Germany

Highlights In the second half of 2019, economic growth will stop accelerating… …but an underpinning of equity valuations will limit sell-off magnitudes to around 10 percent or so, rather than deeper sustained plunges. The equity market will end up in a sideways channel… …but defensives, such as healthcare, will outperform economically-sensitive sectors. Overweight Euro Stoxx 50 versus Shanghai Composite. Overweight the JPY. Bitcoin is due another technical correction. Feature The 2019 playbook for economies and markets is playing out exactly as we predicted. In our first report of this year we wrote that 2019 would be the economic and investment opposite of 2018. Opposite to 2018 because the first half of 2019 would see inflation fade, and growth accelerate. And opposite to 2018 because the second half of 2019 would see inflation stop fading, and growth stop accelerating (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekIn The First Half Of 2019, Inflation Faded, Growth Accelerated In The First Half Of 2019, Inflation Faded, Growth Accelerated In The First Half Of 2019, Inflation Faded, Growth Accelerated Inflation Faded, Growth Accelerated Back in early January, we wrote: “Inflation is set to disappoint as the recent near-halving of the crude oil price feeds into both headline and core consumer price indexes. With central banks now promising even greater ‘dependence on the incoming data’, this unfolding dynamic will force them to temper any hawkish intentions and rhetoric, limiting the extent of upside in bond yields.” This was a controversial view at the time. Yet within a month of writing, the Federal Reserve had stopped hiking interest rates, while the ECB and other major central banks had also pivoted to more dovish. We also wrote: “Germany should benefit from another support to growth. Last year, the auto sector – a major engine of the German economy – spluttered as it absorbed the new WLTP emissions testing standard. Through the middle of 2018 German motor vehicle exports suffered a €20 billion hit which shaved 0.6 percent from Germany’s €3.4 trillion economy (Chart I-2). Now, if auto exports stabilize, this drag will disappear. And if auto exports recover to the pre-WLTP level after this one-off and temporary shock, Germany will receive a 0.6% mirror-image boost to growth.” 1 2019 is the economic and investment opposite of 2018. We now know that the German economy accelerated to a close-to-trend 1.7% clip in the second quarter, up from a -0.8 percent rate of contraction in the third quarter of 2018 (Chart I-3). This is not just due to relief in the auto sector. Growth in other European economies has also rebounded, so the acceleration in growth has a broader foundation, and is now beyond doubt. Given the openness of the European economy, it is also inconceivable that this growth pick-up does not reflect a more generalized acceleration in global activity.2 Chart I-2The WTLP Drag On German Auto Exports Is Over The WTLP Drag On German Auto Exports Is Over The WTLP Drag On German Auto Exports Is Over Chart I-3German GDP Growth Accelerated To A 1.7 Percent Clip German GDP Growth Accelerated To A 1.7 Percent Clip German GDP Growth Accelerated To A 1.7 Percent Clip To repeat, the 2019 playbook for economies and financial markets is playing out exactly as expected; in the first half of the year, inflation faded while growth accelerated. The question is: what happens next? Growth Will Struggle To Accelerate Further Clients ask us an important theoretical question: what is the most important driver for the economy and financial markets; is it the change in the bond yield (or interest rate) or is it the level of the bond yield? The answer is that both the change and the level of the bond yield are important in their different ways. The German economy accelerated to a close-to-trend 1.7% clip in the second quarter. When it comes to accelerations and decelerations in credit creation, it is the change in the bond yield that is the most important. Remember, GDP is a flow statistic, which means that GDP growth is a change of flow statistic receiving contributions from the change of flow of credit. As changes in the flow of credit result from the change in the bond yield – all else being equal – it is the change in the bond yield that drives GDP growth. If all of this sounds somewhat confusing, then Chart I-4 should make the point crystal clear. Chart I-4The Change In The Bond Yield Drives GDP Growth The Change In The Bond Yield Drives GDP Growth The Change In The Bond Yield Drives GDP Growth Since last November, high-quality 10-year bond yields have plunged 70 bps, and this collapse in yields helped to provide a strong impulse to growth in the first half of 2019. To receive the same impulse again in the second half, bond yields would have to plunge another 70 bps. But with the German 10-year bund yield already at -0.1 percent, the same rate of decline seems highly unlikely, if not mathematically impossible. The upshot is that the growth impulse from declining bond yields can only fade in the second half of this year.   However, when it comes to valuations and solvencies in the financial markets, it is the level of the bond yield that is the most important. Essentially, at a tipping point, higher bond yields can suddenly and viciously undermine the valuation support of equities, triggering a plunge in the stock market and other risk-assets which threatens a disinflationary impulse on the economy. The growth impulse from declining bond yields can only fade in the second half of this year. How can we sense this tipping point? It broadly equates to when the sum of the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB is at 4 percent, the ‘rule of 4’ (Chart I-5). Conversely, when the sum is below 3 percent, the ‘rule of 3’, – as it is now – the seemingly rich valuation of equities versus bonds is broadly justified (Chart I-6).3 Chart I-5When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent Chart I-6The Rule Of 4, And The Rule Of 3 The Rule Of 4, And The Rule Of 3 The Rule Of 4, And The Rule Of 3 The upshot is that in the second half of 2019, economic growth will stop accelerating, but the support to equity valuations will limit sell-off magnitudes to around 10 percent or so, rather than deeper sustained plunges (Chart I-7). In aggregate, the equity market will end up in a sideways channel, but defensives, such as healthcare, will outperform economically-sensitive sectors. Chart I-7The Low Expected Return On Equities Is Justified When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low The Low Expected Return On Equities Is Justified When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low The Low Expected Return On Equities Is Justified When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low How Did We Do? In our first report of the year, we also made (or reiterated) five investment recommendations. Today, we will review whether they worked or not, and what to do with them now. 1. Own a 25:75 combination of European banks relative to market, plus U.S. T-bonds. Chart I-8Banks Didn’t Outperform, But Bonds Did! Banks Didn't Outperform, But Bonds Did! Banks Didn't Outperform, But Bonds Did! Did it work? Yes. Although European banks underperformed the market, this was more than offset by the huge rally in T-bonds that resulted from the Fed going on hold (Chart I-8). Hence, the position is up 1 percent this year and 3.5 percent since its inception last November with the added advantage of negligible volatility. What to do now. Take profits. 2. Overweight EM versus DM. Did it work? No. EM has underperformed DM this year, though the position is broadly flat since its inception in November. What to do now. Close this position and switch into overweight Euro Stoxx 50 versus Shanghai Composite. 3. Overweight European versus U.S. equities. Did it work? The position is flat this year, though modestly up since its inception in November. What to do now. Maintain the position for a little while longer, as an expected short-term underperformance of the tech sector should benefit the tech-lite European equity market.  4. Overweight Italian assets versus European assets. Did it work? The position is broadly flat this year for both Italian equities and bonds relative to their European benchmarks. What to do now. Close any cyclical exposure to Italy, but maintain a structural exposure to Italian BTPs either in absolute or relative terms. 5. Overweight the JPY. Chart I-9In Japan And Europe, The Expected Interest Rate Cannot Go Much Lower In Japan And Europe, The Expected Interest Rate Cannot Go Much Lower In Japan And Europe, The Expected Interest Rate Cannot Go Much Lower Did it work? Yes. The broad trade-weighted JPY has outperformed this year, and especially so the JPY/EUR cross.   What to do now. Maintain the position. When the expected interest rate is at its lower bound, then it is difficult for the central bank to hurt its currency. In technical terms, the currency possesses a highly attractive payoff profile called positive skew (Chart I-9). Of course, there are plenty of currencies whose interest rates are near the technical lower bound, but we like the JPY because it has less political risk than the others. So for the moment, remain overweight the JPY.     Fractal Trading System*  This week we note that after a 100 percent rally in a near straight line, bitcoin’s 65-day fractal dimension is at the lower bound that has reliably signaled previous technical corrections. On that basis, this week’s recommended trade is short bitcoin, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 27 percent. Also, we are very pleased to report that short tech versus healthcare quickly achieved its 6.5 percent profit target and is now closed. This leaves four open positions. 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. Chart I-10 Bitcoin Bitcoin 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 German auto net exports and GDP are quoted at annualized rates. The Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicle test Procedure (WLTP) is a new standard for auto emissions that took effect on September 1 2018. 2 Quarter-on-quarter real GDP growth at annualized rates. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “The Rule of 4 Becomes the Rule of 3” dated March 21, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation 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    

Highlights The short-term trade is to overweight the DAX or Euro Stoxx 50… …versus German bunds or the S&P 500. These trades have outperformed since late last year and can continue to do so for a while longer. But moving into the second half of the year, it will be time to take profits in these growth-sensitive trades. The long-term position is to own German real estate equities. The hedged position is long German real estate equities, short Swedish real estate equities. Feature Let’s begin with a trivia question. What do Germany, Finland, and Ireland have in common, that the other EU28 countries do not have? Chart of the WeekEuro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P500 And EM Vs. DM Have Followed Near Carbon Copy Profiles Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P500 And EM Vs. DM Have Followed Near Carbon Copy Profiles Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P500 And EM Vs. DM Have Followed Near Carbon Copy Profiles The answer: Germany, Finland, and Ireland are the only three European countries that have a trade surplus with China.1 Germany Catches A Cold When China Sneezes… Chart 2Slowdown In Germany And Finland, No Slowdown In France And Spain U.S. GDP Growth Slowed By 1.5 Percent Slowdown In Germany And Finland, No Slowdown In France And Spain U.S. GDP Growth Slowed By 1.5 Percent Slowdown In Germany And Finland, No Slowdown In France And Spain Germany and Finland are the European economies most exposed to China, with 17 percent and 14 percent respectively of their extra-EU28 exports heading to the dominant emerging economy (for Ireland it is only 7 percent). This equates to almost 3 percent of GDP for Germany and around 1.5 percent for Finland. Hence, when China sneezes – as it did last year – Germany and Finland are the European economies most likely to catch a cold. It is not a coincidence that Germany and Finland suffered near identical short-term slowdowns in 2018 with the pain focussed in the third quarter. By contrast, the European economies with much less exposure to China – say, France and Spain – suffered no discernible slowdown (Chart I-2). In fact, Spain seemed completely unaffected, growing at a steady and robust 2 percent clip throughout 2018! The corollary is that when China rebounds – as it has recently – Germany and Finland are the European countries most likely to benefit. Since early January, Germany’s DAX has outperformed the 10-year German bund by 15 percent. For the past three months, the DAX has also outperformed the S&P 500, albeit modestly. The trends can continue for a while, but be warned: these short-term cyclical moves are likely to reverse later in the year, perhaps viciously. More about this later. …But Germany’s Structural Growth Model Has Changed Germany’s gross exports of €1.6 trillion equate to almost half of its €3.4 trillion economy. Inevitably, this makes the German economy highly vulnerable to down-oscillations in global growth as, for example, when China sneezes. But here’s the paradox: while the level of German exports is very high, it has been flat-lining at this elevated level since 2012 (Chart I-3). Hence, Germany is no longer deriving any structural growth from its export sector. All of Germany’s post-2012 structural growth has come from domestic demand. Germany’s structural growth model has changed. Through 1999-2007, Germany’s net export contribution accounted for the vast majority of its structural growth; and in 2008, net exports accounted for two-thirds of Germany’s severe economic contraction. But remarkably, since 2012, net exports have made no contribution to Germany’s structural growth (Chart I-4). Meaning that all of Germany’s post-2012 structural growth has come from domestic demand. Chart 3The Level Of German Exports Is High But Flat-Lining The Level Of German Exports Is High But Flat-Lining The Level Of German Exports Is High But Flat-Lining Chart 4Since 2012, Net Exports Have Made No Contribution To Germany's Structural Growth Since 2012, Net Exports Have Made No Contribution To Germanys Structural Growth Since 2012, Net Exports Have Made No Contribution To Germanys Structural Growth One manifestation of this is the post-2012 recovery in Germany’s real estate market. When Germany was deriving most of its growth from external demand, the domestic real estate market withered. In recent years, when growth has come from domestic demand, Germany’s real estate market has started to flourish (Chart I-5). Chart 5German Real Estate Prices Still Need To Catch Up German Real Estate Prices Still Need To Catch Up German Real Estate Prices Still Need To Catch Up Chart 6German Real Estate Book Values Have Trebled German Real Estate Book Values Have Trebled German Real Estate Book Values Have Trebled With Germany’s average house price, in real terms, at the same level as it was in 1995, there is still considerable upside outside the major cities such as Berlin, Frankfurt, and Munich. Especially so, because one of the main enemies of the real estate market – substantially higher bond yields – will be absent for some time.2 The strong performance of German real estate equities – a near trebling since 2012 – is just tracking the strong performance of their book values (Chart I-6), which itself is a leveraged function of real estate prices. On the basis that the real estate sector is benefiting from a structural tailwind, the sector is a long-term hold, but for those who want to hedge their exposure, the recommendation is: long German real estate equities, short Swedish real estate equities. What Is Driving Euro Stoxx Outperformance? In response to this week’s title question, some people will ask: has Euro Stoxx 50 outperformance even started? The answer is a clear yes. Relative to both global equities and the S&P 500, the Euro Stoxx 50 has been in a well-established – though modest – uptrend since last September. Interestingly, emerging markets (EM) versus developed markets (DM) has followed a near carbon copy profile, albeit the outperformance was front-end loaded (Chart of the Week and Chart I-7). Euro Stoxx 50 has been gently outperforming. Can this continue? Recent history is not very encouraging. Since the Global Financial Crisis, no bout of Euro Stoxx 50 outperformance has lasted more than a year (Chart I-8). If this pattern continues to hold, it implies that the current bout of Euro Stoxx 50 outperformance will be exhausted within another four months. Chart 7Euro Stoxx 50 Has Been Gently Outperforming Euro Stoxx 50 Has Been Gently Outperforming Euro Stoxx 50 Has Been Gently Outperforming Chart 8Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P500 ##br##Follows… Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P500 Follows Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P500 Follows   Chart 9…Euro Area Banks Vs. U.S. Tech Euro Area Banks Vs. U.S. Tech Euro Area Banks Vs. U.S. Tech Could it be different this time? We think not. Euro Stoxx 50 performance relative to the S&P 500 lines up almost perfectly with the relative performance of euro area banks versus U.S. tech (Chart I-9). Given that this defines the sector skew ‘fingerprint’ of the relative position, this defining relationship is fundamental. Meaning that for the Euro Stoxx 50 to outperform the S&P 500 on a sustained basis, euro area banks have to outperform U.S. tech. Likewise, EM versus DM lines up almost perfectly with the relative performance of global resources versus global healthcare (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Again, this is not surprising as this just defines the sector skew fingerprint of EM versus DM. Admittedly, in this case the causality could sometimes run from the EM economy to the sector performance – given China’s role in driving resource demand – rather than from sector relative performance to EM versus DM. Nevertheless, for EM to outperform DM, resources have to outperform healthcare. EM versus DM lines up almost perfectly with the relative performance of global resources versus global healthcare. Since last autumn, Euro Stoxx 50 versus S&P 500 and EM versus DM have followed near carbon copy profiles because growth-sensitive financials and resources have outperformed less growth-sensitive technology and healthcare. Chart 10EM Vs. DM Follows… 10. EM Vs. DM Follows 10. EM Vs. DM Follows Chart 11…Basic Resources Vs. Healthcare Basic Resources Vs. Healthcare Basic Resources Vs. Healthcare From Sweet Spot To Weak Spot Nevertheless, there is a puzzle: why have growth-sensitive sectors, the DAX, Euro Stoxx 50, and EM outperformed since late last year when the high-profile hard economic data – such as GDP growth and CPI inflation – have been unambiguously weak? High-profile hard data are a record of what happened in the past. The simple answer is that these high-profile hard data are a record of what happened in the past, sometimes the distant past. Yet they matter because central banks’ increasingly ‘data dependent’ reaction functions have become slaves to this backward-looking data. Here’s the paradox: the ‘sweet spot’ for growth-sensitive sectors and markets is when the high-profile backward-looking data – GDP and inflation – are actually weak, while real-time measures of growth – such as short-term credit impulses – are strengthening. This creates a win-win for markets because the dovish pivot by data-dependent central banks lifts asset valuations and the acceleration in real-time growth lifts profit expectations. Sound familiar? It describes the situation since last autumn, and explains why the DAX, Euro Stoxx 50, and EM have outperformed. Now comes the unfortunate corollary: the ‘weak spot’ for growth-sensitive sectors and markets is when the high-profile backward-looking data are strong, while real-time measures of growth – such as short-term credit impulses – are weakening. This is a lose-lose for markets because the hawkish pivot by central banks weighs on asset valuations and the deceleration in real-time growth depresses profit expectations. Almost certainly, this will be the situation later in the year as the high-profile hard data starts to perk up – removing some of the central bank support for valuations – just as short-term credit impulses inevitably roll over – weighing on profit growth expectations. To sum up, growth-sensitive sectors, the DAX, and Euro Stoxx 50 have outperformed since late last year, especially versus bonds and cash – in line with our house view. These trends can continue for a while longer. But moving into the second half of the year, these growth-sensitive positions will transition from sweet spot to weak spot, and it will be time to take profits. As ever, we will tell you when. Stay tuned.   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System* This week, we note that that the 65-day fractal dimension for technology versus healthcare is at an all-time low – implying that the recent strong outperformance is highly vulnerable to a technical reversal. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short technology versus healthcare with a profit target of 6.5 percent and a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long aluminium versus tin achieved its 6.5 percent profit target at which it was closed. This leaves five open positions. 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. Chart I-10 Short Tech Versus Healthcare Short Tech Versus Healthcare 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. Footnotes 1 Based on the EU28 net exports of goods to China in 2018 by Member State. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Monetarists, Keynesians, And Modern Monetary Theory’ April 11 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation 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  

Highlights So what? Quantifying geopolitical risk just got easier. Why?   In this report we introduce 10 proprietary, market-based indicators of country-level political and geopolitical risk. Featured countries include France, U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and Brazil. Other countries, and refinements to these beta-version indicators, will come in due time. We remain committed to qualitative, constraint-based analysis. Our GeoRisk Indicators will help us determine how the market is pricing key risks, so we can decide whether they are understated or overstated. Feature For the past three months we have been tracking a “Witches’ Brew” of political risks that threaten the late-cycle bull market. Some of these risks have abated for the time being: the Fed is on pause, China’s stimulus has surprised to the upside, and Brexit has been delayed. Other risks we have flagged, however, are heating up: Iran And Oil Market Volatility: Surprisingly the Trump administration has chosen not to extend oil sanction waivers on Iran from May 2, putting 1.3 million barrels per day of oil on schedule to be removed from international markets by an unspecified time.  It remains to be seen how rapidly and resolutely the administration will enforce the sanctions on specific allies and partners (Japan, India, Turkey) as well as rivals (China, others). Because the decision coincides with rising production risks from renewed fighting in Libya and regime failure in Venezuela, we expect President Trump to phase in the new enforcement over a period of months, particularly on China and India. But official rhetoric is draconian. Hence the potential for full and immediate enforcement is greater than we thought. In the short term, individual political leaders, and very powerful nations like the United States, can ignore material economic and political constraints. Since the Trump administration’s decision exemplifies this point, geopolitical tail risks will get fatter this year and next. Global oil price volatility and equity market volatility will increase with sanction enforcement actions and retaliation. We would think that Trump’s odds of reelection will marginally suffer, though for now still above 50%, as any full-fledged confrontation with Iran will raise the chances of an oil price-induced recession. U.S.-EU Trade War: Neither the Trump administration nor the U.S. has a compelling interest in imposing Section 232 tariffs on imports of autos and auto parts. Nevertheless the risk of some tariffs remains high – we put it at 35% – because President Trump is legally unconstrained. The decision is technically due by May 18 but Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has said Trump may adjust the deadline and decide later. Later would make sense given the economic and financial risks of the administration’s decision to ramp up the pressure on Iran.1 But the risk that tariffs will pile onto a weak German and European economy will hang over investors’ heads. U.S.-China Talks Not A Game Changer: The ostensible demand that China cease Iranian oil imports immediately and the stalling of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea are not conducive to concluding a trade deal in May. We have highlighted many times that strategic tensions will persist even if Beijing and Washington quarantine these issues to agree to a short-term trade truce. The June 28-29 G20 meeting in Japan remains the likeliest date for a summit between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping, but even this timeframe could be too optimistic. Continued uncertainty or a weak deal will fail to satisfy financial markets expecting a very positive outcome.   With a 70% chance that U.S. tariffs on China will not increase this year and, contingent on a U.S.-China deal, only a 35% chance that the U.S. slaps tariffs on German cars, we sound optimistic to some clients. But the Trump administration’s decision on Iran is highly market-relevant and portends greater volatility. We expect to see a geopolitical risk premium creep higher into oil markets as well as a greater risk of “Black Swan” events in strategically critical or oil-producing parts of the Middle East. There is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. We are late in the business cycle and President Trump has emphatically decided to increase rather than decrease geopolitical risk. Quantifying Geopolitical Risk Geopolitical analysis has taken a bigger role in investors’ decision-making over the last decade. Surveys show that geopolitical risks rank among global investors’ top concerns overall. In the oft-cited Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, geopolitical and related issues have dominated the “top tail risk” responses for the past half-decade (Chart 1). In other surveys, the most worrisome short-term risks are mostly political or geopolitical in nature, ranking above socio-economic and environmental risks (Chart 2). Chart 1 Chart 2 Despite this high level of concern, there is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. Isolating and measuring the range of risks under this umbrella term remains a challenge. As such, for many investors, geopolitics remains an ad hoc, exogenous factor that is often mentioned but rarely incorporated into portfolio construction. For the past four decades the predominant ways of measuring political or geopolitical risk have been qualitative or semi-qualitative. The Delphi technique, developed on the basis of low-quality data sets in social sciences, relies on pooled expert opinions.2 Independently selected experts are asked to provide risk assessments and their responses are then interpreted by analysts to create a measure of risk. Another semi-qualitative method of measuring geopolitical risk ranks countries according to a set of political and socio-economic variables. These variables – such as governance, political and social stability, corruption, law and order, or formal and informal policies – are extremely important but inherently difficult to quantify.3 These results are useful but suffer from dependency on expert opinion, data quality, and institutional biases. More importantly, these methods are slow to react to breaking events in a rapidly changing world. The same goes for bottom-up assessments using political intelligence. The weakness of these methods is that it is highly unlikely that they will produce statistically significant estimates of risk. The odds of getting a “silver bullet” insight from a “key insider” are decent for simple political systems, but not in the complex jurisdictions that host the vast majority of global, liquid investments. Quantitative approaches to measuring geopolitical risk have since become more widespread. The most prominent method is based on quantifying the occurrence of words related to political and geopolitical tensions that appear in international newspapers. These word-counts typically include terms like “terrorism,” “crisis,” “war,” “military action,” etc. As a result, the indices reflect incidents of physical violence or other “Black Swan” events that may not have direct relevance to financial markets. Moreover, while news-based indices accurately capture dramatic one-time peaks at the time of a crisis, they are largely flat aside from these, as they rely on popular topics rather than underlying structural trends (Chart 3). They fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with electoral cycles, protest movements, paradigm shifts in economic policy, or other policy changes.4 Notice, for instance, that the fall of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and the resulting chaos in Russia and many other parts of the emerging world hardly register in Chart 3. Chart 3News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments Introducing BCA’s GeoRisk Indicators The past 70 years have taught BCA Research to listen and respect the market. Why would we suddenly follow the media instead? Most quantitative geopolitical indicators begin with the premise that journalists and the news-reading public have accurately emphasized the most relevant risks and uncertainties. They proceed to quantify the terms of these assessments with increasingly sophisticated methods. This approach solves only part of the puzzle. News-based indices ... fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with underlying policy changes. At BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we aim to generate geopolitical alpha.5 This means identifying where financial media and markets overstate or understate geopolitical risks. We do not primarily aim to predict events or crises. As such, traditional news-based indicators that capture only major events, even those ex post facto, are of little relevance to our analysis. What is needed is a better way to quantify how the market is calculating risks. We start with a simple premise: the market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd. Furthermore, it puts its money where its predictions are, unlike other methods of geopolitical risk quantification which have no “value at risk.” Chart 4USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... To this end, we have introduced market-based indicators over the years that rely on currency movements, which are often the simplest and most immediate means of capturing the process of pricing risk. In 2015, for instance, we introduced an indicator that measures Russia’s geopolitical risk premium (Chart 4). It is constructed using the de-trended residual from a regression of USD/RUB against USD/NOK and Russian CPI relative to U.S. CPI. We can show empirically that it captures geopolitical risk priced into the ruble, as the indicator increases following critical incidents. These include the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014; the warnings that Russia aimed to stage a “spring offensive” in Ukraine in 2015; Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War later that year; and the poisoning of former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in the U.K. in 2018 and subsequent tensions. Using similar methods, we created a proxy to capture geopolitical risk in Taiwan, based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 5). The indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It jumped upon Taiwan’s election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence government in January 2016 – and this was well before any tensions actually flared. It even registered a small increase upon her controversial phone call congratulating Donald Trump upon winning the U.S. election. Chart 5...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan This year we have expanded on this work, constructing a set of ten standardized GeoRisk Indicators for five developed economies and five emerging economies: U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. Indicators for the U.S., China, and others will be rolled out in a future report. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into the various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. In each case, we look at whether the relevant assets are decreasing in value at a faster rate than implied by key explanatory variables. The explanatory variables consist of (1) an asset that moves together with the dependent variable while not responding to domestic geopolitical risks, and (2) a variable to capture the state of the economy. This set of indicators differs from our earlier indicators in the following ways: We aim to create a simple methodology that we can apply consistently to all countries, both in the DM and EM universes. We therefore omitted using regression models that can prove to be quite whimsical. Instead, we simply looked at the deviation of the dependent variable from the explanatory variables, all in expanding standardized terms, to create the GeoRisk proxy. We wanted an indicator that would immediately respond to priced-in risks, so we opted for a daily frequency rather than the weekly frequency we used in our initial work. To get as accurate of a signal as possible, we use point-in-time data. Since economic data tends to be released with a one-to-two-month lag, we lagged the economic independent variable to correspond to its release date. All ten indicators are shown in the Appendix. Across all countries, they track well with both short-term events and long-term trends in geopolitical risk. In the case of France, for example, the indicator steadily climbs during the period of domestic tensions and protests in the early 2000s; as the European debt crisis flares up; again during the rise of the anti-establishment Front National and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine; and finally during the U.S. trade tariffs and Yellow Vest protests (Chart 6). Our GeoRisk indicators isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more so than others. Similarly, in Germany, there is a general increase in perceived risk as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder implements structural reforms in the early 2000s; another increase leading up to the leadership change as Angela Merkel is elected Chancellor; another during the global and European financial crises; another during the Ukraine invasion and refugee influx; and finally another with the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 7). Chart 6Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Chart 7Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War   We have annotated each country’s GeoRisk indicator heavily in the appendix so that readers can see for themselves the correspondence with political events. The indicators are affected by international developments – like the Great Recession – but we have done our best to isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more than other countries. (As a consequence, the Great Recession is muted in some cases.) What are the indicators telling us now? Most obviously, they highlight the extreme risk we have witnessed in the U.K. over the now-delayed March 29 Brexit deadline. We would bet against this risk as the political reality has demonstrated that a “hard Brexit” is very low probability: the U.K. has the ability to back off unilaterally while the EU is willing to extend for the sake of regional stability. In this sense the pound is a tactical buy, which our foreign exchange strategist Chester Ntonifor has highlighted.6 Our U.K. risk indicator has been fairly well correlated with the GBP/USD since the global financial crisis and it suggests that the pound has more room to rally (Chart 8). Chart 8Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Meanwhile, Spanish risks are overstated while Italy’s are understated. As for the emerging world, Turkish risks should be expected to spike yet again, as divisions emerge within the ruling coalition in the wake of critical losses in local elections and a failure to reassure investors over monetary policy and the currency. Brazilian risks will probably not match the crisis points of the impeachment and the 2018 election, at least not until controversial pension reforms reach a period of peak uncertainty over legislative passage. Both our new Russian indicator and its prototype are collapsing (see Chart 4 above). This captures the fact that we stand at a critical juncture in Russian affairs, where President Putin is attempting to shift focus to domestic stability even as the U.S. and the West maintain pressure on the economy to deter Russia from its aggressive foreign policy. Given that both Putin’s and the government’s approval ratings are low amid rising oil prices, the stage is set for Russia to take a provocative foreign policy action meant to distract the populace from its poor living conditions. Venezuela is the obvious candidate, but there are others. Moscow will want to test Ukraine’s newly elected, inexperienced president; it may also make a show of support for Iran. With Russia equities having rallied on a relative basis over the past year and a half, and with the Iranian waiver decision already boosting oil prices as we go to press, the window of opportunity to buy Russian stocks is starting to close. (We remain overweight relative to EM on a tactical horizon; our Emerging Markets Strategy is also overweight.) Going forward, we will update these risk indicators regularly as needed and publish the full appendix at the end of every month along with our long-running Geopolitical Calendar. We will also fine-tune the indicators as new information comes to light. In other words, here we present only the beta version. We hope that these indicators will help inform investors as to the direction, and even magnitude, of political risks as the market prices them. Our GeoRisk indicators are not predictive, as establishing a trend is not a prediction. The main purpose of this exercise is to answer the critical question, “What is already priced in?” How is the market currently calculating geopolitical risk for a country? After that, it is the geopolitical strategist’s job to unpack this question through qualitative, constraint-based analysis. It is when our qualitative assessments disagree with what is priced in that we can generate geopolitical alpha.    Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Sean Higgins, “Auto tariffs decision could be delayed, Kudlow says,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com. 2      Norman C. Dalkey and Olaf Helmer-Hirschberg, “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, Vol. 9, Issue: 3 (April 1963) pp. 458- 467. 3      Darryl S. L. Jarvis, “Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Measuring Political Risk: The Evolution of Theory and Method,” Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper No. LKYSPP08-004 (July 2008).  William D. Coplin and Michael K. O'Leary, "Political Forecast For International Business," Planning Review, Vol. 11 Issue: 3 (1983) pp.14-23. The PRS Group, “Political Risk Services”™ (PRS) or the “Coplin-O’Leary Country Risk Rating System”™ Methodology. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi, “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430 (September 2010). 4      Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 131, Issue 4, November 2016 (July 2016) pp.1593–1636. Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello, “Measuring Geopolitical Risk,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, Working Paper (January 2018). 5      Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting,” dated July 9, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Not Out Of The Woods Yet,” April 5, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Appendix Appendix France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix U.K. U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What’s On The Geopolitical Radar? Chart 19      Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Low Bond Volatility: Weakening non-U.S. growth and a more dovish Fed have crushed global government bond volatility, especially in Europe and Japan where yields are struggling to stay above 0%. Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads, which now largely reflect long-run real growth differentials between the U.S and Europe/Japan, are likely to stay range bound. USTs vs Bunds/JGBs: Stay overweight Bunds & JGBs versus Treasuries, on a hedged basis in U.S. dollars, given the boost to returns from hedging into higher-yielding dollars. Feature Bond Yields Are In Winter Hibernation Developed market (DM) government bonds, never the most exciting of asset classes to begin with, have become boring of late. While benchmark 10-year yields since the end of January have moved in line with our recommended country allocations - lower in Germany (-7bps), Japan (-3bps), the U.K. (-5bps) and Australia (-11bps) where we are overweight, higher in the U.S. (+5bps), Canada (+2bps) and Italy (+19bps) where we are underweight – government bonds have settled into trading ranges and lack direction. The proximate trigger for the muted yield volatility was the Federal Reserve shifting to a neutral stance on U.S. monetary policy in January. Investors have priced out any possibility of a Fed rate hike over the next year, and now even discount a modest rate cut, according to the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. Yet while most of the attention for bond investors have been focused on the U.S., there are developments in other major economies that are also depressing yields – namely, weakening economic momentum and sluggish inflation. In particular, the downturn has shown no signs of stabilizing in the eurozone and Japan, with the latest readings on manufacturing PMIs now below the 50 line, signaling a contraction (Chart of the Week). The latest data in both regions still shows that core inflation is nowhere near the inflation targets of the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ). The story is much different in the U.S, with the manufacturing PMI still well above 50 and core inflation hovering close to the Fed’s 2% inflation target. Yet Treasury yield volatility has collapsed, with the MOVE index of Treasury options prices now back to the lows of this cycle. Chart Of The WeekAre Treasuries Leading Or Following? Are Treasuries Leading Or Following? Are Treasuries Leading Or Following? For the time being, non-U.S. factors are driving the direction of global bond yields. We think that will change later this year, as steady U.S. growth and surprisingly firm U.S. inflation readings will prompt the Fed to begin hiking rates again. Yet until there are signs that non-U.S. growth is stabilizing, the low yields in Europe and Japan will act as an anchor on U.S. Treasury yields, particularly given how wide U.S./non-U.S. yield differentials already reflect faster growth and inflation in the U.S. Decomposing Treasury-Bund & Treasury-JGB Spreads When looking at the pricing of the “Big 3” DM government bond markets – the U.S., Germany and Japan – there are some major differences but also some similarities as well. Even with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury sitting at 2.68% compared to a mere 0.11% and -0.03% on the 10-year German Bund and 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB), respectively. Simply looking at the breakdown of those nominal 10-year yields into the real and inflation expectations components, there is not much of a comparison (Chart 2). The real 10-year Treasury yield is in positive territory at 0.6%, compared to -1.4% and +0.2% for JGBs and German bunds, respectively. Inflation expectations, measured by 10-year CPI swap rates, are 2.1% in the U.S., 1.5% in Germany and 0.2% in Japan. Thus, the current wide 10-year Treasury-Bund spread (just under +260ps) can be broken down into a real yield spread of +200bps and an inflation expectations gap of +60bps. In the case of the 10-year Treasury-JGB spread (just under +270bps), that breaks down into a real yield differential of +80bps and an inflation gap of +190bps. Chart 2Big Differentials Here... Big Differentials Here... Big Differentials Here... So while the Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads are of similar magnitude, the valuation components driving the spread are much different. The former is more of a real yield gap, while the latter is more of an inflation expectations gap. That is no surprise given the BoJ’s Yield Curve Control policy that maintains a ceiling on the 10-year JGB yield of between 0.1% and 0.2%, limiting how much real yields can move (there are no BoJ restrictions on the level of CPI swap rates). Yet the U.S.-Japan inflation expectations gap is not too far off the spread between realized headline and core inflation measures in both countries - both are 1.4 percentage points higher in the U.S. as of January. Looking at other valuation metrics, the cross-county differentials are less pronounced (Chart 3). Chart 3...But Less So For Other Yield Measures ...But Less So For Other Yield Measures ...But Less So For Other Yield Measures Yield curves are quite flat, with the 2-year/10-year slope a mere +16bps in the U.S., +14bps in Japan and only +66bps in Germany. Our estimates of the term premia on 10-year government debt are negative for all three markets, most notably in the countries that have seen quantitative easing in recent years (-10bps in the U.S., -90bps in Germany and -60bps in Japan). Perhaps most importantly, our preferred measure of the market pricing of the real terminal policy rate – the 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward – is +0.2% in the U.S., -0.5% in Germany and 0.0% in Japan. That means the market is pricing in only a +70bp differential, in real terms, between the neutral policy rates of the Fed and ECB. That gap is only +20bps between market pricing of the neutral real rates for the Fed and BoJ. That narrower gap between the market-implied pricing of the real neutral rate is consistent with the theoretical macroeconomic drivers of real rate differentials, like growth rates of potential GDP and labor productivity. According to OECD estimates, potential GDP growth is 1.8% in the U.S., 1.5% in the overall euro area and 1.2% in Japan (Chart 4). This implies a long-run real yield gap between the U.S. and Germany of +60bps and the U.S. and Japan of +30bps – very close to the market pricing for the real terminal rate differentials.1 When looking at the 5-year annualized growth rates of labor productivity data from the OECD, there is no difference between the three regions with all growing at a mere 0.5% (suggesting that either a faster growth rate of the labor input, or greater productivity of capital, accounts for the higher potential growth rate in the U.S.). Chart 4No Major Differences In Long-Run Real Growth No Major Differences In Long-Run Real Growth No Major Differences In Long-Run Real Growth With the cross-country yield spreads now effectively priced for the long-run real growth differentials between the U.S. and Europe/Japan, this will limit the ability for nominal Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads to widen much further. Right now, U.S. inflation expectations are rising faster than those of Europe and Japan, in response to the Fed’s more dovish stance. Yet if those expectations continue to rise, likely in the context of stickier realized U.S. inflation alongside solid U.S. growth, then the Fed will return to a hawkish bias. That ultimately means higher U.S. real yields and, most likely, some pullback in U.S. inflation expectations since the markets would begin to price in the implications of the Fed moving to a restrictive policy stance (including a stronger U.S. dollar that will help dampen U.S. inflation, at the margin). So that means inflation differentials between the U.S. and Germany/Japan can move wider now but will narrow later; and vice versa for real yield differentials (narrower now and wider later). The main investment implication: nominal UST-Bund and UST-JGB spreads are unlikely to move much wider, likely for the remainder of this business cycle/Fed tightening cycle. The main takeaway is that bond yields in core Europe and Japan are effectively anchoring global yields, in general, and U.S. yields, in particular. Treasury yields will not be able to break out of the current narrow trading ranges until there are signs that growth has stabilized in Europe and Japan. Reduced global trade tensions and faster Chinese growth (and import demand) are necessary conditions to reflate the export-heavy economies of Europe and Japan. Yet even if that scenario does unfold in the months ahead (which is BCA’s base case scenario), there is still a case to prefer Bunds and JGBs over U.S. Treasuries on a currency-hedged basis in U.S. dollars. Given the wide short-term interest rate differentials between the U.S. and Europe/Japan, those near-zero 10-year Bund and JGB yields, after hedging into U.S. dollars, are actually higher than 10-year Treasury yields, which benefits the relative hedged performance of the low-yielders versus the U.S. (Chart 5) Chart 5Stay Overweight Bunds & JGBs Vs. USTs (Hedged Into USD) Stay Overweight Bunds & JGBs Vs. USTs (Hedged Into USD) Stay Overweight Bunds & JGBs Vs. USTs (Hedged Into USD) Thus, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on core Europe and Japan, versus an underweight tilt on the U.S., in global U.S. dollar-hedged government bond portfolios. Bottom Line: Weakening non-U.S. growth and a more dovish Fed have crushed global government bond volatility, especially in Europe and Japan where yields are struggling to stay above 0%. Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads, which now largely reflect long-run real growth differentials between the U.S and Europe/Japan are likely to stay range bound. Stay overweight Bunds & JGBs versus Treasuries, on a hedged basis in U.S. dollars, given the boost to returns from hedging into higher-yielding dollars.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com    Footnotes 1      We are using the full euro area data for these economic comparisons, even though we are discussing U.S.-German yield differentials in this report. We think this is reasonable given the status of German government bonds as the benchmark for the euro area, and with the ECB setting its monetary policy for the overall euro area. The differences between the data for Germany and the overall euro area are modest, with German potential GDP and 5-year productivity growth both only 0.3 percentage points higher. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Europe & Japan: The Anchor Weighing On Global Bond Yields Europe & Japan: The Anchor Weighing On Global Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Fed Policy: The Fed’s move to a more dovish posture is positive for global risk assets in the near-term. This is setting up for a revival of volatility later in 2019, however, with U.S. growth unlikely to slow enough to justify a continuation of the Fed’s dovish stance. With the market now discounting no change in Fed policy rates over the next year, the risks for U.S. Treasury yields are now tilted to the upside. ECB Policy: Growth has slowed in Europe, but the ECB is limited in its ability to ease policy further given tight labor markets and rising wage growth. Policy rates will stay on hold over at least the next year. U.S. & European Duration: Keep global duration exposure below benchmark, with a more defensive stance on U.S. Treasuries over German Bunds given that the Treasury-Bund spread has overshot to the downside. Feature “In fact, our policy works through changing financial conditions, so it’s sort of the essence of what we do” – Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell Have central bankers now turned TOO dovish? That is a question that will be answered in the coming weeks and months after the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) signaled a more cautious outlook on growth and inflation. Both central banks cited common causes for the increased caution, such as financial market instability related to geopolitical uncertainty (U.S.-China trade tensions, Brexit, the U.S. government shutdown). Importantly, neither the Fed nor ECB expressed conviction that monetary policy settings were now too restrictive. The sharp selloff in global stock and credit markets at the end of 2018 did tighten financial conditions which, in and of itself, should result in slower growth on either side of the Atlantic in the first half of 2019 (Chart of the Week). Yet we do not expect a move to a below-trend pace of growth that would trigger rising unemployment and weaker inflation pressures. Chart of the WeekFed Too Dovish, ECB Not Dovish Enough Fed Too Dovish, ECB Not Dovish Enough Fed Too Dovish, ECB Not Dovish Enough The shift to a more dovish posture by the Fed and ECB has already induced some easing of financial conditions to help support growth in the U.S. and Europe until the uncertainties over geopolitics and the Chinese economy are resolved. This appears to be providing more stimulus to economies that may not necessarily need it. That is a risk that policymakers have decided to take to protect against the downside tail risks to economic growth and confidence from global uncertainty. In terms of fixed income markets, more dovish policymakers have created a pro-risk backdrop that will support the outperformance of corporate bonds versus government debt over the next 3-6 months. Without a deeper slowdown of global growth beyond what is currently expected, however, this will only be a temporary respite as central banks revert back to fighting inflation pressures instead of calming financial markets. The result will be a return to monetary tightening and higher bond yields, although that is a far more likely scenario in the U.S. than in Europe over the next 6-12 months given the relative signals from our Central Bank Monitors (bottom panel). Fed Outlook – A Temporary Dovish Turn, Nothing More The quote at the beginning of this report was taken from Fed Chair Powell’s press conference after last week’s FOMC meeting, in response to a question on how the Fed thinks about financial conditions. We can think of no cleaner way to explain the Fed’s understanding of how its monetary policy actions get transmitted to the real economy. By inducing changes in financial asset values (equity prices, corporate bond yields, the value of the U.S. dollar) through adjustments in the fed funds rate – and perceptions about its forward path – the Fed is able to impact the cost of financing across much of the U.S. economy. The goal is either to slow or stimulate growth, as needed, to allow the Fed to reach its dual mandate of maximizing employment while keeping inflation stable. Viewed from this perspective, the Fed’s “dovish” turn last week was a necessary step to not only stabilize financial markets, but to induce a pro-growth rally in risk assets that had sold off too aggressively. On that front, the Fed can say “Mission Accomplished”. Year-to-date, the S&P 500 is up 8% while U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate bond spreads have fallen by 26bps and 110bps, respectively. The U.S. dollar is also down 1.6% since the start of the year, providing further stimulus to the U.S. economy. U.S. Treasury yields, which had fallen thanks to lower real and inflation components, have also helped ease financial conditions. Real yields have declined as the market has moved to price out all Fed rate hikes for 2019 in response to some signs of cooling U.S. growth (i.e. housing) and the big fall in asset prices. At the same time, inflation expectations have drifted lower as markets now expect the plunge in oil prices seen in 2018 to filter though more broadly into lower realized inflation (Chart 2). Chart 2Too Much Pessimism In UST Yields Too Much Pessimism In UST Yields Too Much Pessimism In UST Yields The ability for yields to decline further is now limited, however, with U.S. economic growth likely to continue at an above-trend pace in the next few quarters, based on the readings from reliable indicators. The ISM Manufacturing index rebounded to 56.6 in January, still well above the 50 level indicating an expanding U.S. economy, even after the decline that began last September. Within the sub-components of the index, the New Orders series also rose last month by 6.9 points, suggesting that the bounce in the overall ISM series could persist. The 10yr UST yield broadly tracks the ISM Manufacturing index (Chart 3), with the post-crisis relationship indicating that the bond yield will have difficulty falling below 2.5% if the ISM remains above 55. Chart 3U.S. Treasuries Vulnerable To Better U.S. Data U.S. Treasuries Vulnerable To Better U.S. Data U.S. Treasuries Vulnerable To Better U.S. Data U.S. economic data continues to broadly meet expectations, and the momentum in U.S. Treasury yields has overshot to the downside versus data surprises (bottom panel). Admittedly, there have been far fewer data releases of late because of the U.S. government shutdown last month. Yet even if the bulk of the unreleased data was weak, Treasury yields at current levels already seem to be discounting very soft growth. Forward-looking indicators of growth - the Conference Board leading economic indicator and BCA’s U.S. employment and capital spending models – are all pointing to the U.S. economy continuing to expand at a solid, above-trend pace in the coming months (Chart 4). Chart 4No Signs Pointing To Slower U.S. Growth No Signs Pointing To Slower U.S. Growth No Signs Pointing To Slower U.S. Growth The U.S. labor market remains tight, as evidenced by continued low unemployment and solid growth in wage measures like Average Hourly Earnings and the Wages and Salaries component of the Employment Cost Index (Chart 5). At the same time, readings from leading inflation indicators like the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge remain elevated (bottom panel). The combined message is that U.S. core inflation rates will remain surprisingly sticky in the coming months, even given the lagged impact of last year’s drop in oil prices. Chart 5Persistent U.S. Inflation Pressures Persistent U.S. Inflation Pressures Persistent U.S. Inflation Pressures Many have made the case that the current cycle looks a lot like the Fed’s 2016 pause on policy tightening, which ended up lasting one full year after the December 2015 initial post-QE rate hike. Back then, the Fed’s more dovish posture helped generate easier financial conditions through a weaker U.S. dollar, tighter U.S. corporate credit spreads and higher U.S. equity values. U.S. Treasury yields fell sharply as the market aggressively covered a large bearish tilt towards U.S. interest rates while removing all rate hikes that were discounted for 2016 (Chart 6). There is one major difference between then and now, however – the U.S. economy is growing at a much faster pace, with far less spare capacity (bottom panel). Chart 6This Is NOT A Repeat Of 2016 This Is NOT A Repeat Of 2016 This Is NOT A Repeat Of 2016 When looking at all the U.S. data objectively, we conclude that the Fed’s latest dovish turn will not last anywhere near as long as the 2016 episode. The current easing of U.S. (and global) financial conditions alongside still-solid U.S. growth will eventually set up a return to the Fed rate hiking cycle, at a time when no interest rate increases are discounted in U.S. money markets. This supports our current recommendation to be tactically overweight U.S. corporate debt versus U.S. Treasuries on a 3-6 month horizon, during this window when the Fed is deliberately easing financial conditions by being overly dovish. On a more medium term 6-12 month horizon, however, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on U.S. duration exposure. The only way Treasury yields can move lower from here is if a Fed rate cutting cycle starts to be discounted – a highly unlikely scenario given the signals from leading growth and inflation indicators. Bottom Line: The Fed’s move to a more dovish posture is positive for global risk assets in the near-term. This is setting up for a revival of volatility later in 2019, however, with U.S. growth unlikely to slow enough to prevent inflation pressures from surfacing. With the market now discounting a stand-pat Fed over the next year, with minimal expected inflation, the risks for U.S. Treasury yields are now tilted to the upside. ECB Outlook – Firmly Neutral The euro area is currently facing a fairly significant growth slowdown. The manufacturing PMI has fallen for 13 consecutive months and now sits just above the 50 line indicating expanding growth. The OECD’s leading economic indicator (LEI) has also declined over that same period. Both indicators are now back to levels last seen prior to the 2009 and 2012 recessions (Chart 7). Chart 7Euro Area LEI and PMI Overstating The Downturn? Euro Area LEI and PMI Overstating The Downturn? Euro Area LEI and PMI Overstating The Downturn? Yet at the same time, surveys of business and consumer confidence from the European Commission suggest that the current downturn is nothing like those previous slumps. Even the Commission’s indicator of exporter order books (bottom panel) suggests that things do not appear as bad as indicated by the PMI and LEI. So where does the truth lie about the euro area economy? When looking at the hard data on exports (using the IMF’s Direction of Trade statistical database that includes both goods and services), it is obvious that there was a sharp slowing of euro area exports last year (Chart 8). Slumping Chinese demand was a major reason for that slowdown, but exports to the rest of the world also took a major hit. For the more export-intensive economies of Europe, last year’s global growth deceleration was a major punch to the gut. Chart 8European Export Shock Should Bottom Out Later In 2019 European Export Shock Should Bottom Out Later In 2019 European Export Shock Should Bottom Out Later In 2019 Looking ahead, there is still likely to be some pain coming from weaker export demand in the first half of 2019. The Chinese credit impulse (measured as a 12-month change in Total Social Financing as a % of GDP) is still negative, while our global LEI measure continues to drift lower. However, there are some tentative signs that things may be stabilizing. The shorter 6-month China credit impulse has hooked up (the “x’ in the top panel of Chart 8). Our diffusion index of countries within our global LEI – itself a leading indicator of the global LEI – has also begun to move higher, meaning there are fewer countries within the euro area with falling LEIs. While it is still too early to draw firm conclusions, there is a chance that euro area export growth will bottom out by mid-year. This is especially true if a U.S.-China trade detente is soon reached and Chinese policymakers deliver some additional growth stimulus measures, which is BCA’s base case scenario. ECB President Mario Draghi noted last week that a stabilization of global trade tensions would reduce much of the perceived uncertainty within the euro area economy. The U.S.-China trade spat has not been the only thing weighing on euro area growth, though. In our framework for analyzing the ECB’s policy decisions, we look at how broad-based are the trends in growth and inflation within the euro area to determine the next likely move on monetary policy. The way we do that is by looking at diffusion indices of economic data, constructed using figures from as many euro area countries as possible, given data availability. We show those diffusion indices for real GDP growth, manufacturing PMIs, headline inflation and core inflation in the euro area in Chart 9. Chart 9No Pressure On The ECB To Adjust Interest Rates No Pressure On The ECB To Adjust Interest Rates No Pressure On The ECB To Adjust Interest Rates The diffusion indices show that the vast majority of euro area countries are now suffering slowing real GDP growth and falling PMIs, with levels seen during recessions. Yet the actual pullbacks in real GDP growth and the PMIs have been shallower than those past episodes. It is as if today, all countries are suffering a slump, but no deep downturn. This is consistent with the ECB’s belief that Europe has suffered a bunch of one-off triggers for slowing growth – cutbacks in German auto production related to new emission standards, large-scale French street protests, the Italian fiscal policy debate with the EU, slowing exports from global trade tensions – but no broad-based decline that can be attributed to, or solved by, monetary policy. This is especially true with the diffusion index for core euro area inflation which now rising, suggesting that core inflation could remain surprisingly sticky in the coming months. The diffusion indices for euro area labor markets provide additional information as to why the ECB has not shifted to an even more dovish stance, despite the signs of weaker growth. Not only is the overall euro area unemployment rate now below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU, the vast majority of countries within the euro area are at full employment (Chart 10). That diffusion index correlates strongly with a traditional Taylor Rule estimate of the equilibrium ECB policy rate, and suggests that the ECB should be raising rates right now. That can also be seen in the diffusion index for wage growth (bottom panel), which shows that the majority of euro area countries are seeing higher wage inflation. Chart 10Tightening Labor Markets In Europe Tightening Labor Markets In Europe Tightening Labor Markets In Europe Given the readings on the core inflation and labor market related diffusion indices, the current backdrop is not one where the ECB should be shifting to a more dovish posture. Yet when looking at market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swaps, investors clearly do not believe that the ECB’s optimistic inflation forecasts will be achieved over the next two years – typically a sign of policy settings that appear too tight (Chart 11). Chart 11Bund Yields Will Stay Subdued Without More Euro Area Inflation Bund Yields Will Stay Subdued Without More Euro Area Inflation Bund Yields Will Stay Subdued Without More Euro Area Inflation It will require some signs of euro area growth reacceleration, and maybe some upside surprises on core inflation and wage growth, before inflation expectations (and Bund yields) begin rising again. Those are unlikely to become visible until at least the latter half of 2019, and the ECB is likely to keep policy rates unchanged over the balance of the year. Given our relative views on the Fed and ECB, we see the scope for the yield spread between the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund to widen from current levels. That spread is wide on a long-term basis because of the relative policy stance of the two central banks, with the current 255bps gap roughly equal to the gap between the fed funds rate and ECB refi rate. Yet the momentum of that spread is closely correlated to the difference in the data surprise indices for the U.S. and euro area, and a divergence has opened up between those two measures on the back of better U.S. growth (Chart 12). Chart 12UST-Bund Spread Has Overshot To Downside UST-Bund Spread Has Overshot To Downside UST-Bund Spread Has Overshot To Downside With the forward curves currently pricing in some additional tightening of the Treasury-Bund spread, betting on some renewed spread widening is a positive carry trade that also makes sense on a fundamental basis. Bottom Line: Growth has slowed in Europe, but the ECB is limited in its ability to ease policy further given tight labor markets and rising wage growth. Policy rates will stay on hold over at least the next year.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Pause That Refreshes The Pause That Refreshes Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns