is not a replay of the Cold War. Systemic pressures from global multipolarity will force the U.S. to continue to trade with China, with limitations on exchanges in emergent, dual-use technologies that China will nonetheless source from other technologically advanced countries. This will create a complicated but exciting world where geopolitics will cease to be seen as exogenous to investing. A risk to the sanguine conclusion is that the historical record is applicable to today, but that the hour is late, not early. It is already July 26, 1941 – when U.S. abrogated all trade with Japan – not 1930. As such, we do not have another decade of trade between U.S. and China remaining, we are at the end of the cycle. While this is a risk, it is unlikely. American policymakers would essentially have to be willing to risk a military conflict with China in order to take the trade war to the same level they did with Japan. It is an objective fact that China has meaningfully stepped up aggressive foreign policy in the region. But unlike Japan in 1941, China has not outright invaded any countries over the past decade. As such, the willingness of the public to support such a conflict is unclear, with only 21% of Americans considering China a top threat to the U.S. Investment Implications This analysis is not meant to be optimistic. First, the U.S. and China will continue to be rivals even if the economic relationship between them does not lead to global bifurcation. For one, China continues to be – much like Germany in the early twentieth century – concerned with access to external markets on which 19.5% of its economy still depend. China is therefore developing a modern navy and military not because it wants to dominate the rest of the world but because it wants to dominate its near abroad, much as the U.S. wanted to, beginning with the Monroe Doctrine. This will continue to lead to Chinese aggression in the South and East China Seas, raising the odds of a conflict with the U.S. Navy. Given that the Thucydides Trap narrative remains cogent, investors should look to overweight S&P 500 aerospace and defense stocks relative to global equity markets. An alternative way that one could play this thesis is by developing a basket of global defense stocks. Multipolarity may create constraints to trade protectionism, but it engenders geopolitical volatility and thus buoys defense spending. Second, we would not expect another uptick in globalization. Multipolarity may make it difficult for countries to completely close off trade with a rival, but globalization is built on more than just trade between rivals. Globalization requires a high level of coordination among great powers that is only possible under hegemonic conditions. Chart 9 shows that the hegemony of the British and later American empires created a powerful tailwind for trade over the past two hundred years. Chart 9The Apex Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Apex Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Apex Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Apex of Globalization has come and gone – it is all downhill from here. But this is not a binary view. Foreign trade will not go to zero. The U.S. and China will not completely seal each other’s sphere of influence behind a Silicon Curtain. Instead, we focus on five investment themes that flow from a world that is characterized by the three trends of multipolarity, Sino-U.S. geopolitical rivalry, and apex of globalization: Europe will profit: As the U.S. and China deepen their enmity, we expect some European companies to profit. There is some evidence that the investment community has already caught wind of this trend, with European equities modestly outperforming their U.S. counterparts whenever trade tensions flared up in 2019 (Chart 10). Given our thesis, however, it is unlikely that the U.S. would completely lose market share in China to Europe. As such, we specifically focus on tech, where we expect the U.S. and China to ramp up non-tariff barriers to trade regardless of systemic pressures to continue to trade. A strategic long in the secularly beleaguered European tech companies relative to their U.S. counterparts may therefore make sense (Chart 11). Chart 10Europe: A Trade War Safe Haven Europe: A Trade War Safe Haven Europe: A Trade War Safe Haven Chart 11Is Europe Really This Incompetent? Is Europe Really This Incompetent? Is Europe Really This Incompetent? USD bull market will end: A trade war is a very disruptive way to adjust one’s trade relationship. It opens one to retaliation and thus the kind of relative losses described in this analysis. As such, we expect that U.S. to eventually depreciate the USD, either by aggressively reversing 2018 tightening or by coercing its trade rivals to strengthen their currencies. Such a move will be yet another tailwind behind the diversification away from the USD as a reserve currency, a move that should benefit the euro. Bull market in capex: The re-wiring of global manufacturing chains will still take place. The bad news is that multinational corporations will have to dip into their profit margins to move their supply chains to adjust to the new geopolitical reality. The good news is that they will have to invest in manufacturing capex to accomplish the task. One way to articulate this theme is to buy an index of semiconductor capital companies (AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, MKSI, AEIS, BRIKS, and TER). Given the highly cyclical nature of capital companies, we would recommend an entry point once trade tensions subside and green shoots of global growth appear. “Non-aligned” markets will benefit: The last time the world was multipolar, great powers competed through imperialism. This time around, a same dynamic will develop as countries seek to replicate China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.” This is positive for frontier markets. A rush to provide them with exports and services will increase supply and thus lower costs, providing otherwise forgotten markets with a boon of investments. India, and Asia-ex-China more broadly, stand as intriguing alternatives to China, especially with the current administration aggressively reforming to take advantage of the rewiring of global manufacturing chains. Capital markets will remain globalized: With interest rates near zero in much of the developed world and the demographic burden putting an ever-greater pressure on pension plans to generate returns, the search for yield will continue to be a powerful drive that keeps capital markets globalized. Limitations are likely to grow, especially when it comes to cross-border private investments in dual-use technologies. But a completely bifurcation of capital markets is unlikely. The world we are describing is one where geopolitics will play an increasingly prominent role for global investors. It would be convenient if the world simply divided into two warring camps, leaving investors with neatly separated compartments that enabled them to go back to ignoring geopolitics. This is unlikely. Rather, the world will resemble the dynamic years at the end of the nineteenth century, a rough-and-tumble era that required a multi-disciplinary approach to investing.   Marko Papic, Consulting Editor, BCA Research Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Marko@clocktowergroup.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” September 25, 2012, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think,” October 4, 2013, “The Great Risk Rotation,” December 11, 2013, and “Strategic Outlook 2014 – Stay The Course: EM Risk – DM Reward,” January 23, 2014, “Underestimating Sino-American Tensions,” November 6, 2015, “The Geopolitics Of Trump,” December 2, 2016, “How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia,” March 1, 2017, and others available at gps.bcaresearch.com or upon request. 2 Please see German Historical Institute, “Bernhard von Bulow on Germany’s ‘Place in the Sun’” (1897), available at http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/ 3 See Graham Allison, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017). 4 The three cases are Spain taking over from Portugal in the sixteenth century, the U.S. taking over from the U.K. in the twentieth century, and Germany rising to regional hegemony in Europe in the twenty-first century. 5 Duncan Snidal, “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation,” The American Political Science Review, 85:3 (September 1991), pp. 701-726. 6 We do not review Snidal’s excellent game theory formal modeling in this paper as it is complex and detailed. However, we highly encourage the intrigued reader to pursue the study on their own. 7 See Charles P. Kindleberger, The World In Depression, 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 8 Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield, “Power Politics and International Trade,” The American Political Science Review, 87:2 (June 1993), pp. 408-420. 9 See Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (reprint, Ithaca: Cornell University Press), available at https://archive.org/details/cu31924031247830. 10 Quoted in Margaret MacMillan, The War That Ended Peace (Toronto: Allen Lane, 2014). 11 Peter Liberman, “Trading with the Enemy: Security and Relative Economic Gains,” international Security, 21:1 (Summer 1996), pp. 147-175. 12 Although France and Russia overcame even greater bitterness due to the ideological differences between a republic founded on a violent uprising against its aristocracy – France – and an aristocratic authoritarian regime – Russia. 13 See James Morrow, “When Do ‘Relative Gains’ Impede Trade?” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41:1 (February 1997), pp. 12-37; and Jack S. Levy and Katherine Barbieri, “Trading With the Enemy During Wartime,” Security Studies, 13:3 (December 2004), pp. 1-47.

Highlights MARKET FORECASTS Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Investment Strategy: Markets have entered a “show me” phase. Better economic data and meaningful progress on the trade negotiations will be necessary for stocks to move sustainably higher. We think both preconditions will be realized. Until then, risk assets could come under pressure. Global Asset Allocation: Investors should overweight stocks relative to bonds over a 12-month horizon, but maintain higher-than-normal cash positions in the near term as a hedge against downside risks. Equities: EM and European stocks will outperform once global growth bottoms out. Cyclical sectors, including financials, will also start to outperform defensives when the growth cycle turns. Bonds: Central banks will remain dovish, but yields will nevertheless rise modestly on the back of stronger global growth. Favor high-yield corporate credit over government bonds. Currencies: As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar should peak later this year. Commodities: Oil and industrial metals prices will move higher. Gold prices have entered a holding pattern, but should shine again late next year or in 2021 when inflation finally breaks out. Feature Dear Client, In lieu of this report, I hosted a webcast on Monday, October 7th at 10:00 AM EDT, where I discussed the major investment themes and views I see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist   I. Global Macro Outlook A Testing Phase For The Global Economy The global economy has reached a critical juncture. Growth has been slowing since early 2018, reaching what many would regard as “stall speed.” This is the point where economic weakness begins to feed on itself, potentially triggering a recession. Will the growth slowdown worsen? Our guess is that it won’t. Global financial conditions have eased significantly over the past four months, thanks in part to the dovish pivot by most central banks. Looser financial conditions usually bode well for global growth (Chart 1). Our global leading indicator has hooked up, mainly due to a marginal improvement in emerging markets’ data (Chart 2). Chart 1Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth Chart 2Global LEI Has Moved Off Its Lows Global LEI Has Moved Off Its Lows Global LEI Has Moved Off Its Lows     An important question is whether the weakness in the manufacturing sector will spread to the much larger services sector. There is some evidence that this is happening, with yesterday’s weaker-than-expected ISM non-manufacturing release being the latest example. Nevertheless, the deceleration in service sector activity has been limited so far (Chart 3). Even in Germany, with its large manufacturing base, the service sector PMI remains in expansionary territory. This is a key difference with the 2001/02 and 2008/09 periods, when service sector activity collapsed in lockstep with manufacturing activity. Chart 3AThe Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (I) The Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (I) The Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 3BThe Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (II) The Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (II) The Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (II) The Drive-By Slowdown If one were to ask most investors the reasons behind the manufacturing slowdown, they would probably cite the trade war or the Chinese deleveraging campaign. These are both valid reasons, but there is a less well-known culprit: autos. According to WardsAuto, global auto sales fell by over 5% in the first half of the year, by far the biggest decline since the Great Recession (Chart 4). Production dropped by even more. Chart 4Weakness In The Auto Sector Has Exacerbated The Manufacturing Downturn Weakness In The Auto Sector Has Exacerbated The Manufacturing Downturn Weakness In The Auto Sector Has Exacerbated The Manufacturing Downturn Chart 5U.S. Auto Demand Is Recovering U.S. Auto Demand Is Recovering U.S. Auto Demand Is Recovering   The weakness in the global auto sector reflects a variety of factors. New stringent emission requirements, expiring tax breaks, lagged effects from tighter auto loan lending standards, and trade tensions have all played a role. In addition, the decline in gasoline prices in 2015/16 probably brought forward some automobile purchases. This suggests that the 2015/16 global manufacturing downturn may have helped sow the seeds for the current one. The fact that automobile output is falling faster than sales is encouraging because it means that excess inventories are being worked off. U.S. auto loan lending standards have started to normalize, with banks reporting stronger demand for auto loans in the latest Senior Loan Officer Survey (Chart 5). In China, auto sales have troughed after having declined by as much as 14% earlier this year (Chart 6). The Chinese automobile ownership rate is a fifth of what it is in the U.S., a quarter of what it is in Japan, and a third of what it is in Korea (Chart 7). Given the low starting point, Chinese auto sales are likely to resume their secular uptrend. Chart 6Auto Sector In China Is Finding A Floor Auto Sector In China Is Finding A Floor Auto Sector In China Is Finding A Floor Chart 7China: Structural Outlook For Autos Is Bright China: Structural Outlook For Autos Is Bright China: Structural Outlook For Autos Is Bright   The Trade War: Tracking Towards A Détente? Chart 8A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Manufacturing cycles typically last about three years – 18 months of slowing growth followed by 18 months of rising growth (Chart 8). To the extent that the global manufacturing PMI peaked in the first half of 2018, we should be nearing the end of the current downturn. Of course, much depends on policy developments. As we go to press, high-level negotiations between the U.S. and China have resumed. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of these talks, it does appear that both sides have an incentive to de-escalate the trade conflict. President Trump gets much better marks from voters on his management of the economy than on anything else, including his handling of trade negotiations with China (Chart 9). A protracted trade war would hurt U.S. growth, while weakening the stock market. Both would undermine Trump’s re-election prospects. Chart 9Trump Gets Reasonably High Marks On His Handling Of The Economy, But Not Much Else Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Chart 10Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market China also wants to bolster growth. As difficult as it has been for the Chinese leadership to deal with Donald Trump, trying to secure a trade deal with him after he has been re-elected would be even more challenging. This would especially be the case if Trump thought that the Chinese had tried to sabotage his re-election bid. Even if Trump were to lose the election, it is not clear that China would end up with someone more pliant to deal with on trade matters. Does the Chinese government really want to negotiate over environmental standards and human rights with President Warren, who betting markets now think has a better chance of becoming the Democratic nominee than Joe Biden (Chart 10)? The Democrats’ initiative to impeach President Trump make a trade resolution somewhat more likely. First, it brings attention to Joe Biden’s (and his son’s) own dubious dealings in Ukraine, thus delivering a blow to China’s preferred U.S. presidential candidate. Second, it makes Trump more inclined to want to put the China spat behind him in order to focus his energies on domestic matters. More Chinese Stimulus? Strategically, China has a strong incentive to stimulate its economy in order to prop up growth and gain greater leverage in the trade negotiations. The Chinese credit impulse bottomed in late 2018. The impulse leads Chinese nominal manufacturing output and most other activity indicators by about nine months (Chart 11). So far, the magnitude of China’s credit/fiscal easing has come nowhere close to matching the stimulus that was unleashed on the economy both in 2015/16 and 2008/09. This is partly because the authorities are more worried about excessive debt levels today than they were back then, but it is also because the economy is in better shape. The shock from the trade war has not been nearly as bad as the Great Recession – recall that Chinese exports to the U.S. are only 2.7% of GDP in value-added terms. Unlike in 2015/16, when China lost over $1 trillion in external reserves, capital outflows have remained muted this time around (Chart 12). Chart 11Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chart 12China: No Major Capital Outflows China: No Major Capital Outflows China: No Major Capital Outflows Better-than-expected Chinese PMI data released earlier this week offers a glimmer of hope. Nevertheless, in light of the disappointing August activity numbers, China is likely to increase the pace of stimulus in the coming months. The authorities have already reduced bank reserve requirements. We expect them to cut policy rates further in the coming months. They will also front-load local government bond issuance, which should help boost infrastructure spending. European Growth Should Improve A pickup in global growth will help Europe later this year. Germany, with its trade-dependent economy, will benefit the most. Chart 13Spreads Have Come In Across Southern Europe Spreads Have Come In Across Southern Europe Spreads Have Come In Across Southern Europe Chart 14Faster Money Growth Bodes Well For GDP Growth In The Euro Area Faster Money Growth Bodes Well For GDP Growth In The Euro Area Faster Money Growth Bodes Well For GDP Growth In The Euro Area Falling sovereign spreads should also support Southern Europe (Chart 13). The Italian 10-year spread with German bunds has narrowed by almost a full percentage point since mid-August, taking the Italian 10-year yield down to 0.83%. Greek 10-year bonds are now yielding less than U.S. Treasurys (the Greek manufacturing PMI is currently the strongest in the world). With the ECB back in the market buying sovereign and corporate debt, borrowing rates should remain low. Euro area money growth, which leads GDP growth, has already picked up (Chart 14). Bank lending to the private sector should continue to accelerate. A modest serving of fiscal stimulus will also help. The European Commission estimates that the fiscal thrust in the euro area will increase by 0.5% of GDP in 2019 (Chart 15). Assuming, conservatively, a fiscal multiplier of one, this would boost euro area growth by half a percentage point. Owing to lags between changes in fiscal policy and their impact on the real economy, most of the gains to GDP growth will occur over the remainder of this year and in 2020. Chart 15Euro Area Fiscal Stimulus Will Also Boost Growth Euro Area Fiscal Stimulus Will Also Boost Growth Euro Area Fiscal Stimulus Will Also Boost Growth Chart 17Brexit Angst: A Case Of Bremorse Brexit Angst: A Case Of Bremorse Brexit Angst: A Case Of Bremorse Chart 16U.K.: Brexit Uncertainty Is Weighing On Growth U.K.: Brexit Uncertainty Is Weighing On Growth U.K.: Brexit Uncertainty Is Weighing On Growth In the U.K., Brexit uncertainty continues to weigh on growth. U.K. business investment has been especially hard hit (Chart 16). Prime Minister Boris Johnson remains insistent that he will take the U.K. out of the EU with or without a deal at the end of October. We would downplay his bluster. The Supreme Court has already denied his attempt to shutter parliament. The public is having second thoughts about the desirability of Brexit (Chart 17). While we do not have a strong view on the exact plot twists in the Brexit saga, we maintain that the odds of a no-deal Brexit are low. This is good news for U.K. growth and the pound. Japan: Own Goal Recent Japanese data releases have not been encouraging: Machine tool orders declined by 37% year-over-year in August. Exports contracted by over 8%, with imports recording a drop of 12%. The September PMI print exposed further deterioration in manufacturing, with the index falling to 48.9 from 49.3 in August. In addition, industrial production contracted by more than expected in August, falling by 1% month-over-month, and close to 5% year-over-year. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the U.S.-China trade negotiations, as well as Japan’s own tensions with neighboring South Korea, have also weighed on the Japanese economy. Japanese industrial activity will improve later this year as global growth rebounds. But the government has not helped growth prospects by raising the consumption tax on October 1st. While various offsets will blunt the full effect of the tax hike, it still amounts to unwarranted tightening in fiscal policy. Nominal GDP has barely increased since the early 1990s. What Japan needs are policies that boost nominal income. Such reflationary policies may be the only way to stabilize debt-to-GDP without pushing the economy back into a deflationary spiral.1  The U.S.: Hanging Tough Chart 18U.S. Has A Smaller Share Of Manufacturing Than Most Other Developed Economies Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market The U.S. economy has fared relatively well during the latest global economic downturn, partly because manufacturing represents a smaller share of GDP than in most other economies (Chart 18). According to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model, real GDP is on track to rise at a trend-like pace of 1.8% in the third quarter (Chart 19). Personal consumption is set to increase by 2.5%, after having grown by 4.6% in the second quarter. Consumer spending should stay robust, supported by rising wage growth. The personal savings rate also remains elevated, which should help cushion households from any adverse shocks (Chart 20).   Chart 19U.S. Growth Has Softened, But Is Still Close To Trend Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Residential investment finally looks as though it is turning the corner. Housing starts, building permits, and home sales have all picked up. Given the tight relationship between mortgage rates and homebuilding, construction activity should accelerate over the next few quarters (Chart 21). Low inventory and vacancy rates, rising household formation, and reasonable affordability all bode well for the housing market (Chart 22). Chart 20The Savings Rate Has (A Lot Of) Room To Drop, Judging From The Historical Relationship With Wealth The Savings Rate Has (A Lot Of) Room To Drop, Judging From The Historical Relationship With Wealth The Savings Rate Has (A Lot Of) Room To Drop, Judging From The Historical Relationship With Wealth Chart 21U.S. Housing Will Rebound U.S. Housing Will Rebound U.S. Housing Will Rebound Chart 22U.S. Housing: On A Solid Foundation U.S. Housing: On A Solid Foundation U.S. Housing: On A Solid Foundation Chart 23U.S. Capex Plans Have Come Off Their Highs, But Are Nowhere Close to Recessionary Levels U.S. Capex Plans Have Come Off Their Highs, But Are Nowhere Close to Recessionary Levels U.S. Capex Plans Have Come Off Their Highs, But Are Nowhere Close to Recessionary Levels In contrast to residential investment, business capex continues to be weighed down by the manufacturing recession, a strong dollar, and trade policy uncertainty. Core durable goods orders declined in August. Capex intention surveys have also weakened, although they remain well above recessionary levels (Chart 23). The ISM manufacturing index hit its lowest level since July 2009 in September. The internals of the report were not quite as bad as the headline. The new orders-to-inventories component, which leads the ISM by two months, moved back into positive territory. The weak ISM print also stands in contrast to the more upbeat Markit U.S. manufacturing PMI, which rose to its highest level since April. Statistically, the Markit PMI does a better job of tracking official measures of U.S. manufacturing output, factory orders, and employment than the ISM. Taking everything together, the U.S. economy is likely to see modestly stronger growth later this year, as the global manufacturing recession comes to an end, while strong consumer spending and an improving housing market bolster domestic demand. II. Financial Markets Global Asset Allocation Markets have entered a “show me” phase. Better economic data and meaningful progress on the trade negotiations will be necessary for stocks to move sustainably higher. As such, investors should maintain larger-than-normal cash positions for the time being to guard against downside risks. Chart 24Stocks Will Outperform Bonds If Growth Recovers Stocks Will Outperform Bonds If Growth Recovers Stocks Will Outperform Bonds If Growth Recovers Fortunately, any pullback in risk asset prices is likely to be temporary. If trade tensions subside and global growth rebounds later this year, as we expect, stocks and spread product should handily outperform government bonds over a 12-month horizon (Chart 24). Admittedly, there are plenty of things that could upend this sanguine 12-month recommendation: Global growth could continue to deteriorate; the trade war could intensify; supply-side shocks could cause oil prices to spike up again; the U.K. could end up leaving the EU in a “hard Brexit” scenario; and last but not least, Elizabeth Warren or some other far-left candidate could end up becoming the next U.S. president. The key question for investors today is whether these risks have been fully discounted in financial markets. We think they have. Chart 25 shows our estimates for the global equity risk premium (ERP), calculated as the difference between the earnings yield and the real bond yield. Our calculations suggest that stocks still look quite cheap compared to bonds. Chart 25AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Equity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Equity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 25BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) Equity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) Equity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) One might protest that the ERP is high only because today’s ultra-low bond yields are reflecting very poor growth prospects. There is some truth to that claim, but not as much as one might think. While trend GDP growth has fallen in the U.S. over the past decade, bond yields have declined by even more. The gap between U.S. potential nominal GDP growth, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the 10-year Treasury yield is close to two percentage points, the highest since 1979 (Chart 26). Chart 26Bond Yields Have Fallen More Than Trend Nominal GDP Growth Bond Yields Have Fallen More Than Trend Nominal GDP Growth Bond Yields Have Fallen More Than Trend Nominal GDP Growth At the global level, trend GDP growth has barely changed since 1980, largely because faster-growing emerging markets now make up a larger share of the global economy (Chart 27). For large multinational companies, global growth, rather than domestic growth, is the more relevant measure of economic momentum. Gauging Future Equity Returns A high ERP simply says that equities are attractive relative to bonds. To gauge the prospective return to stocks in absolute terms, one should look at the absolute level of valuations. Chart 27The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM chart 27 The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM Chart 28S&P 500: All Of The Increase In Margins Has Occurred In The IT Sector S&P 500: All Of The Increase In Margins Has Occurred In The IT Sector S&P 500: All Of The Increase In Margins Has Occurred In The IT Sector As we argued in a recent report entitled “TINA To The Rescue?,”2 the earnings yield can be used as a proxy for the expected real total return on equities. Empirically, the evidence seems to bear this out: Since 1950, the earnings yield on U.S. equities has averaged 6.7%, compared to a real total return of 7.2%. Today, the trailing and forward PE ratio for U.S. stocks stand at 21.1 and 17.4, respectively. Using a simple average of the two as a guide for future returns, U.S. stocks should deliver a long-term real total return of 5.2%. While this is below its historic average, it is still a fairly decent return. One might complain that this calculation overstates prospective equity returns because the U.S. earnings yield is temporarily inflated by abnormally high profit margins. The problem with this argument is that virtually all of the increase in S&P 500 margins has occurred in just one sector: technology. Outside of the tech sector, S&P 500 margins are not far from their historic average (Chart 28). If high IT margins reflect structural changes in the global economy – such as the emergence of “winner take all” companies that benefit from powerful network effects and monopolistic pricing power – they could remain elevated for the foreseeable future.   Regional And Sector Equity Allocation The earnings yield is roughly two percentage points higher outside the U.S., suggesting that non-U.S. stocks will best their U.S. peers over the long haul. In the developed market space, Germany, Spain, and the U.K. appear especially cheap. In the EM realm, China, Korea, and Russia stand out as being very attractively priced (Chart 29). At the sector level, cyclical stocks look more appealing than defensives (Chart 30). Chart 29U.S. Stocks Appear Expensive Compared To Their Peers Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Chart 31Economic Growth Drives Stocks Over A 12-Month Horizon Economic Growth Drives Stocks Over A 12-Month Horizon Economic Growth Drives Stocks Over A 12-Month Horizon Chart 30Cyclical Stocks Are More Attractive Than Defensives Cyclical Stocks Are More Attractive Than Defensives Cyclical Stocks Are More Attractive Than Defensives Chart 32EM 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 Valuations are useful mainly as a guide to long-term returns. Over a horizon of say, 12 months, cyclical factors – i.e., what happens to growth, interest rates, and exchange rates – matter more (Chart 31). Fortunately, our cyclical views generally line up with our valuation assessment. Stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and rising commodity prices should benefit cyclical stocks relative to defensives. To the extent that EM and European stock markets have more of a cyclical sector skew than U.S. stocks, the former should end up outperforming (Chart 32). We would put financials on our list of sectors to upgrade by year end once global growth begins to reaccelerate. Falling bond yields have hurt bank profits (Chart 33). The drag on net interest margins should recede as yields start rising. European banks, which currently trade at only 7.6 times forward earnings, 0.6 times book value, and sport a hefty dividend yield of 6.3%, could fare particularly well (Chart 34). Chart 33AHigher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (I) Higher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (I) Higher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (I) Chart 33BHigher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (II) Higher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (II) Higher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (II) As Chart 35 illustrates, a bet on financials is similar to a bet on value stocks. Growth has trounced value over the past 12 years, but a bit of respite for value is in order over the next 12-to-18 months. Chart 34European Banks Are Attractive European Banks Are Attractive European Banks Are Attractive Chart 35Is Value Turning The Corner? Is Value Turning The Corner? Is Value Turning The Corner?   Fixed Income Chart 36AYields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (I) Yields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (I) Yields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (I) Dovish central banks and, for the time being, still-subdued inflation will help keep government bond yields in check over the next 12 months. Nevertheless, yields will still rise from currently depressed levels on the back of stronger global growth (Chart 36).     Chart 36BYields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (II) Yields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (II) Yields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (II) Bond yields tend to rise or fall depending on whether central banks adjust rates by more or less than is anticipated (Chart 37). Investors currently expect the Fed to cut rates by another 80 basis points over the next 12 months. While we think the Fed will bring down rates by 25 basis points on October 30th, we do not anticipate any further cuts beyond then. The cumulative 75 basis points in cuts during this easing cycle will be equivalent to the amount of easing delivered during the two mid-cycle slowdowns in the 1990s (1995/96 and 1998). All told, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is likely to move back into the low 2% range by the middle of 2020. Chart 37AStronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (I) Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (I) Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (I) Chart 36BStronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (II) Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (II) Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (II) Chart 38U.S. Government Bond Yields Are More Procyclical Than Yields Abroad U.S. Government Bond Yields Are More Procyclical Than Yields Abroad U.S. Government Bond Yields Are More Procyclical Than Yields Abroad Unlike U.S. equities, which tend to have a low beta compared to stocks abroad, U.S. bonds possess a high beta. This means that U.S. Treasury yields usually rise more than yields abroad when global bond yields, in aggregate, are increasing, and fall more than yields abroad when global bond yields are decreasing (Chart 38).  Moreover, U.S. Treasurys currently yield less than other bond markets once currency-hedging costs are taken into account (Table 1). If U.S. yields were to rise more than those abroad over the next 12-to-18 months, this would further detract from Treasury returns. As a result, investors should underweight Treasurys within a global government bond portfolio. Stronger global growth should keep corporate credit spreads at bay. Lending standards for U.S. commercial and industrial loans have moved back into easing territory, which is usually bullish for corporate credit (Chart 39). According to our U.S. bond strategists, high-yield corporate spreads, and to a lesser extent, Baa-rated investment-grade spreads, are still wider than is justified by the economic fundamentals (Chart 40).3 Better-rated investment-grade bonds, in contrast, offer less relative value. Table 1Bond Markets Across The Developed World Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Chart 39Easier Lending Standards Bode Well For Corporate Credit Easier Lending Standards Bode Well For Corporate Credit Easier Lending Standards Bode Well For Corporate Credit Chart 40U.S. Corporates: Focus On Baa And High-Yield Credit U.S. Corporates: Focus On Baa And High-Yield Credit U.S. Corporates: Focus On Baa And High-Yield Credit     Looking beyond the next 18 months, there is a high probability that inflation will start to move materially higher. The unemployment rate across the G7 has fallen to a multi-decade low (Chart 41). The share of developed economies that have reached full employment has hit a new cycle high (Chart 42). For all the talk about how the Phillips curve is dead, wage growth has remained tightly correlated with labor market slack (Chart 43). Chart 41Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower Chart 42Developed Markets: Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Developed Markets: Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Developed Markets: Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Chart 43The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well As wages continue to rise, prices will start to move up, potentially setting off a wage-price spiral. The Fed, and eventually other central banks, will have to start raising rates at that point. Once interest rates move into restrictive territory, equities will fall and credit spreads will widen. A global recession could ensue in 2022. Currencies And Commodities Chart 44The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 44). We do not have a strong near-term view on the direction of the dollar at the moment, but expect the greenback to begin to weaken by year end as global growth starts to rebound. EUR/USD should increase to around 1.13 by mid-2020. GBP/USD will rise to 1.29. USD/CNY will move back to 7. USD/JPY is likely to be flat, reflecting the yen’s defensive nature and the drag on Japanese growth from the consumption tax hike. The trade-weighted dollar will continue to depreciate until late-2021, after which time a more aggressive Fed and a slowdown in global growth will cause the dollar to rally anew. During the period in which the dollar is weakening, commodity prices will move higher (Chart 45). Chart 45Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities BCA’s commodity strategists are particularly bullish on oil over a 12-month horizon (Chart 46). They see Brent crude prices rising to $70/bbl by the end of this year and averaging $74/bbl in 2020 based on the expectation that stronger global growth and production discipline will drive down oil inventory levels. OPEC spare capacity – the difference between what the cartel is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is currently below its historic average (Chart 47). Crude oil reserves have also been trending lower within the OECD. Saudi Arabia’s own reserves have fallen by over 40% since peaking in 2015 (Chart 48). Chart 46Supply Deficit To Continue Supply Deficit To Continue Supply Deficit To Continue Chart 47Limited Availability Of Spare Capacity To Offset Outages Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Chart 48Key Strategic Petroleum Reserves Key Strategic Petroleum Reserves Key Strategic Petroleum Reserves Higher oil prices should benefit currencies such as the Canadian dollar, Norwegian krone, Russian ruble and Colombian peso. Finally, a few words on gold. We closed our long gold trade on August 29th for a 20-week gain of 20.5%. We still see gold as an excellent long-term hedge against higher inflation. In the near term, however, rising bond yields may take the wind out of gold’s sails, even if a weaker dollar does help bullion at the margin. We will reinitiate our long gold position towards the end of next year or in 2021 once inflation begins to break out.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Are High Debt Levels Deflationary Or Inflationary?” dated February 15, 2019. 2Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 3Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed,” dated September 17, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A "Show Me" Market Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

The price differential at which Canadian heavy-sour crude trades to the North American benchmark WTI will be pushed to -$20/bbl into 1Q20, as transportation constraints continue to slow the marginal barrel’s egress from Alberta. Increasing demand for low-sulfur distillate fuels as global marine-fuel standards tighten under IMO 2020 regulations next year also will contribute to weaker Canadian crude oil prices. Over the next three to five years, domestic politics will determine whether the Canadian oil industry will be able to attract the investment needed for growth. And that will depend on how uncertainty around pipeline expansion is resolved. Allowing pipeline capacity to expand so that more crude can be shipped south could lead to a significant rebound in Canadian producers’ equity valuations. The industry’s breakeven costs now are on either side of $50/bbl for heavy oil delivered at Cushing, OK. As light-sweet production in the U.S. shales rises, the demand for the relatively scarce, heavier crude likely will pick up, redounding to the benefit of Canadian producers. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Operations at Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq crude oil processing facility and the Khurais oil field were largely restored by the end of September, in line with management guidance. Capacity in the Kingdom is at 11.3mm b/d, while production is running at 9.9mm b/d. Abqaiq and Khurais were attacked by drone and cruise missiles, an operation the U.S. and Saudi Arabia believe was orchestrated by Iran. On Sunday, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, speaking on CBS News’s 60 Minutes, agreed with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s characterization of the attack as an act of war by Iran, and warned, “If the world does not take a strong and firm action to deter Iran, we will see further escalations that will threaten world interests. Oil supplies will be disrupted and oil prices will jump to unimaginably high numbers that we haven't seen in our lifetimes.” In the interview with Norah O’Donnell, he followed that up with a declaration that the Kingdom prefers “a political and peaceful solution” to resolve its issues with Iran. The crown prince, striking a conciliatory tone, said President Donald Trump and the Kingdom are seeking peace, but that “the Iranians don’t want to sit down at the table.”1 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s steel output rose 9.3% y/y in August to 87.3k MT, according to the World Steel Association (WSA). This was 56% of global output, based on WSA data. Chinese output reached a record 89.1k MT in May. Precious Metals: Neutral. Precious metals' prices collapsed as the broad trade-weighed USD surged earlier this week. Platinum prices were down 5.5% from Friday's close by Tuesday, while gold and silver were down 1.3% and 2%, respectively. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Corn and soybean prices surged earlier in the week in the wake of a bullish USDA stocks report.  December corn was up 5.7%, while beans were up 4.1%.  Feature Canadian heavy oil demand is running strong in Asia, as seen in the surge of exports via the U.S. Gulf over the May-to-mid-September period. By ClipperData’s reckoning, 16mm barrels of Canadian crude were shipped over that period, more than doubling the entire volume shipped to Asia in 2018.2 Canadian demand is being boosted by the collapse of Venezuela’s oil industry, which has removed some 1.5mm b/d of heavy crude from the market since 2016. While Canadian exports into Asia markets are surging, the pick-up in this demand hints at an even greater opportunity if north-to-south pipeline capacity is expanded. Year-to-date exports of Canadian crude to the U.S. are up ~ 2.5% y/y to an average 3.5mm b/d, according to the U.S. EIA. This growth is restrained by slowly expanding export capacity.3 Canadian Oil Takeaway Constraints From 2010 to 2017, Western Canadian oil production grew by an impressive 6.5% p.a., pushing pipeline and storage infrastructure to maximum utilization (Chart of the Week). The development of supporting infrastructure failed to produce the required takeaway capacity, locking bitumen production within the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Consequently, Alberta crude oil inventories grew above normal levels and the Western Canadian Select (WCS) discount to Cushing WTI exploded, reaching -$50/bbl in 3Q18. While this incentivized crude-by-rail (CBR) shipments, prices received by Albertan producers fell below $20/bbl, a level significantly below breakeven levels required to sustain investment. Chart of the WeekHeavy Crude Output Surges ... Heavy Crude Output Surges ... Heavy Crude Output Surges ... Facing multiple delays in pipeline developments, then-Premier Rachel Notley announced in December the provincial government would impose mandatory oil production restrictions of ~ 325k b/d starting in January 2019. Moreover, her government secured contracts to lease 4,400 rail cars – ~ 120k b/d by mid-2020 – with Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific (CP) to move crude out of the WCSB. The Alberta government’s intervention rapidly distorted the market’s price mechanism. Initially, the government-mandated production curtailment had the desired impact. The transportation component of the WCS-WTI discount began to narrow, and Alberta’s crude inventory started declining (Chart 2). Chart 2... But Infrastructure Lags ... But Infrastructure Lags ... But Infrastructure Lags However, the Alberta government’s intervention rapidly distorted the market’s price mechanism. To be profitable, moving oil by rail requires a WCS-WTI discount that is somewhere between -$12/bbl to -$22/bbl on top of a quality discount, and possibly higher when additional investments in trains and crews are needed (Chart 3). In January 2019, the transportation discount overshot its equilibrium – narrowing to -$2.90/bbl below the quality component – which weakened crude-by-rail volumes and led to a build in inventories. Chart 3Provincial Government Policy Distorts Market's Heavy-Oil Pricing Dynamics Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen The Great Balancing Act To address these imbalances, the provincial government gradually started easing production curtailments (Chart 4). But this is a work in progress: Ultimately, its goal is to find the right balance between production levels and the WCS-WTI spread – i.e. the necessary price incentive for the market to move further crude by rail (CBR). The following projects still are being advanced by developers. However, no significant additional pipeline takeaway capacity is expected before 2H20 (Chart 5): Chart 4Policy Remains A Work In Progress Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Chart 5Markets Are Attempting To Redress Takeaway Deficit Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement. This pipeline is part of Enbridge Mainline system. This project will restore the original capacity of the existing Line 3 pipeline to 760k b/d from 390k b/d. The replacement runs from Hardisty, AB, to Superior, WI in the U.S. Since its initial announcement in 2014, the project has faced multiple headwinds, most recently, a delay in permits from the State of Minnesota re the impact of a possible oil spill near Lake Superior. The company continues to expect the project will be completed in 2H20. The Canadian and Wisconsin portions are already completed. TC Energy’s Keystone XL. This is the largest of the proposed projects. It will increase Canadian export capacity to the U.S. by 830k b/d. The project was first proposed in 2008, and will run from Hardisty, AB to Steele City, NE. Recently, Nebraska’s Supreme Court approved the Keystone XL route, lifting one of the last remaining – and probably the most important – legal challenges facing the pipeline construction. This is a positive development for Canadian oil producers. Nonetheless, the project is still facing a federal lawsuit in Montana filed by environmental groups blocking President Trump’s new permit, which gave the project a green light. A hearing is scheduled on October 9, this is a crucial win for TC Energy.4 Reaching a Final Investment Decision (FID) before year-end makes a completion by end-2022 possible. Federally-owned Trans Mountain expansion. The initial application was filed in 2013 and is projected to add 590k b/d of capacity from Edmonton, AB, to Burnaby, B.C. The pipeline was bought for $4.5 billion last year by the Federal government. Earlier this month, a Federal Court of Appeals judge ruled out six of the 12 legal challenges to the expansion, dismissing claims centered on environmental issues. Construction will continue, the government expects the expansion will be operational by mid-2022. Capacity expansion at existing pipelines. We expect some marginal capacity increases at existing pipeline to take place between 3Q19 and 3Q20. Enbridge communicated it could add up to 450k b/d without building new pipelines by 2022. At the moment, we believe ~150k b/d will be gradually added before the end of next year. Additionally, Enbridge mentioned it could boost capacity on its Express line by ~60k b/d before the end of 2020. Lastly, Plains Midstream Canada announced additional capacity on its Rangeland line in both the North and South directions.5 This will assist Canadian producers awaiting for the 2H20 Line 3 replacement. Delays in bringing new takeaway capacity online forced the newly formed Conservative provincial government led by Jason Kenney, which came to power in April 2019, to extend the curtailment program until December 2020. We expect this balancing act to continue over the next 12 months.6 Short- and Medium-term outlook We expect CRB needs to surpass 450k b/d to balance the market In our March 7, 2019 report, we argued the transportation component of the WCS-WTI spread needed to increase by ~ $10/bbl to support incremental crude-by-rail volumes. From March to July, the transportation discount rose by only $4.80/bbl to ~$12/bbl – the floor of our estimated rail price range – and collapsed soon after that. This failed to catalyze sufficient rail volumes to clear the market overhang. Preliminary estimates of CBR volumes based on CN and CP data shows it was largely flat in August and September (Chart 6). Chart 6Crude-By-Rail Shipments Stall Crude-By-Rail Shipments Stall Crude-By-Rail Shipments Stall As the government continues to relax production curtailments – reaching 100k b/d in October – we continue to believe the transportation discount needs to rise from current levels. Recent movements in the discount, averaging $10.3/bbl since the beginning of the month, support our view, and we expect this to continue until it reaches ~$15/bbl. We expect CRB needs to surpass 450k b/d to balance the market until the Line 3 replacement is completed, somewhere in 2H20 (Chart 7). We also expect the quality discount for WCS crude oil to start rising as IMO 2020 approaches. YTD the quality discount has remained relatively narrow, due to the global shortage of heavy-sour crude supply (Chart 8).7 Starting in January 2020, demand for heavy crude will moderate as shippers adapt to the new marine-fuel regulation, offsetting some of the effect of the limited supply. We project this will add $5/bbl to the WCS-WTI spread. Chart 7Additional CBR Capacity Required Additional CBR Capacity Required Additional CBR Capacity Required Chart 8Heavy-Crude Market Remains Tight Heavy-Crude Market Remains Tight Heavy-Crude Market Remains Tight Combined, the quality and transportation discount should push the WCS-WTI spread toward -$20/bbl over the next 6 months, which will, we believe, hurt Canadian producers’ cash flows. We expect WCSB supply will remain flat y/y in 2019. Next year, output is expected to grow 4%, and in 2021 by another 1.2% y/y. Long-term Production Outlook Investment in the Canadian oil sector never truly recovered from the 2014 global oil price collapse, despite the pickup in oil prices (Chart 9). Canada’s total capex ex-oil and -gas has been increasing since 2016, pushing down the share of capex from oil and gas extraction to 14% from 27% in 2014 (Chart 10). This is showing up in our longer-term production forecast: We expect WCSB production will average 5.1mm b/d in 2022 vs. 5.3mm b/d being forecast by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). The finite pool of funding available to the Canadian oil and gas sector is competing with U.S. shale development. A favorable regulatory and tax environment, shorter investment cycles and faster initial returns attract most of the funds allocated to oil and gas development to the U.S. at the expense of Canada (Chart 11).8 Most recently, the divergence in investment flows centers on market access Chart 9Canadian Oil Investment Lags Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Chart 10Canada's Oil & Gas Sector Losing Weight Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Chart 11U.S. Perceived As Favorable Investment Alternative Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Foreign companies are exiting the Canadian oil patch, divesting more than $30 billion since 2017.9 The government’s intervention to curtail production led firms to postpone new projects in Alberta. The rig count in Canada remains weak and shows no sign of picking up (Chart 12).10 Nonetheless, the sector should offer an opportunity for investors in the coming years. Once uncertainty around pipeline completion is resolved, we believe there could be a significant rebound in Canadian producers’ equity performance (Chart 13). Technology improvement has reduced oil-sands’ breakeven costs to somewhere between $45/bbl-$55/bbl for oil delivered at Cushing.11 Moreover, the low decline rates of oil-sands supply makes it a more stable and predictable source of supply compared to shale production. Chart 12Capex Reductions Reduce Rig Counts Capex Reductions Reduce Rig Counts Capex Reductions Reduce Rig Counts Chart 13Energy Stock Prices Could Rebound Energy Stock Prices Could Rebound Energy Stock Prices Could Rebound The upcoming new pipeline capacity allowing more Canadian heavy crude oil to be delivered to the complex U.S. Gulf Coast refineries will revive sentiment towards Canadian oil sand projects. Canada is judiciously positioned to be the clear winner of the market-share war fought by heavy oil-producing countries to secure capacity at U.S. Gulf refineries. Canadian oil is already dominating PADD 2 imports, and has been increasing its share of PADD 3 imports (Chart 14). The above-mentioned shortage of heavy crude oil presents an excellent opportunity for Canada to capture additional space at PADD 3 refineries. The collapse of Venezuela and the recent attacks on critical oil infrastructure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) highlight the attractiveness of Canadian heavy crude to U.S. refiners. Chart 14Strong U.S. Demand For Canada's Oil Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Impact Of The Upcoming Canadian Federal Election Canada is gearing up for a federal election on October 21. The consensus holds that the Liberal Party of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will remain in power with a minority government, or possibly in a coalition with the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) and/or the Green Party. Our Geopolitical Strategists think the chances of Trudeau maintaining a single-party majority are much higher than consensus (which is about 25%), given that he is running on the back of a fairly strong economy, a renegotiated trade deal with the United States, and a stable socio-political environment (Chart 15). Chart 15Canadian Political Risk Is Muted And Should Stay That Way Canadian Political Risk Is Muted And Should Stay That Way Canadian Political Risk Is Muted And Should Stay That Way While Trudeau’s popularity has waned, his approval rating still puts him in the higher range of Canadian prime ministers and he does not face a charismatic challenger. He has a firm base in both of the traditional bastions of political power, Ontario and Quebec, and seat projections show the Liberals leading in both provinces. The small parties are not polling well; the NDP is faring poorly in Quebec and unlikely to steal many Liberal votes. There could still be surprises but it is telling that the Liberals remain in the lead despite the scandals and last minute controversies threatening them. The Canadian election should produce a status quo result that does not change the energy sector outlook. For the energy sector, the most positive outcome is a Conservative majority; otherwise a renewed Liberal majority is the status quo and hence least negative outcome. Trudeau is criticized by the Conservatives and in Alberta for compromising Canada’s energy interests, yet his support of the Trans-Mountain pipeline has him at odds with the left-wing parties. The worst scenario for the energy sector is if Trudeau is forced to rely on these parties in parliament – and this is a real possibility though not our base case. Bottom Line: The Canadian election should produce a status quo result that does not change the energy sector outlook – however, it holds a non-trivial risk of forcing the Liberals into a coalition with left-wing parties whose stances are market-negative for the energy industry. If this outcome is avoided, expect the market to celebrate in the short term, although the long-term effects of a second Trudeau term are not positive on the energy front.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      Please see Mohammad bin Salman denies ordering Khashoggi murder, but says he takes responsibility for it, which aired Sunday September 29, 2019, on CBS News. In a related development last week, Saudi Arabia announced a limited ceasefire with the Iranian-backed Houthi Movement in Yemen, with which it has been engaged in a war since 2015; please see Saudi Arabia agrees to limited ceasefire in Yemen, published by Arabian Business September 28, 2019. 2      Please see Canada's heavy oil exports to Asia from U.S. surge: data, traders published September 27, 2019, by reuters.com. 3      Enbridge Inc.’s 100k b/d pipeline expansion scheduled to be operational by December will marginally increase Canadian shipments south Enbridge us the dominant oil pipeline operator in western Canada. It is attempting to get shippers to sign long-term contracts – vs. existing monthly contracts – during its current auction for pipeline space. Its regulator has “has concerns regarding the fairness of Enbridge’s open season process and the perception of abuse of Enbridge’s market power.” Please see Canada regulator orders Enbridge to halt pipeline overhaul plan due to 'perception of abuse' published by reuters.com September 27, 2019. 4      Please see Court affirms alternative Keystone XL oil pipeline route through Nebraska, published August 23, 2019, by reuters.com. 5      Please see “Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs and Developments Projects (2019-2039),” published by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), July 2019. 6      The new government made additional small changes to the previous policy. For instance, it will give producers 2 months’ notice of any changes to the limits, increased the base limit to 20k b/d from 10k b/d and allows the energy minister to use discretion to set production limits after M&A. Please see the oil production limit section of the government of Alberta’s website. 7           As discussed in our March 2019 report, our expectation of high compliance to the output cuts agreed by OPEC 2.0 countries, which primarily export heavy-sour crudes; larger-than-expected Venezuelan output declines in heavy-sour output; and sanctions on Iranian oil exports volume limits the supply of heavy crude available to consumers. 8              In June 2019, the Canadian government passed Bill C-69, called “The modernization of the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.” This law changes the federal environmental assessment process. Critics argued this would repel energy investors and limit pipeline projects approval. Additionally, Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-48 – which aims to ban large oil tankers from waters off the north of B.C.’s coast. This law makes it harder for Alberta to ship its oil via northern B.C. export facilities. Companies are now testing shipment of semi-solid bitumen rather than in liquid form to avoid complying with the new legislation. Please see Oilsands crude sails from B.C., sidestepping federal ban, published by the Edmonton Journal on September 26, 2019. 9           Please see The $30-billion exodus: Foreign oil firms keep bailing on Canada's energy sector published by the Financial Post on August 22, 2019. 10             Rig count does not fully capture Canadian oil production. Bitumen production from mining represent ~30% of total production. However, we believe rig count remains a good proxy of capex in the sector. 11             Please see “Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs and Developments Projects (2019-2039),” published by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), July 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen Canadian Crude Oil Differentials Likely Widen

Highlights European and global growth will rebound in the fourth quarter but the rebound will lack longevity. Bonds: Expect bond yields to edge modestly higher, especially for those yields that are deeply in negative territory. Underweight German bunds in a European or global bond portfolio. Currencies: Zero/negative yielding currencies have the most to gain, and our preference remains the yen. Equities: a tug of war between growth and valuation will leave the broad equity market index in a sideways channel. But with the higher yield, prefer equities over bonds. Equity sectors: Non-China cyclical plays will outperform China plays. Continue to overweight banks versus resources and/or industrials. Equity regions: Continue to overweight the Eurostoxx 50 versus the Shanghai Composite and/or the Nikkei 225. Feature Comfort and discomfort are not absolute, they are relative. Put your hand in cold water, and whether it feels comfortable or uncomfortable depends on where your hand has come from. If your hand has come from room temperature, the cold water will feel uncomfortable. But if your hand has come from an ice bucket, the cold water will feel like bliss! The same principle applies to how we, and the financial markets, perceive short-term economic growth. After a strong expansion, a pedestrian growth rate of 1 percent feels uncomfortable. But after an economic contraction, 1 percent growth feels very pleasant. This leads to two important points: In the short term, the market is less concerned about the rate of growth per se, it is more concerned about whether the rate of growth is accelerating or decelerating. When it comes to the short term drivers of growth – bond yields, credit, and the oil price – we must focus not on their changes, we must focus on their impulses, meaning the changes in their changes. This is because it is the impulses of bond yields, credit, and the oil price that drive the accelerations and decelerations of economic growth, often with a useful lead time of a few months. The Chart of the Week combined with Chart I-1-Chart I-4 should leave you in no doubt. In the euro area, United States, and China, the domestic bond yield 6-month impulses have led their domestic 6-month credit impulses with near-perfect precision. Chart of the WeekCredit Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, Then Fade Credit Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, Then Fade Credit Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, Then Fade Chart I-2The Euro Area Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse The Euro Area Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse The Euro Area Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse Chart I-3The U.S. Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse The U.S. Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse The U.S. Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse Chart I-4The China Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse The China Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse The China Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse Based on this near-perfect precision, the credit impulses in the euro area and the U.S. should briefly rebound in the fourth quarter. But expect much less of a rebound, if any, in China. While bond yields have collapsed in the euro area and the U.S., resulting in tailwind credit impulses, they have moved much less in China. Indeed, China’s bond yield 6-month impulse has been moving deeper into headwind territory in the past few months (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Bond Yield Impulses Were Tailwinds In The Euro Area And U.S., But Not In China Bond Yield Impulses Were Tailwinds In The Euro Area And U.S., But Not In China Bond Yield Impulses Were Tailwinds In The Euro Area And U.S., But Not In China It follows that a credit growth rebound in the fourth quarter will be sourced in Europe and the U.S. rather than in China. From a tactical perspective, this will favour non-China cyclical plays over China plays. But moving into the early part of 2020, expect the credit impulses to fade across all the major economies – unless bond yields now fall very sharply everywhere. Investing On Impulse Many people still find it confusing that it is the impulses – and not the changes – of bond yields, credit, and the oil price that drive the accelerations and decelerations of economic growth. To resolve this confusion, let’s clarify the point. The credit impulses in the euro area and the U.S. should briefly rebound in the fourth quarter.  A bond yield decline will trigger new borrowing. For example, a given decline in the U.S. bond yield, say 0.5 percent, will trigger a given increase in the number of mortgage applications (Chart I-6). New borrowing will add to demand, meaning it will generate growth. But in the following period, a further bond yield decline of 0.5 percent will generate the same further new borrowing and growth rate. The crucial point is that, if the decline in the bond yield is the same, growth will not accelerate. Chart I-6A Given Decline In The Bond Yield Triggers A Given Increase In New Borrowing A Given Decline In The Bond Yield Triggers A Given Increase In New Borrowing A Given Decline In The Bond Yield Triggers A Given Increase In New Borrowing Growth will accelerate only if the first 0.5 percent bond yield decline is followed by a bigger, say 0.6 percent, decline – meaning a tailwind impulse. Conversely and counterintuitively, growth will decelerate if the first 0.5 percent decline is followed by a smaller, say 0.4 percent, decline – meaning a headwind impulse. Don’t Blame Autos For A German Recession Chart I-7German Car Production Rebounded In The Third Quarter German Car Production Rebounded In The Third Quarter German Car Production Rebounded In The Third Quarter If the German economy contracts in the third quarter and thereby enters a technical recession, the knee-jerk response will be to blame the troubles in the auto industry. But the evidence does not support this story. German new car production rebounded in the third quarter (Chart I-7). Begging the question: if not autos, what is the true culprit for the deceleration? The likely answer is that Germany recently suffered a severe headwind from the oil price impulse. Germany has one of the world’s highest volumes of road traffic per unit of GDP, second only to the U.S. (Table I-1). A possible explanation for Germany’s high traffic intensity is that, just like the U.S., Germany is a decentralised economy with multiple ‘hubs and spokes’ requiring a lot of criss-crossing of traffic. But unlike the U.S., German transport is highly dependent on oil imports, which tend to be non-substitutable and highly inelastic to price. As the value of German oil imports rise in lockstep with the oil price, Germany’s net exports decline, weighing on growth. Table I-1Germany Has A Very High Road Traffic Intensity Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, But Fade In 2020 Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, But Fade In 2020   The upshot is that the oil price impulse has a major bearing on Germany’s short term growth accelerations and decelerations. The six month period ending around June 2019 constituted a severe headwind impulse. This is because a 30 percent increase in the oil price in that period followed a 40 percent decline in the previous six month period, equating to a headwind impulse of 70 percent.1  Germany has one of the world’s highest volumes of road traffic per unit of GDP. Allowing for typical lags of a few months, this severe headwind impulse was a major contributor to Germany’s recent deceleration. Oscillations in the oil price’s 6-month impulse have explained the oscillations in Germany’s 6-month economic growth with a spooky accuracy (Chart I-8). The good news is that the oil price’s severe headwind impulse has eased – allowing a rebound in German economic growth during the fourth quarter. Chart I-8The Oil Price Impulse Explains Oscillations In German Growth The Oil Price Impulse Explains Oscillations In German Growth The Oil Price Impulse Explains Oscillations In German Growth Nevertheless, a putative rebound could be nullified by a wildcard: the ‘geopolitical risk impulse’. To be clear this is not an impulse in the technical sense, but it is a similar concept: are the number of potential tail-events increasing or decreasing? For the fourth quarter, our subjective answer is they are decreasing. In Europe, the formation of a new coalition government in Italy has removed Italian politics as a possible tail-event for the time being. Meanwhile, we assume that the Benn-Burt law in the U.K. has been drafted well enough to eliminate a potential no-deal Brexit on October 31. Elsewhere, the U.S/China trade war and Middle East tensions are most likely to be in stasis through the fourth quarter.  How To Position For The Fourth Quarter After a disappointing third quarter for global and European growth, we expect a rebound in the fourth quarter. But at the moment, we do not have any conviction that the rebound’s momentum will take it deeply into 2020. Position for the fourth quarter as follows:  Expect a rebound in the fourth quarter. Bonds: Expect bond yields to edge modestly higher, especially for those yields that are deeply in negative territory. Underweight German bunds in a European or global bond portfolio. Currencies: Zero/negative yielding currencies have the most to gain, and our preference remains the yen. With a Brexit denouement, the pound could be the biggest mover and our inkling is to the upside. But we await more clarity before pulling the trigger. Equities: a tug of war between growth and valuation will leave the broad equity market index in the sideways range in which it has existed over the past two years (Chart I-9). But with a higher yield than bonds, equities are the preferred asset-class in the ugly contest. Equity sectors: Non-China cyclical plays will outperform China plays. Continue to overweight banks versus resources and/or industrials. Equity regions: Continue to overweight the Eurostoxx 50 versus the Shanghai Composite and/or the Nikkei 225 (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Global Equities Have Gone Nowhere For Two Years Global Equities Have Gone Nowhere For Two Years Global Equities Have Gone Nowhere For Two Years Chart I-10Stay Overweight Europe ##br##Versus China Stay Overweight Europe Versus China Stay Overweight Europe Versus China   Fractal Trading System* The recent surge in the nickel price is due to scares about supply disruption, specifically an Indonesian export ban. However, the extent of the rally appears technically stretched. We would express this as a pair-trade versus gold: long gold / short nickel. Chart I-11Nickel VS. Gold Nickel VS. Gold Nickel VS. Gold Set a profit target of 11 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The 6-month steps in the WTI crude oil price were $74.15, $45.21, and $58.24. The first change equated to a 40 percent decrease and the second change equated to a 30 percent increase. So the 6-month impulse was 70 percent. Fractal Trading Model 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 Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations