Monetary

Highlights Corporate Bonds: Corporate bond spreads have been slow to price-in the escalation of the U.S./China trade dispute. Nimble investors should take steps to mitigate their near-term (0-3 month) exposure to credit spreads, but remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Duration: With 50 bps of rate cuts already priced into the market for the next 12 months, there is very little money to be made from extending duration and potentially a lot of money to be made by keeping duration low. This is especially true given that the Fed has so far done nothing to suggest that rate cuts are on the table. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates look cheap on our model, and the core PCE deflator’s sharp drop probably overstates the deflationary pressures in the economy. Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Concerns that the ongoing U.S./China trade war will exacerbate the decline in global growth flared again last week, and our geopolitical strategists see high odds of further near-term escalation.1 For starters, China has not yet retaliated to the U.S. Commerce Department’s blacklisting of Huawei and a handful of other Chinese tech firms. Meanwhile, the U.S. stands ready to extend tariffs across the full slate of imported Chinese goods. To cap it all off, there are currently no firm plans for the resumption of talks between the countries’ respective negotiating teams, and no assurance that Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping will speak to each other at the G20 Summit in Japan on June 28-29. Credit Spreads Are Too Complacent Chart 1Corporate Bonds At Risk Corporate Bonds At Risk Corporate Bonds At Risk While Treasury yields responded to the turmoil by dropping for the second consecutive week, the spillover to corporate bond markets has been less severe. Chart 1 on page 1 shows that corporate bond excess returns have de-coupled from the CRB Raw Industrials index during the past 12 months. The CRB Raw Industrials index tracks a broad basket of commodity prices, making it an excellent real-time indicator of the market’s assessment of global growth. Like Treasury yields, the CRB index has fallen sharply during the past two weeks. The wide gulf between corporate bond and commodity returns suggests that we will soon see either a sell-off in the corporate bond market or a positive re-rating of global growth that sends the CRB index higher. Recent history provides examples of both cases (Chart 2). The CRB index rose to meet corporate bond returns in 2012, but dragged corporate bond returns lower in 2014. Given the long list of potential negative trade catalysts, some near-term downside for corporate bond excess returns appears more likely. But it’s not just political headlines that make us cautious about the near-term outlook for credit spreads. The uncertainty created by the U.S./China trade dispute is now finding its way into the economic survey data. Flash Manufacturing PMIs for the U.S., Eurozone and Japan all fell in May, with respondents quick to blame the decline on global trade tensions. Much like the CRB index, PMI readings are sending a starkly different message than credit spreads. Either trade tensions will ease during the next couple of months, sending PMIs higher, or corporate bond spreads will widen. A model of U.S. capacity utilization based on lagged junk spreads predicts that capacity utilization will rise from its current 78% to 80% during the next six months (Chart 3). However, both the Markit and ISM Manufacturing PMIs suggest a further decline is more likely. Once again, either trade tensions will ease during the next couple of months, sending the PMIs higher, or corporate bond spreads will widen. Chart 2Position For Reconvergence Position For Reconvergence Position For Reconvergence Chart 3Capacity Utilization & Junk Spreads Capacity Utilization & Junk Spreads Capacity Utilization & Junk Spreads   We recommend that investors take measures to limit their near-term (~3-month) exposure to corporate spread risk. Stay Positive On A Cyclical (6-12 Month) Horizon Chart 4Expect More Stimulus From China Expect More Stimulus From China Expect More Stimulus From China While near-term caution is warranted, we would still position for positive corporate bond excess returns (both investment grade & high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Ultimately, the U.S. and China will navigate toward some sort of truce, and the negative impact from tariffs is unlikely to derail the U.S. economic recovery.2 What’s more, Chinese policymakers will accelerate their stimulus efforts to mitigate the negative impact of higher tariffs. Our China Investment Strategy service tracks a composite of six money and credit growth indicators that lead Chinese economic activity. This leading indicator has already bottomed, and our strategists anticipate a return to stimulus levels reminiscent of mid-2016 (Chart 4).3 As long as a U.S. recession is avoided, corporate bond spreads will eventually settle near levels seen in the late stages of previous economic cycles (Chart 5A & Chart 5B).4 Chart 5AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Chart 5BHigh-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets   Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads have been slow to price-in the escalation of the U.S./China trade dispute. Nimble investors should take steps to mitigate their near-term (0-3 month) exposure to credit spreads, but remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Risk & Reward In The Treasury Market Unlike credit spreads, Treasury yields have responded aggressively to the negative news flow. The 10-year Treasury yield currently sits at 2.32%, 7 bps lower than at this time last week. Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve is priced for two full 25 basis point rate cuts over the next 12 months. Interestingly, while market prices imply 50 bps of rate cuts during the next year, the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants shows that, as of the May FOMC meeting, investors didn’t actually expect rate cuts any time soon. The shaded region in Chart 6 shows the interquartile range of the surveyed investors’ fed funds rate forecasts, while the dashed black line shows the median forecast. The survey responses convey widespread consensus that the fed funds rate will remain flat until the end of the year – the 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile are all equal until the end of 2019. Then, heading into 2020, the 75th percentile of the distribution starts to forecast rate hikes. The 25th percentile doesn’t move in the direction of rate cuts until Q4 2020, and the median forecaster sees the fed funds rate staying put at least through the second half of 2021. Chart 6Market And Survey Expectations Differ Market And Survey Expectations Differ Market And Survey Expectations Differ Why would market prices imply a much lower path for the fed funds rate than actual investor survey responses? The most likely reason relates to assessments about the balance of risks. When responding to surveys, investors will usually provide their modal (or most likely) outcome. However, investor bets in financial markets will reflect a dollar-weighted average of different possible scenarios. It’s possible that while investors think a flat fed funds rate is the most likely outcome, they also view rate cuts as a higher probability tail risk than rate hikes. They therefore invest some of their money to hedge that risk, even if it does not reflect their base case view. Chart 7 The intuition that rate cuts remain a “tail risk” is confirmed by another question from the survey. This question asks investors to consider a time period between now and the end of the year, and then attach a probability to the Fed’s next move i.e. whether it will be hike, a cut, or whether there will be no change in the funds rate until the end of 2019 (Chart 7). As of the April/May survey, market participants thought the odds of a hike were 23%, odds of a cut were 17% and the odds of flat rates until the end of the year were 59%. Before the Fed meeting in March, investors saw 50% chance of a hike, 13% chance of a cut, and 37% chance of no change. The overall message is that investors continue to view a 2019 rate cut as a tail risk, but one that’s perceived probability is rising. In any event, for our purposes it doesn’t really matter how investors respond to surveys. According to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing, if the actual change in the fed funds rate over the next 12 months exceeds what is currently priced into the OIS curve for that period, then below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will pay off.5 In fact, the Golden Rule even gives us a framework for translating different rate hike/cut scenarios into expected 12-month Treasury returns (Table 1). Table 1The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure Based on current prices, if the fed funds rate holds steady for the next 12 months – as the median market participant expects – we calculate that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index will lose between 1.98% and 2.41% relative to cash. Even in the scenario where the Fed delivers two rate cuts during the next 12 months, we would still expect Treasury index returns to lag cash by 12-13 bps. Negative excess returns in the “two rate cut” scenario are due to the negative carry in the Treasury index. Capital gains/losses would be close to zero in that scenario, since the change in the fed funds rate is exactly equal to the market’s expectations. Investors continue to view a 2019 rate cut as a tail risk, but one that’s perceived probability is rising. What’s evident from those figures is that there is currently very little money to be made betting on rate cuts, and quite a bit to be made betting on rate hikes. The risk/reward balance in the Treasury market clearly favors keeping portfolio duration low. But What Will The Fed Actually Do? The minutes from the last FOMC meeting show broad consensus around the Fed’s current “on hold” policy stance, though it’s notable that “a few” participants thought rate hikes would be appropriate if the economy evolved in line with their expectations. The minutes contain no mention of a possible rate cut. Our sense is that it would require a further sharp tightening of financial conditions or significantly worse economic data before the Fed seriously considers cutting rates. Our Fed Monitor – an aggregate indicator that measures economic growth, inflation and financial conditions – is currently very close to the zero line, a level consistent with the Fed’s “on hold” stance (Chart 8). The ISM Manufacturing PMI is also firmly above the 50 boom/bust line. Historically, Fed rate cuts are usually preceded by a negative reading from our Fed Monitor and a sub-50 PMI. We would be looking for those two signals before expecting the Fed to cut rates. Chart 8Sub-50 ISM Required Before The Fed Cuts Rates Sub-50 ISM Required Before The Fed Cuts Rates Sub-50 ISM Required Before The Fed Cuts Rates Bottom Line: With 50 bps of rate cuts already priced into the market for the next 12 months, there is very little money to be made from extending duration and potentially a lot of money to be made by keeping duration low. This is especially true given that the Fed has so far done nothing to suggest that rate cuts are on the table. Inflation & TIPS Chart 9Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model It’s not just nominal Treasury yields that dropped during the past two weeks. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates – the spread between nominal Treasury yields and TIPS yields – also fell precipitously. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 1.76% and the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven is only 1.9%. These figures suggest that the market does not trust the Fed to meet its inflation target in the long-run. Our main valuation tool for the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is our Adaptive Expectations Model.6 It derives a fair value for the 10-year breakeven based on: The 10-year rate of change in the core consumer price index The 12-month rate of change in the headline consumer price index The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is 20 bps below the model’s fair value (Chart 9). It shouldn’t be too surprising that TIPS look cheap relative to nominals. Recent inflation data have been weak and the Fed has written off the weakness as “transitory”, leading to doubts about whether it will keep rates low enough to meet its target. For our part, we think investors should take advantage of low breakevens and overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. In fact, the Fed’s characterization of low inflation as “transitory” seems correct. Chart 10 shows both the core and trimmed mean PCE deflators. The dramatic fall in the core measure, which strips out food and energy prices from the headline number, is what has caught the market’s attention. But it’s important to note that trimmed mean PCE inflation has not confirmed the decline. In fact, it remains in a multi-year uptrend. Recent inflation data have been weak, but the Fed has written off the weakness as “transitory”. Chart 10Low Inflation Looks "Transitory" Low Inflation Looks "Transitory" Low Inflation Looks "Transitory" This is the third time during this cycle that core PCE inflation has diverged negatively from the trimmed mean. Core eventually rebounded and re-converged with the trimmed mean in both of the prior two episodes. The Fed is banking on the third time playing out the same way, and we think it would be unwise to bet against them. Recently released research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas shows that trimmed mean PCE inflation provides a less-biased real-time estimate of the headline figure than the traditional core measure. The latter tends to run too low. The trimmed mean is also more closely related to labor market slack.7 Bottom Line: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates look cheap on our model, and the core PCE deflator’s sharp drop probably overstates the deflationary pressures in the economy. Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. Ryan Swift U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Is Trump Ready For The New Long March?” dated May 24, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      The potential economic impact from tariffs is discussed in Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Tarrified,” dated May 16, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic,” dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4      For details on how we determine the spread targets shown in Charts 5A & 5B, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6      For details on the model’s construction please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market,” dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7      https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/research/papers/2019/wp1903… Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Falling Yields: There have been three main drivers of the latest decline in global bond yields: slower global growth, softer inflation expectations and increased safe-haven demand for bonds given the intensifying U.S.-China trade conflict. The first two are more than fully discounted in current yield levels, but the latter is likely to persist in the near-term with no resolution of the trade conflict in sight. Model Portfolio Adjustments: We are tactically reducing the sizes of the overall strategic tilts in our model bond portfolio – below-benchmark duration exposure and overweight global corporates vs. governments. There is a growing risk of deeper selloffs in global equity and credit markets if the June G-20 meeting produces no positive signals on ending the trade dispute. We do not yet see a case to position more defensively on a medium-term horizon, however, given the pickup in “early” global leading economic indicators. Feature Chart of the WeekYields Discount A Lot Of Bad News Yields Discount A Lot Of Bad News Yields Discount A Lot Of Bad News The investment backdrop at the moment – slowing global growth momentum, softening inflation expectations, an increasingly prolonged U.S.-China trade dispute with no immediate sign of resolution, and a strengthening U.S. dollar– is fairly bond bullish. Unsurprisingly, government bond yields in the developed markets have fallen to levels more consistent with a less certain macro environment. At one point last week, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield dipped as low as 2.30%, while the 10-year German Bund fell deeper into negative territory at -0.13%. There are now expectations of easier monetary policy discounted in yield curves of several countries, most notably the U.S. where markets are priced for 50bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year – despite no indication from the Fed that cuts are coming anytime soon. From a valuation perspective, bond yields are starting to look a bit stretched to the downside (Chart of the Week). The term premium component of yields has fallen to near post-crisis lows in the majority of countries, while the U.S. dollar has surged despite lower U.S. interest rate expectations – both indications of investors driving up the value of traditional safe-havens at a time of uncertainty. Looking purely at the growth side of the equation, the downward momentum in bond yields should start to fade with the global leading economic indicator now in the process of bottoming out. That does not mean, however, that yields could not fall further in the near-term if the trade headlines get worse and risk assets sell off more meaningfully – an outcome that grows increasingly likely as the two sides in the trade war seem to be digging in for a longer battle. The State Of The World Since The “TTT” Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy now believe that there is only a 40% chance of a U.S.-China trade deal by the end of June. This could trigger a deeper selloff in global equity and credit markets if investors begin to price in a larger and more prolonged hit to economic growth and corporate profits from the U.S. tariffs. This would trigger even greater safe-haven flows into government bonds, pushing yields lower through a more negative term premium. The much lower level of U.S. Treasury yields has helped limit the hit to risk asset prices from the elevated uncertainty over global trade. Since the “Trump Tariff Tweet” (TTT) of May 5, when the new round of tariffs on U.S. imports from China was announced which sparked the new leg of the trade war, the fall in benchmark 10-year government bond yields across the developed world can be fully explained by the fall in the term premium (Table 1). For example, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has fallen -14bps since the TTT, while our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year Treasury as decreased by -20bps. Over the same time period, 10-year U.S. inflation expectations have also fallen -11bps, but the market has only priced in an additional -5bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year according to our Fed Discounter. Table 1Decomposing 10-Year Government Bond Yield Changes Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields The big difference between last December and today is the much lower level of U.S. Treasury yields. Lower yields have helped mute the hit to risk asset prices from the elevated uncertainty over global trade since the TTT (Chart 2). The Fed’s more dovish pivot in the early months of 2019 has helped push Treasury yields lower as investors have moved from pricing in rate hikes to discounting rate cuts. Even traditional “risk-off” measures like the VIX, U.S. TED spreads, the price of gold and the Japanese yen have only risen modestly since the TTT compared to the big moves seen back in December when investors feared that the Fed would tighten right into a U.S. recession (Chart 3). Chart 2Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Chart 3Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Easier monetary policy, if delivered, can help underwrite a rebound in equity and credit markets. When looking across the array of financial market returns since the TTT (Table 2), the only developed economies that have seen equities appreciate are Australia and New Zealand – countries where rate cuts are being signaled by policymakers (or already delivered, in the case of New Zealand). Table 2Asset Returns By Country Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields In the case of the U.S., however, numerous Fed officials have stated recently that no changes to U.S. monetary policy are likely without decisive evidence that the new round of China tariffs and trade uncertainty was having a major negative impact on U.S. growth. On that front, forward-looking measures of U.S. economic activity, like the Conference Board leading economic indicator or our models for U.S. employment and capital spending, are not pointing to an imminent sharp slowing of U.S. growth (Chart 4). At the same time, leading indicators like our global LEI diffusion index and the China credit impulse are both signaling that global growth momentum may soon start surprising to the upside (Chart 5). Chart 4No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators Chart 5Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth If the Fed does not see a case to deliver the rate cuts that are now discounted, or even to just signal to the markets that easier policy is coming soon, then there is a greater chance of a deeper pullback in U.S. equity and credit markets from any new negative news on trade. This suggests that the risk-aversion bid for U.S. Treasuries will result in an even more deeply negative U.S. term premium and lower bond yields. Easier monetary policy, if delivered, can help underwrite a rebound in equity and credit markets. Already, we are seeing such increasingly negative correlations between returns on equities and government bonds across the major developed markets. In Charts 6 & 7, we show the rolling 52-week correlation between local government bond and equity returns for the U.S., euro area, Japan, U.K., Canada and Australia. For each country, we also plot that correlation versus our estimate of the term premium on 10-year government bond yields. Chart 6Safe Haven Demand For Bonds ... Safe Haven Demand For Bonds... Safe Haven Demand For Bonds... Chart 7... Helping Drive Down Term Premia ...Helping Drive Down Term Premia ...Helping Drive Down Term Premia It is clear that there is a significant “risk-aversion bid” for government bonds right now, given the increasingly negative stock/bond correlations and falling term premia. One possible interpretation is that falling bond yields are being driven more by fears of a risk-off selloff in global equity and credit markets rather than rational pricing of future monetary policy or inflation expectations because of slowing growth. Interestingly, Australia – where the central bank has been signaling that rate cuts are imminent – is the only exception in this list of countries where the stock/bond correlation is not negative. There, the deeply negative term premium is more about weakening growth and low inflation expectations, which is forcing a dovish response from the Reserve Bank of Australia, rather than a risk aversion bid for safe assets from investors. It is clear that there is a significant “risk-aversion bid” for government bonds right now, given the increasingly negative stock/bond correlations and falling term premia. Net-net, while bond yields discount a lot of bad news and now look too low compared to tentative signs of improving global growth, it is hard to build a case for an imminent rebound in global bond yields without signs that U.S. and China are getting closer to a trade deal. Bottom Line: There have been three main drivers of the latest decline in global bond yields: slower global growth, softer inflation expectations and increased safe-haven demand for bonds given the intensifying U.S.-China trade conflict. The first two are more than fully discounted in current yield levels, but the latter is likely to persist in the near-term with no resolution of the trade conflict in sight. Tactical Risk-Reduction Adjustments To Our Model Bond Portfolio Chart 8Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Given the growing potential for a larger selloff in global risk assets if no U.S.-China trade deal comes out of next month’s G-20 meeting (where Presidents Trump and Xi will both be in attendance), we think it is prudent to make some tactical adjustments to the recommended weightings within our model bond portfolio. These moves will provide a partial hedge against any near-term widening of global credit spreads or further reduction in government bond yields in the event of a complete breakdown of the trade talks. Specifically, we are making the following changes: Duration Exposure: We are increasing the overall duration of the model bond portfolio by 0.5 years, which still leaves a duration position that is 0.5 years below the custom benchmark index of the portfolio. We are doing this by increasing allocations to the longer maturity buckets in the U.S., Japan and France. Credit Exposure: We are cutting the sizes of our recommended overweight tilts for U.S. corporates in half for both investment grade and high-yield. This is a combined reduction of nearly 4% of the portfolio that will be used to fund the increase in duration on the government bond side. We are making no other changes to our government bond country allocations, staying overweight in core Europe (Germany plus France), Japan and Australia where our Central Bank Monitors are calling for a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 8). We are also staying overweight U.K. Gilts, where yields continue to trade more off Brexit uncertainty than domestic economic growth or inflation pressures. We are not making any changes to the model bond portfolio exposure to euro area corporate debt or Italian governments, riskier spread products where we are already underweight. We are, however, maintaining our weightings for U.S. dollar denominated EM sovereign and corporate debt at neutral. EM debt has performed relatively well versus developed market equivalents since the May 5 “Trump Tariff Tweet” (TTT). We understand that not downgrading EM seems counterintuitive when we are trying to position more defensively in the model portfolio. We prefer to reduce exposure to U.S. credit, however, given that EM debt has performed relatively well versus developed market equivalents since the May 5 TTT (Table 3), and with EM spreads now at more attractive levels relative to U.S. investment grade (Chart 9). In addition, EM credit tends to perform better during periods when Chinese credit growth is accelerating, as is currently the case (bottom panel) – and which may continue if China’s policymakers eventually turn to more domestic stimulus measures to combat the effects of U.S. tariffs, as seems likely. Table 3Credit Market Performance Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields Chart 9EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates Importantly, these are all only tactical changes to our model portfolio to partially protect against the risk of U.S. credit spread widening in the event of more negative news on the U.S.-China trade front. We still have not changed our strategic (6-12 month) views on global bond yields (higher) and global corporates (outperforming government bonds) given the tentative signs of improving global growth from the leading indicators. Bottom Line: We are tactically reducing the sizes of the overall strategic tilts in our model bond portfolio – below-benchmark duration exposure and overweight global corporates vs. governments. There is a growing risk of deeper selloffs in global equity and credit markets if the June G20 meeting produces no positive signals on ending the trade dispute. We do not yet see a case to position more defensively on a medium-term horizon, however, given the pickup in “early” global leading economic indicators.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Treasury yields have tumbled despite a solid U.S. economy: The 10-year Treasury bond yielded just under 3% when we started beating the below-benchmark-duration drum last summer; now it’s hovering around 2.3%. The golden rule of bond investing argues against positioning for further declines, … : The returns to duration strategies hinge on the difference between actual and expected moves in the fed funds rate. With the money market looking for two cuts over the next twelve months, the fed funds rate is more likely to surprise to the upside than the downside. … but could a lack of borrowing keep yields low?: If debt-fueled spending has gone out of fashion in the U.S., global savings could overwhelm investment, and rates might have to fall further to bring them back into balance. Feature The ride has gotten bumpier as the trade tensions between the U.S. and China have heated up, but our recommendations have held up well since last summer. Equal-weighting equities, underweighting bonds and overweighting cash helped preserve capital during the fourth-quarter selloff, while our early and late January upgrades of equities (while downgrading cash) and spread product (while further downgrading Treasuries), respectively, have proven to be beneficial.1 On a total return basis, the S&P 500 is up over 12% since our upgrade, and the Barclays Bloomberg Corporate and High Yield Indexes have generated excess returns over Treasuries of around 175 and 75 basis points (“bps”), respectively, despite ceding much of their previous leads.2 Even the TIPS ETF (TIP) has held its own with the equivalent-duration nominal-Treasury ETF (IEF). The below-benchmark duration call has eroded some of the overall outperformance, however, and there has been some debate within BCA about whether or not we should change the view. We still do not believe the monetary policy outlook merits a duration-view change. We remain constructive on the outlook for global growth, despite the escalation in tensions between U.S. and Chinese trade negotiators, and therefore do not see a fundamental reason to expect lower real rates. The idea that soft credit growth could hold rates down is interesting, but one would have to believe the spendthrift U.S. leopard really has changed its spots to position a portfolio in line with it. Fed Policy Chart 1Caution: Falling Rate Expectations Caution: Falling Rate Expectations Caution: Falling Rate Expectations As of Thursday’s close, the money market was pricing in a 100% chance of a 25-bps rate cut by Thanksgiving, a 100% chance of a 50-bps rate cut by this time next year, and a 45% chance of a third cut by Thanksgiving 2020 (Chart 1, bottom panel). The FOMC has paused its rate-hiking campaign, to be sure, but the idea that it will soon embark on a rate-cutting campaign seems like a stretch. The minutes from the FOMC’s April 30th-May 1st meeting, released last week, painted a picture of a fundamentally solid economy. The balance between hawks and doves remained roughly equal, with “a few participants” calling for a coming need to firm policy, given the swiftness with which inflation pressures can build in a tight labor market, while “a few other participants” noted that the unemployment rate is not the be-all and end-all measure of resource utilization. From an investment strategy perspective, we think our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule provides the best insight. Below-benchmark-duration positioning will outperform if the Fed cuts less (or hikes more) over the next twelve months than markets expect; above-benchmark-duration will win if the Fed cuts more (or hikes less) than markets expect. Some strategists within BCA have raised the possibility that market expectations could force the Fed’s hand. The reason that the Fed is especially loath to disappoint markets in what might be called the forward-guidance era of central banking, but we think there’s an important distinction between taking care not to surprise markets and surrendering one’s free will to them, as parents of young children can attest. Bottom Line: We think the money markets are significantly overestimating the possibility that the Fed will soon cut the fed funds rate, increasing the potential returns from below-benchmark-duration positioning. The Rates Checklist Table 1Rates View Checklist Is America Not Borrowing Enough? Is America Not Borrowing Enough? We developed our rates checklist3 to provide a list of real-time measures that bear on our rates view. Of the eleven items on the list, only three have met our threshold for reassessing our bearish rates call at any point over the last eight months, so we have stayed the course (Table 1). The checked boxes indicate that the evidence has been moving against us, though we would argue that the stingy 10-year Treasury yield has gotten overly carried away with discounting that evidence (Chart 1, top panel).  Policy Perceptions The spread between our monetary policy expectations and the markets’ remains wide, so the prospective returns from our Fed call remain ample, and the first box remains unchecked. Thanks to last week’s two-day, 11-bps decline in the 10-year Treasury yield, we have again checked the inverted yield curve box, which first inverted for five days near the end of March, and has inverted for four days so far in May. Our empirical study of the inverted curve’s recession-signaling properties used month-end closes for the 10-year Treasury yield and the 3-month Treasury Bill rate, and found that an inverted curve had called the seven recessions that have occurred over the last 50 years with just one false positive (Chart 2). Now that the curve has inverted over a couple of daily stretches, clients have asked us just what constitutes bona fide inversion. Chart 2Accurate Yield Curve Signals Tend To Last Accurate Yield Curve Signals Tend To Last Accurate Yield Curve Signals Tend To Last Per the curve’s moves over the last 50 years, we would say inversion doesn’t issue an actionable signal until it persists for at least a few months (Table 2). 1998’s false alarm encompassed just seven days between late September and early October, and covered just one month end. The intuition behind the inverted yield curve’s predictive power is that the bond market sniffs out economic weakness before the Fed officially changes course. Recognizing that the Fed will have to begin cutting rates soon, bond investors buy longer-maturity instruments to reap the biggest rewards. Investors shouldn’t overreact to tentative inversions of the yield curve. Table 2Yield Curve Inversions Is America Not Borrowing Enough? Is America Not Borrowing Enough? We have argued that the next recession will not occur until the Fed has hiked the fed funds rate to a level above the equilibrium fed funds rate. Since we cannot observe the equilibrium rate in real time, we have looked to interest-rate-sensitive segments of the economy to gauge if higher rates are beginning to bite. Housing is on the front line of interest-rate sensitivity, and it remains quite affordable relative to history, suggesting that monetary policy has not yet become restrictive. Every time the inverted curve preceded a recession, the affordability index was below its long-run mean or rapidly making its way there (mid-1973); when the yield curve briefly inverted in September 1998, homes remained more affordable than average (Chart 3). Chart 3If Higher Rates Aren't Squeezing The Economy, The Yield Curve May Be Crying Wolf If Higher Rates Aren't Squeezing The Economy, The Yield Curve May Be Crying Wolf If Higher Rates Aren't Squeezing The Economy, The Yield Curve May Be Crying Wolf Inflation We concede that realized inflation measures (Chart 4), and inflation expectations as proxied by the difference in TIPS and nominal Treasury yields (Chart 5), have lost momentum since last summer. Washington’s unexpected grant of six-month waivers for importing Iranian oil caused crude prices to plunge, taking headline inflation measures and inflation expectations down with them (Chart 6). Given our Commodity And Energy Strategy team’s view that oil prices will extend their rebound across the rest of this year and into next, we expect that they will again move higher. Chart 4Consumer Price Indexes, ... Consumer Price Indexes, ... Consumer Price Indexes, ... chart 5... And Inflation Breakevens, ... ... And Inflation Breakevens, ... ... And Inflation Breakevens, ... Chart 6... Are Joined At The Hip With Oil Prices ... Are Joined At The Hip With Oil Prices ... Are Joined At The Hip With Oil Prices The Labor Market And Imbalances At Home And Abroad The labor market remains tight, so none of the labor market indicators argue for easier monetary policy and lower rates across the term structure. As far as the instability indicators go, there is as yet no sign of unsustainable activity in the economy’s key cyclical sectors. The Fed has stopped emphasizing the idea that financial sector imbalances alone might justify tighter policy, but anecdotal reports about lending standards suggest that potential vulnerabilities remain. There has not yet been an outbreak of major international distress that could deter the Fed from tightening policy, but worsening trade tensions and continued dollar strength would seem to make it slightly more likely. Bottom Line: We have checked a few boxes on our rates checklist, but the available evidence does not support adopting a more constructive view on rates. Hey, Big Spender The American consumer has long been a punching bag for Austrian School adherents and other moralists. As much as they scorn American households for living beyond their means, U.S. consumption has long played a symbiotic role in the global economy. As the engine powering the world’s largest economy, it makes an essential contribution to global aggregate demand, and provides an outlet for export powerhouses like China and Germany. An economy can only run a current account surplus provided that there are other economies running current account deficits capable of offsetting it. Measured inflation and inflation expectations were beginning to get some traction before oil collapsed upon the issuance of Iranian import waivers. In a recent blog post, former BCA Editor-in-Chief Francis Scotland posited that interest rates may not go anywhere as long as American households embrace their nascent post-crisis frugality. Using U.S. household demand as a proxy for global aggregate demand, Francis argues that if households don’t borrow and spend the way they did throughout the pre-crisis postwar era, global aggregate demand will suffer unless another profligate spender emerges to pick up the slack. Add China to the mix, and global savings could swamp global investment. Against that backdrop, savings and investment would only realign if rates fell. Newly frugal U.S. households may be helping to cap interest rates, but it’s too early to declare the end of the Debt Supercycle. Broadening the scope to include all public- and private-sector U.S. borrowing, the nominal 10-year Treasury yield has taken some cues from growth in aggregate borrowing (Chart 7). The relationship with real yields is not as strong (Chart 8), but if borrowing has some relationship to inflation, as under the guns-and-butter fiscal policy of the late sixties, nominal yields might well be a better measure. We can easily go along with the supply-and-demand intuition behind the observed relationship: when there’s stronger demand for credit, rates have to rise to entice savings and discourage investment to bring them back into balance, and vice versa. Chart 7Nominal Treasury Yields Have Been Tightly Linked With The Pace Of Loan Growth, ... Nominal Treasury Yields Have Been Tightly Linked With The Pace Of Loan Growth, ... Nominal Treasury Yields Have Been Tightly Linked With The Pace Of Loan Growth, ... Chart 8... And Real Yields Have Broadly Followed The Pattern As Well ... And Real Yields Have Broadly Followed The Pattern As Well ... And Real Yields Have Broadly Followed The Pattern As Well Government borrowing filled the void left by retrenching households and corporations in the immediate aftermath of the crisis. Household and corporate loan demand has been choppy since, however, and growth in aggregate borrowing has bumped around its mid-1950s lows throughout the expansion. We are not ready to declare that Americans have turned over a new, parsimonious leaf. The federal budget deficit soared following the passage of the stimulus package, and the CBO projects that it will continue to widen. Household debt growth is at its pre-crisis lows, but it has been accelerating ever since 2010 (Chart 9), and with debt service as a share of disposable income at its lowest level in at least 40 years, households have plenty of capacity to borrow. Chart 9Don't Count Consumers Out Just Yet Don't Count Consumers Out Just Yet Don't Count Consumers Out Just Yet Bottom Line: Interest rates have moved directionally with aggregate loan growth across the postwar era. Tepid loan demand growth may well keep a lid on rates, but we are not convinced that the Debt Supercycle has really breathed its last. Investment Implications Now that the 10-year Treasury yield has drifted back down to 2.3%, we believe the distribution of potential rate outcomes a year from now is skewed to the upside. We are thereby sticking with our recommendation that investors underweight Treasuries and maintain below-benchmark-duration positioning in all fixed-income portfolios. Even if there is not a clear catalyst on the immediate horizon for higher rates, we do not think that either the U.S. or the global economy is so fragile that investors should position for further rate declines. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the January 7 and January 28, 2019 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “What Now?” and “Double Breaker,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 All return data calculated as of the Thursday, May 23rd close. 3 Please see the September 17, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What Would It Take To Change Our Bearish Rates View?” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: We see current bond market behavior as very similar to mid-2016, when heightened political uncertainty obscured the economy’s true strength and kept bond yields lower for longer than was justified by the economic fundamentals. The correct strategy at that time was to sell into the bond market’s strength, and we advocate a similar strategy today. China: Any attempt by the Chinese government to retaliate in the trade war by selling U.S. Treasury securities would be either self-defeating or ineffective, depending on the exact strategy employed. In either case, U.S. Treasury yields will be unaffected. Fed: At least part of the Fed’s dovish turn might represent a desire to send the labor share of national income higher. We introduce a new data series for Fed Watchers to track. Feature The Trump Administration fired the latest salvo in the trade war two weeks ago, expanding tariffs to a broader swathe of Chinese imports. Then last week, the escalation of tensions spilled over to the bond market, sending global yields abruptly lower. Chart 1Flight To Safety Flight To Safety Flight To Safety The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield bounced off 2.35% last Thursday and has since settled at 2.39% (Chart 1). Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve is now priced for 44 bps of Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 1, bottom panel). It is possible, and even likely, that geopolitical tensions will keep yields low during the next month or two. In fact, our Geopolitical Strategy service places the odds of a complete breakdown in trade negotiations by the end of June at 50%.1  But we would encourage investors to sell into rallies, positioning for higher yields on a 6-12 month horizon. To see why, we return to a Weekly Report from early April where we walked through different factors that would be useful in the creation of a macroeconomic model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield.2 We consider what has changed during the past six weeks and what those developments mean for bond yields going forward. Back In The Bond Kitchen In early April, we ran through four different factors that should be included in any bond model and suggested macroeconomic indicators that best capture the trends in each. The four factors are: Global Growth: Best proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI and Bullish Dollar Sentiment Policy Uncertainty: Best proxied by the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Output Gap: Best proxied by Average Hourly Earnings Sentiment: Best proxied by the U.S. Economic Surprise Index We consider each factor in turn. Global Growth Chart 2Monitoring Global Growth Monitoring Global Growth Monitoring Global Growth The Global Manufacturing PMI, our preferred series for tracking global growth, ticked down during the past month, continuing the free-fall that has been in place since the end of 2017 (Chart 2). At 50.3, it is now only slightly above the 50 boom/bust line and is close to where it was in mid-2016, when the 10-year yield hit its cyclical low. But on a positive note, several leading indicators have hooked up in recent months, suggesting that the Global PMI could soon trough and move higher in the second half of the year. Specifically, the ZEW survey of global economic sentiment is off its lows, as is the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI). Meanwhile, the Global LEI Diffusion Index has surged, indicating that 74% of the 23 countries in our sample are seeing improvement in their LEIs. Historically, the Global LEI Diffusion Index leads changes in both the Global LEI and the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 2, panel 3). Financial market prices that are highly geared to global growth had been singing a similar tune, but they rolled over as trade tensions flared during the past two weeks. For example, cyclical equity sectors recently started to underperform defensive sectors (Chart 2, bottom panel), and the important CRB Raw Industrials index took a nosedive. We place particular importance on the CRB Raw Industrials index as a timely indicator of global growth, because the ratio between the CRB index and gold correlates nicely with the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 3).3 Unsurprisingly, the ratio’s recent dip coincides with last week’s drop in the 10-year. Several leading indicators have hooked up in recent months, suggesting that the Global PMI could soon trough and move higher in the second half of the year.  In addition to the Global Manufacturing PMI, we recommend including a survey of bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar in any bond model. More bullish dollar sentiment coincides with lower Treasury yields, and vice-versa. Our preferred survey shows that dollar sentiment remains elevated, but hasn’t changed much since April (Chart 4). The dollar itself, however, has begun to appreciate during the past two weeks (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... Chart 4...And The Greenback Is On The Rise ...And The Greenback Is On The Rise ...And The Greenback Is On The Rise Bottom Line: The coincident global growth indicators that correlate best with bond yields – the Global Manufacturing PMI and Dollar Bullish Sentiment – are sending a similar message as in April. Meanwhile, leading economic indicators continue to suggest that we should expect improvement in the second half of the year. The biggest change from April is that global growth indicators derived from financial market prices – cyclical versus defensive equities, the CRB Raw Industrials index and the trade-weighted dollar – have responded negatively to heightened political risk. If this weakness persists and eventually infects the economic data, then it could prevent a second-half rebound in global growth, keeping Treasury yields low for even longer.   Policy Uncertainty Spikes in the monthly Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index often cause capital to seek out the safety of U.S. Treasuries, and we recommend including this index in any macroeconomic bond model (Chart 5A). Spikes in the monthly Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index often cause capital to seek out the safety of U.S. Treasuries. While there have been no updates to the monthly index since the trade war’s recent escalation, one of its components – a daily index that tracks the number of relevant news stories – has surged during the past two weeks (Chart 5B). This clearly illustrates that a sharp increase in political uncertainty has been the catalyst for the bond market rally. Investors are obviously concerned that an ongoing and intensifying trade war might derail the economic recovery, and they are seeking out Treasuries as a hedge. Chart 5AGlobal Uncertainty Set To Spike Global Uncertainty Set To Spike Global Uncertainty Set To Spike Chart 5BMarkets Are Concerned Markets Are Concerned Markets Are Concerned In such situations, the traditional playbook is to fade any purely uncertainty-driven rally, on the view that markets tend to overreact to headline risk. This strategy worked well following the mid-2016 Brexit vote. The uncertainty shock from the vote sent the 10-year quickly down to 1.37%, but it then increased in the second half of the year when it became apparent that the economic recovery would continue. While higher tariffs will certainly be a drag on growth going forward, accommodative Fed policy and a probable increase in Chinese economic stimulus will mitigate the impact, keeping the economic recovery intact.4 Output Gap Chart 6Wages Are Headed Higher Wages Are Headed Higher Wages Are Headed Higher The output gap is a concept that represents where the economy is operating relative to its peak capacity, and its progress during the past three years is the main reason why bond yields will not re-test 2016 lows. We have found that wage growth is the most reliable way to measure the output gap: higher wage growth signals less spare capacity, and less spare capacity coincides with higher bond yields. We recommend Average Hourly Earnings as the best wage measure to include in any bond model. Since April, average hourly earnings growth has been roughly flat, but leading indicators suggest that further acceleration is highly likely in the coming months (Chart 6). While the Fed is keen to let wage growth accelerate, rising wage growth also makes a rate cut difficult to justify. The combination of rising wage growth and an on-hold Fed should put a rising floor under long-maturity bond yields. Sentiment The final factor that should be included in any bond model is sentiment. In April, we suggested that the U.S. Economic Surprise Index is the best measure of sentiment. When the surprise index has been deeply negative for a long time, it usually means that investors are downbeat on the economy and that the bar for a positive surprise is low. This has actually been the case in recent months, and our simple auto-regressive model suggests that the surprise index is biased higher (Chart 7). Positioning data confirm this message, and in fact show that investors are taking as much duration risk as they were when yields troughed in mid-2016 (Chart 8). Chart 7Low Bar For Positive Surprises Low Bar For Positive Surprises Low Bar For Positive Surprises Chart 8Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 The overall message is that bond investors have a very dim view of the economy, and it will not take much positive news to send yields higher. Investment Strategy We see current bond market behavior as very similar to mid-2016, when heightened political uncertainty obscured the economy’s true strength and kept bond yields lower for longer than was justified by the economic fundamentals. The correct strategy at that time was to sell into the bond market’s strength, and we advocate a similar strategy today. Timing when the next move higher in bond yields will occur is difficult, but we take some comfort in the fact that the flatness of the yield curve makes it less costly than usual to carry below-benchmark duration positions. In fact, the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index is 7 bps higher than the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index. Bond investors have a very dim view of the economy, and it will not take much positive news to send yields higher. To further mitigate the cost of keeping duration low, we advocate taking duration-neutral positions that are short the belly (5-year & 7-year) part of the yield curve and long the very long and very short ends of the curve. Such trades are also provide a positive yield pick-up, and will earn capital gains when Treasury yields move higher.5 A Quick Note On China’s Treasury Purchases Chart 9Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War The trade war’s recent escalation has led some to speculate that China could retaliate against higher tariffs by dumping U.S. Treasury securities onto the open market. The speculation only increased when the TIC data revealed that Chinese net Treasury purchases totaled -$24 billion in March, the most deeply negative figure since October 2016 (Chart 9).   We see low odds that China will employ this tactic in the trade war, and no meaningful impact on Treasury yields in any case. To see why, let’s consider two possible scenarios. In the first scenario, China sells a large amount of U.S. Treasury securities and keeps the proceeds from the sales in its domestic currency. Assuming the amounts in question are sufficiently large, these transactions would cause the RMB to appreciate and lead to a tightening of Chinese monetary conditions. Tighter monetary conditions are exactly what the Chinese government does not want as it seeks to counteract the negative economic impact from tariffs. In fact, China is much more likely to engineer a further easing of monetary conditions, much like in 2015/16 (Chart 9, bottom panel). In the second scenario, China could sell U.S. Treasuries and purchase other foreign bonds (German bunds, for example). This would nullify any impact on Chinese monetary conditions, but it would not have much impact on U.S. Treasury yields. With Chinese money still flowing into global bond markets, the re-balancing would only push other investors out of non-U.S. bond markets and into U.S. Treasuries. Without changing the overall demand for global bonds, it is difficult to envision much of an impact on U.S. yields. Bottom Line: Any attempt by the Chinese government to retaliate in the trade war by selling U.S. Treasury securities would be either self-defeating or ineffective, depending on the exact strategy employed. In either case, U.S. Treasury yields will be unaffected. A New Data Series For Fed Watchers: Rich’s Ratio A number of recent Fed speeches have referred to the time series plotted in Chart 10: The share of national income going to labor, as opposed to corporate profits. Chart 10Introducing Rich's Ratio Introducing Rich's Ratio Introducing Rich's Ratio Vice-Chair Richard Clarida brought this analysis to the Fed, and the data series was actually once dubbed “Rich’s Ratio” by Clarida’s old PIMCO colleague Paul McCulley. The idea behind Rich’s Ratio is that while some late-cycle wage gains are passed through to prices, a portion also eat into corporate profits. Notice in Chart 10 that Rich’s Ratio has a tendency to rise late in the economic recovery. Based on his past writings, we would not be surprised if at least part of the Fed’s recent dovish turn represents a desire to send Rich’s Ratio higher, even if that goal might entail a modest overshoot of the Fed's 2 percent inflation target. We will have more to say about Rich’s Ratio in the coming weeks. For now, we simply want to make Fed Watchers aware that they have a new series to track. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “How Trump Became A War President”, dated May 17, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The rationale for why the CRB/Gold ratio tracks the 10-year Treasury yield is found in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Tarrified”, dated May 16, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Feature In what has become a tradition, I met with Ms. Mea following client meetings in Europe last week. Ms. Mea is a long-term BCA client who has been following our Emerging Markets Strategy very closely over the years. It was our fourth meet-up in the past 18 months. Ms. Mea keeps our meetings interesting by always challenging our views and questioning the nuances of our analysis. The timing of our most recent meeting was particularly notable, as we had just received news that the latest U.S.-China trade talks had not produced an agreement. In light of this, Ms. Mea started our conversation with a question on the link between geopolitics and financial markets: Ms. Mea: Why have the U.S. and China failed to reach a trade accord when it is clear that without one, both global financial markets and business sentiment will be hurt? Answer: The U.S. and China are intertwined in a geopolitical confrontation that will endure for decades. Their strategic national interests are not aligned at all. Therefore, any accord on trade and other geopolitical disputes will not be lasting. It is impossible to accurately forecast and time all turns of the negotiation process and the associated event risks. Therefore, an investment process should be informed and guided by a thematic approach. The U.S. and China are intertwined in a geopolitical confrontation that will endure for decades. Our theme has been, and remains, that China and the U.S. are in a long-term geopolitical confrontation that epitomizes a rivalry between an existing and a rising superpower. This suggests that the demands of one side will be unacceptable to the other. That makes any agreement unsustainable over the long run. In brief, there was a structural regime shift in the U.S.-China relationship last year. Yet global equity markets rallied this year on rising expectations of a major trade deal. Notably, most of the gains in EM equities since late December occurred on days when there was positive news on the progress of trade talks. Hence, the EM rally can largely be attributed to expectations of a trade deal. Not surprisingly, the failure to conclude a trade accord has quickly pushed EM share prices back down to their mid-January levels (Chart I-1). As such, the majority of investors who have bought the EM equity index since early this year lost a substantial part of their gains in the recent selloff.  Chart I-1EM Equity Index: Between Support And Resistance EM Equity Index: Between Support And Resistance EM Equity Index: Between Support And Resistance Given that these two nations are embroiled in a long-term geopolitical rivalry, it will be difficult to find solutions on trade and geopolitical disputes that can simultaneously satisfy both sides. Even so, this does not imply that global risk assets will be in freefall forever. Financial markets currently need to price in both (1) a geopolitical risk premium on a structural basis; and (2) the impact of trade tariffs on global business activity on a cyclical basis. Once these two components have been priced in, markets will become less sensitive to the ebbs and flows of tensions between the U.S. and China. Finally, China’s exports to the U.S. constitute only 3.5% of mainland GDP (Chart I-2). This is considerably smaller than capital spending, which makes up 42% of China’s GDP. Further, most of the investment outlays over the past 10 years have not been in productive capacity to supply goods to the American market. On the contrary, the overwhelming share of capital expenditures since 2008 have occurred in domestic segments of the economy rather than export industries. Certainly, the trade confrontation will weigh on consumer and business sentiment in China as well as reduce the flow of U.S. dollars to the Middle Kingdom, warranting RMB depreciation. Still, there are other predicaments unrelated to the U.S. import tariffs that Chinese policymakers are facing. These include the credit, money and property bubbles that we have written about extensively. China’s exports to the U.S. constitute only 3.5% of mainland GDP. Ms. Mea: With no trade deal, the odds appear to be rising that the Chinese authorities will ramp up both credit and fiscal stimulus. Should investors not be looking through the near-term volatility and be buying EM risk assets and China-plays – because this stimulus will produce a cyclical recovery in the mainland economy? Answer: It is a safe bet that the Chinese authorities will encourage more credit creation and ramp up fiscal spending. The difficulty for investors is in gauging two unknowns: What is the lead time between the stimulus and economic growth, and what will be the multiplier effect of these stimuli. Lead time: Chart I-3 portends our aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse. Based on the past relationship between turning points in this indicator and the business cycle in China, the latter is likely to bottom around August. Chart I-2Structure Of Chinese Economy Structure Of Chinese Economy Structure Of Chinese Economy Chart I-3China: Stimulus Works With A Time Lag China: Stimulus Works With A Time Lag China: Stimulus Works With A Time Lag   Chart I-4China's Stimulus And Financial Markets: 2012 Versus 2016 China's Stimulus And Financial Markets: 2012 Versus 2016 China's Stimulus And Financial Markets: 2012 Versus 2016 Multiplier effect: The impact of stimulus on the economy also depends on the multiplier effect. The latter is contingent on households’ and companies’ willingness to spend. If households and companies hasten the pace of spending, the economy can recover with little stimulus. If they reduce their expenditure growth, the economy may require much more stimulus. The majority of investors and commentators are comparing China’s current stimulus efforts with what occurred in 2016. However, our hunch is that the current Chinese business cycle might actually resemble the 2012-‘13 episode due to similarities in the multiplier effect. The size of credit and fiscal stimulus in 2012 was as large as in 2016. Nevertheless, the business cycle recovery in 2012-‘13 was very muted, as illustrated in Chart I-3 on page 3. Consistently, EM share prices and commodities did not stage a cyclical rally in 2012 as they did in 2016-‘17 (Chart I-4). Ms. Mea: It seems you are implying that differences between the 2012 and 2016 economic and financial markets outcomes are due to the multiplier. How does one appraise the multiplier effect? Answer: In a word, yes. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to forecast consumers’ and businesses’ willingness to spend – particularly in the midst of a clash between the positive effects of stimulus and the negative sentiment stemming from the ongoing U.S.-China confrontation. We have constructed indicators that measure the willingness to spend among households and companies in China. Our proxies for their marginal propensity to spend (MPS) are currently in decline (Chart I-5A and I-5B). Chart I-5AChina: Households' Marginal Propensity To Spend China: Households' Marginal Propensity To Spend China: Households' Marginal Propensity To Spend Chart I-5BChina: Enterprises’ Marginal Propensity To Spend China: Enterprises' Marginal Propensity To Spend China: Enterprises' Marginal Propensity To Spend   MPS does not affect day-to-day expenditures, but rather captures consumer spending on large-ticket items such as housing, cars and durable goods, as well as investment expenditures by companies. Consistently, mainland companies’ MPS leads industrial metal prices by several months (Chart I-5B). Chart I-6 illustrates the critical difference between 2012 and 2016 in terms of the impact of credit and fiscal stimulus. In both episodes, the size of the stimulus was roughly the same, but the manufacturing PMI did not really recover in 2012-’13, gyrating in the 49-51 range. In contrast, it did stage a cyclical recovery in 2016-‘17 (Chart I-6, second panel). In brief, the difference between the 2012 and 2016 episodes was the MPS by companies and households (Chart I-6, third and fourth panels). There are other predicaments unrelated to the U.S. import tariffs that Chinese policymakers are facing. These include the credit, money and property bubbles that we have written about extensively. Provided the not-so-upbeat sentiment among Chinese households and businesses due to their high debt levels and the ongoing trade conflict, the odds are that their MPS will remain weak for now. As a result, the impact of credit and fiscal stimulus on China’s business cycle will be muted for now. As such, more stimulus and longer lead time may be required to engineer a cyclical recovery. Interestingly, the current profiles of both EM and developed equity markets closely resemble their 2012 trajectories – both in terms of direction and magnitude (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China's Stimulus In 2012 And 2016: Beware Of Multiplier Effect China's Stimulus In 2012 And 2016: Beware Of Multiplier Effect China's Stimulus In 2012 And 2016: Beware Of Multiplier Effect Chart I-7Is 2018-2019 Akin ##br##2011-2012? Is 2018-2019 Akin 2011-2012? Is 2018-2019 Akin 2011-2012? Ms. Mea: So, you are suggesting risks to China-related plays and EM financial markets are skewed to the downside. How should one assess how much downside there is, and what should investors look for to gauge turnings points in financial markets? Answer: We continuously assess the investment landscape, not only based on our fundamental analysis of the global/EM/China business cycles but also on various financial market valuations, positioning and technicals. Let’s review where we stand with respect to these metrics.   Equity Valuations: EM stocks are not cheap. Our favored measure of equity valuations is the composite indicator-based 20% trimmed means of the following multiples: trailing and forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings, price-to-book value and price-to-dividend ratios (Chart I-8). On these metrics, EM stocks appear fairly valued. Nevertheless, these valuations should be viewed in the context of structural decline in EM corporate profitability. The measures of return on equity and assets for non-financial companies in EM are on par with their 2008 lows (Chart I-8, middle and bottom panels). When valuations are neutral, the equity market’s direction is dictated by the profit outlook. The latter currently remains negative for EM and Chinese companies (Chart I-9). Chart I-8EM Equities Are Not Cheap bca.ems_wr_2019_05_16_s1_c8 bca.ems_wr_2019_05_16_s1_c8 Chart I-9Downside Profit Surprises In EM And China Downside Profit Surprises In EM And China Downside Profit Surprises In EM And China   Currency Valuations: The U.S. dollar is only moderately (one standard deviation) expensive, according to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs (Chart I-10). The latter is our most favored currency valuation measure. The greenback has been in a major structural bull market since 2011. Secular bull/bear markets do not typically end before valuations reach 1.5-2 standard deviations. We reckon that the cyclical and structural backdrop remains favorable for the dollar, and odds are it will overshoot before a major top sets in. Going forward, most of the dollar’s additional gains will not occur versus the euro or the Japanese yen – which are already modestly undervalued (Chart I-10, middle and bottom panels) – but against other currencies. In particular, commodity currencies of developed economies have not yet cheapened enough (Chart I-11). Typically, a structural bear market in commodities does not end until these commodity currencies become cheap. Hence, the current valuation profile of these commodity currencies is consistent with the notion that the secular bear markets in commodities prices and EM are not yet over. Chart I-10The Euro Is Fairly Valued, The Yen Is Cheap G3 Currency Valuations The Euro Is Fairly Valued, The Yen Is Cheap G3 Currency Valuations The Euro Is Fairly Valued, The Yen Is Cheap G3 Currency Valuations Chart I-11Commodities Currencies ##br##Are Not Cheap Yet Commodities Currencies Are Not Cheap Yet Commodities Currencies Are Not Cheap Yet   Unfortunately, there are no data for unit labor cost-based real effective exchange rates for the majority of EMs. However, it is a safe bet to infer that long- and medium-term cycles in EM currencies coincide with those of DM commodity currencies because they are all pro-cyclical. If DM commodity currencies have not yet bottomed, EM currencies remain vulnerable. Relative to the global equity benchmark, global materials have broken down to new cyclical lows. This could be a harbinger of EM relative equity performance making new lows. Ms. Mea: But the positioning in the U.S. dollar is long. How consistent is this with your view of further dollar strength? Positioning: While investors are long the U.S. dollar versus several DM currencies, they are short the greenback versus EM currencies. Chart I-12 illustrates the aggregate net long positions of both leveraged funds and asset managers in the BRL, MXN, RUB and ZAR. As of May 10 (the last datapoint available), investors were as long these EM high-beta currencies as they were at their cyclical peak in early 2018. As to emerging Asian currencies, ongoing RMB depreciation will drag emerging Asian currencies down. Notably, the Korean won has already broken down from its tapering wedge pattern. Concerning EM equities, investor positioning and sentiment was still very elevated before last week’s market turmoil. Chart I-13 demonstrates the number of net long positions in EM ETFs (EEM) by leveraged funds and asset managers. The last datapoint is also as of May 10. Chart I-12Investors Have Been Long EM Currencies Investors Have Been Long EM Currencies Investors Have Been Long EM Currencies Chart I-13Investors Have Been Bullish On EM Stocks Investors Have Been Bullish On EM Stocks Investors Have Been Bullish On EM Stocks   In short, investor sentiment on EM was bullish and long positions in EM were extended before the U.S.-China trade confrontation escalated again. Tell-tale signs and technicals: Market profiles can sometimes help us gauge whether an asset class is in a bull or bear market, and what the next move is likely to be. We have the following observations: U.S. dollar volatility is close to its record lows (Chart I-14). Following the previous three low-volatility episodes, EM shares prices in dollar terms dropped substantially over the ensuing 18 months – 60% in 1997-1998, 65% in 2007-2008 and 30% in 2014-2015. The rationale is that very low global currency volatility indicates that investors do not foresee a major tectonic macro shift. When this does inevitably occur, currency markets move violently. The RMB depreciation could be a tectonic macro shift that global markets are not prepared for. The absolute and relative performances of EM stocks resemble that of global materials stocks. Global materials are breaking below their long-term moving averages (technical support lines) in absolute terms, raising the odds that the EM equity index will do the same. Relative to the global equity benchmark, global materials have broken down to new cyclical lows. This could be a harbinger of EM relative equity performance making new lows (Chart I-15). Chart I-14U.S. Dollar Volatility And ##br##EM Equity Returns U.S. Dollar Volatility And EM Equity Returns U.S. Dollar Volatility And EM Equity Returns Chart I-15EM And Global Materials: Relative To Global Index EM And Global Materials: Relative To Global Index EM And Global Materials: Relative To Global Index Consistently, industrial metals prices as well as our Risk-on/Safe-Haven Currency Index have potentially formed a head-and-shoulders pattern and may be entering a major down leg (Chart I-16). Further weakness in these variables would be consistent with a risk-off phase in EM financial markets.   Finally, the relative performance of the MSCI China All-Share Index – which includes all onshore- and offshore-listed stocks – has relapsed relative to the global equity benchmark, failing to break above its long-term moving average (Chart I-17). This is a negative tell-tale sign, and often warrants considerable downside. Chart I-16A Head-And-Shoulder Pattern In Global Cyclical Markets? bca.ems_wr_2019_05_16_s1_c16 bca.ems_wr_2019_05_16_s1_c16 Chart I-17China All-Share Index: Absolute And Relative Performance China All-Share Index: Absolute And Relative Performance China All-Share Index: Absolute And Relative Performance   Ms. Mea: It seems to me that the RMB holds the key. What are your thoughts on the Chinese currency? Answer: There are several reasons why the RMB will likely depreciate. First, yuan depreciation is needed to mitigate the impact of U.S. import tariffs on Chinese exporters’ profitability. Authorities could use the RMB depreciation to fight back against U.S. import tariffs – a response that U.S. President Donald Trump will certainly not like. Second, the ongoing cyclical downturn in China and rising deflationary pressures also warrant a cheaper currency. Third, there is a vast overhang of money supply in China: The broad money supply is equivalent to US$30 trillion. More stimulus will only make this oversupply of yuans larger. This, along with the desire of mainland households and businesses to diversify their deposits into foreign currencies/assets, is like “the sword of Damocles” on the yuan’s exchange rate. Finally, the sources of foreign currency that previously offset capital outflows in China are no longer available. The current account surplus has largely evaporated. In addition, the central bank seems to be reluctant to reduce its foreign exchange reserves to fund capital outflows. In fact, at US$3 trillion, its foreign currency reserves are equivalent to only 10% of local currency broad money supply. All in all, we are structurally short the RMB versus the dollar. Chart I-18China, Commodities, & EM: Identical Cycles China, Commodities, & EM: Identical Cycles China, Commodities, & EM: Identical Cycles Ms. Mea: What are the investment implications? Where are we in the EM/China investment cycle? Answer: Our investment themes since early this decade have been that EM share prices and currencies are in a bear market, the U.S. dollar is in a structural bull market, and commodities are in a structural downtrend (Chart I-18). With the exception of 2016-‘17, these themes have played out quite well. These structural moves have not yet been exhausted. At the moment, we do not foresee a 2016-’17-type cyclical rally either. The failure of EM equities to outperform DM stocks and the resilience of the U.S. dollar during the risk-on period since early this year, give us comfort in maintaining a negative stance on EM risk assets. Importantly, a decade-long poor EM performance is likely to end with a bang rather than a whimper, especially when investors by and large remain bullish on EM. On the whole, we recommend trading EM stocks on the short side and underweighting EM equities in a global equity portfolio. Within the EM equity universe, our overweights are Russia, central Europe, Thailand, non-tech Korean stocks, Mexico, Chile, the UAE and Vietnam. Our underweights are Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Peru, Indonesia, India, and the Philippines. Fixed-income investors should also position for higher volatility and weaker EM currencies, favoring low-beta versus high-beta markets. Russian and Mexican markets are our favored local currency and U.S. dollar bonds. Finally, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. Our currency overweights are MXN, RUB, SGD and the THB as well as central European currencies. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

While we remain bullish on global equities and other risk assets over 12 months, we went tactically short the S&P 500 last Friday following the market’s complacent reaction to the Trump Administration’s further tariffs increases on Chinese imports. While a moderate trade war would still produce more economic damage than standard economic models imply, this would be greatly mitigated by significant Chinese economic stimulus and a Fed that is in no hurry to raise rates and could even cut rates. Barring any further major developments, we recommend investors start increasing risk exposure if the S&P 500 falls to 2711. A dip in global bourses would also create an opportunity to go overweight EM/European equities. Favor gold over government bonds as a low-cost hedge against trade war risks for now.

Highlights Looking past the day-to-day noise of trade-related announcements, we view the underlying odds of an actual trade agreement this year to have fallen below 50%. For the purposes of investment strategy, China-exposed investors should now simply assume that the U.S. proceeds with 25% tariffs on all imports from China. Given this, investors should stop focusing strictly on the odds of trade war, and should instead start focusing on the likely net impact of the tariff shock and China’s inevitable policy response. Simulated and empirical estimates of the impact of a 25% increase in tariffs affecting all U.S.-China trade suggest that economic conditions in China are likely to deteriorate to 2015/2016-like levels. This implies that a 2015/2016-style policy response will again be required in order for policymakers to be confident that the shock will be overcome. The preference of policymakers is to prevent another significant episode of releveraging, but the constraints facing policymakers suggest that one is unlikely to be avoided. We see a meaningful chance that this tension will be resolved by a classic market “riot” over the coming 3 months as financial markets force reluctant policymakers to capitulate. We would not recommend a long position in Chinese stocks, either in absolute terms or relative to the global benchmark, for investors with a time horizon of less than 3 months. However, over a strictly cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) time horizon, we would recommend staying long/overweight on the basis that policymakers will ultimately respond as needed. We recommend investors hedge the inherent RMB exposure from a long US$ cyclical position in Chinese stocks by opening a long USD-CNH trade. Feature U.S. and Chinese negotiators failed last week to secure an agreement deferring the threatened increase in the second round tariff rate.1 The tariffs increased on Thursday at midnight for goods not already in transit to the U.S. (effectively doubling the existing tariffs), which was followed by the inevitable retaliation by China on Monday (scheduled to take effect on June 1). The retaliation, coupled with President Trump’s earlier warning that China should not do so, was taken by investors as a sign that 25% tariffs on all goods imported from China will soon be in place. As we go to press, the S&P 500, Hang Seng China Enterprises Index, and the CSI 300 are down 3.5%, 7%, and 6.9%, respectively, since President Trump’s May 5 tweet (Chart 1). Chart 1Investors Are Starting To Price In 25% Tariffs Affecting All U.S.-China Trade Investors Are Starting To Price In 25% Tariffs Affecting All U.S.-China Trade Investors Are Starting To Price In 25% Tariffs Affecting All U.S.-China Trade Stimulus Minus Shock Holding all else equal, the events of the past two weeks are strictly negative for Chinese economic growth and would thus justify a decisively bearish outlook for Chinese stock prices after the rally that has taken place over the past six months. However, all is not equal, because a substantial deterioration in the export outlook will invariably cause a response from Chinese policymakers. Over the coming few weeks, global investors are likely to remain highly focused on developments and announcements related to the trade conflict. But at this point, our geopolitical team believes that the conclusion of an actual trade agreement this year is now only a 40% probability. This underscores that China-exposed investors should, for the purposes of investment strategy, simply assume that the U.S. proceeds with 25% tariffs on all imports from China, and should broaden their focus to the outcome of a simple formula that describes the potential net outcome of this event. Two simple scenarios concerning this formula are outlined below: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Stimulus – Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Stimulus – Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. In this scenario, investors should actually have a bullish cyclical outlook for China-related assets, even if the near-term outlook is deeply negative. Scenario 2 denotes a bearish outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock, which includes a circumstance where the impacts are exactly offsetting (because of the higher uncertainty, and thus risk premium, that this would entail). “Solving” The Formula In order to “solve” this formula, investors need answers to the following three questions: What is the size and disposition of the likely shock to China’s economy in a full-tariff scenario? What kind of reflationary response is required in order to offset this shock? What are the odds that policymakers will deliver the required response? Simulated and empirical estimates of a 25% increase in tariffs affecting all U.S.-China trade suggest a sizeable economic impact. Charts 2 & 3 provide the IMF’s perspective on the first question. The charts show the simulated impact of a 25% increase in tariffs affecting all U.S.-China trade, and they estimate the near-term impact for China to be -1.25% for real GDP (-0.5% over the long-run) and -3.5% for real exports (-4.5% to -5.5% over the long run). Chart 2 Chart 3   A recent IMF working paper came up with a more benign estimate of the first year impact, but a sizeable second year impact and a similar estimate of the long-term ramifications of tariff increases.2 Using a dataset with wide time and country coverage, the aggregate results of the study imply that Chinese output is only likely to fall about 0.2% in the year following the tariff increase. However, the cumulative shock to output increased sharply to roughly 1.6% in the second year of the tariff increase, with a negative yearly impact to output persisting for 5 years (with an average annual impact of -0.6% over the whole period, somewhat higher than the estimates shown in Charts 2 & 3). At the 90% confidence interval, the author’s estimates show that a tariff increase of this magnitude would imply a -1.7% average impact on output per year in the first two years following the increase. Chart 4The IMF's Shock Estimates Suggest A Serious Hit To China's Economy The IMF's Shock Estimates Suggest A Serious Hit To China's Economy The IMF's Shock Estimates Suggest A Serious Hit To China's Economy In order to answer the second question, investors need to have some sense of the relative magnitude of the estimates noted above. Chart 4 provides some perspective and highlights that the estimates above, were they to materialize, would do two things: Taking Chinese real GDP data at face value, it would cause the largest deceleration in China’s real GDP growth rate since 2012, when the economy slowed significantly and authorities responded forcefully. Based on the most recent data for Chinese real export growth, a 3.5% deceleration in export volume would push its growth rate to its lowest level since the global financial crisis. In practice, we doubt that China’s reported real GDP growth rate accurately reflects what occurred in 2015, and it is very possible that a similar deceleration happened in that year. However, economic similarity to the 2015/2016 episode implies that a similar policy response may also be required, a proposition that is supported by our MSCI China Index earnings recession model. Table 1 shows a set of earnings recession probabilities, based on a model that we presented in two recent reports.3 The scenarios express the odds as a function of new credit to GDP and our calculation of China’s export weighted exchange rate, and assume a substantial decline in the new export orders component of the official manufacturing PMI, and flat momentum in forward earnings. Table 1Our Earnings Recession Model Suggests That A 2015/2016 Style Response Is Needed To Counter This Shock Simple Arithmetic Simple Arithmetic The table clearly highlights that a significant further acceleration in new credit to GDP, coupled with a meaningful decline in the exchange rate, is needed in order to stabilize the earnings outlook. We have previously related stability in the outlook for earnings to stability in the economy itself, given the close correlation between Chinese investment-relevant economic activity and the earnings cycle (Chart 5). Given that new credit to GDP peaked at 31.5% during the 2015/2016 episode, it seems reasonable to conclude that a 2015/2016-style policy response will again be required in order for policymakers to be confident that the shock will be overcome. Policymaker Preferences Vs. Constraints This brings us to our third question: What are the odds that policymakers will deliver the stimulus required to confidently overcome the upcoming shock? It seems reasonable to conclude that a 2015/2016-style policy response will again be required in order for policymakers to be confident that the shock will be overcome. If the answer was only dependent on the preferences of policymakers, the odds would be low. China has relied heavily on credit to stimulate its economy over the past decade, and Chart 6 highlights that this has come at a high cost. The BIS’ estimate of the debt service ratio of China’s private non-financial sector is already extraordinarily high relative to other countries, and another round of meaningful re-leveraging will just make this problem even worse. Chart 5Earnings Stability = Economic ##br##Stability Earnings Stability = Economic Stability Earnings Stability = Economic Stability Chart 6Further Leveraging Will Undoubtedly Make A Big Problem Even Worse Further Leveraging Will Undoubtedly Make A Big Problem Even Worse Further Leveraging Will Undoubtedly Make A Big Problem Even Worse   We documented in detail how this has created the risk of a debt trap for China’s state-owned enterprises in an August Special Report,4 and have presented evidence arguing that China’s policymakers appear to have good economic reasons to try and shift China’s economy away from extremely high rates of investment towards more consumption.5 This implies that restraining credit growth to avoid further leveraging has been a reasonable policy objective during periods of relative economic stability. However, policy decisions cannot be made in a vacuum, and this is true even in the case of China. As such, instead of preferences, investors should be focused on policymaker constraints in judging likely policy actions. Given the potential for second round effects, Chinese policymakers need to calibrate their policy response to ensure a positive net impact of the stimulus minus the shock. In our view, three factors point to the conclusion that Chinese policymakers face serious economic constraints in setting their policy response: Charts 2-4 highlighted that 25% tariffs on all U.S.-China trade would constitute a meaningful shock, but it is also the case that this shock would be coming at a time when Chinese economic momentum is already relatively weak. This suggests that policymakers will have to act quickly and decisively to put a floor under economic activity. Charts 7 & 8 suggest that there are meaningful second round effects on Chinese domestic investment from external sector shocks, which raises the possibility that the impact on Chinese economic activity may be larger than Charts 2-4 suggest. Chart 7 shows that while the contribution to official real GDP growth from net exports is small, Chart 8 shows that past changes in net export contribution are reasonably correlated with subsequent changes in the contribution to growth from gross capital formation. While it is possible that this relationship is not actually causal, taking it at face value implies that the IMF’s estimate of the impact on output could be exceeded if the contribution to growth from net exports declines by 0.4% or more (holding the contribution to growth from final consumption expenditure constant). Since 2018’s change in net export contribution declined by three times this amount (1.2%), the downside risks to domestic investment from effectively quadrupling U.S. import tariffs are clear. China does not have a flexible labor market, and its political system is highly sensitive to significant job losses. Chart 9 shows that the employment situation has already seriously deteriorated in lockstep with actual economic activity, further underscoring the need for policymakers to act urgently. Chart 7 Chart 8 Chart 9The Employment Situation Is Already Deteriorating, And Will Do So Further The Employment Situation Is Already Deteriorating, And Will Do So Further The Employment Situation Is Already Deteriorating, And Will Do So Further We are open to the idea that policymakers may be able to devise a stimulative response of similar reflationary magnitude to the 2015/2016 episode without resorting to a major credit overshoot, but we are currently unable to articulate what it might be. This is an area of ongoing research for BCA’s China Investment Strategy service, but for now we assume that a credit overshoot remains the ultimate line of defense for China’s policymakers that will be deployed if the pursuit of alternative strategies fail to quickly stabilize economic activity. Investment Strategy Conclusions In our view, focusing on policymaker constraints rather than their preferences is much more likely to guide investors towards the right strategy conclusions over a 6-12 month time horizon. However, in the near-term, policy mistakes can occur, and are much more likely to occur if policymakers react to the imposition of constraints rather than anticipate their arrival. Over the coming three months, we see meaningful odds that Chinese policymakers remain reluctant to allow another episode of significant releveraging in the economy. If we are correct in our assessment of the damage that the tariff shock is likely to cause, this would set up a classic market “riot”, where policymakers are forced by financial markets to capitulate and respond forcefully to the seriousness of the economic situation. Further RMB weakness is likely. Investors should hedge their exposure and go long USD-CNH. Chart 10Investors Have A Green Light To Bet On A Lower RMB Investors Have A Green Light To Bet On A Lower RMB Investors Have A Green Light To Bet On A Lower RMB Given this, we would not recommend a long position in Chinese stocks, either in absolute terms or relative to the global benchmark, for investors with a time horizon of less than 3 months. However, over a cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) time horizon, we would recommend staying long/overweight on the basis that policymakers will ultimately deliver the stimulus required to more than offset the upcoming shock to external demand. This means that our long MSCI China Index, MSCI China A onshore index, and MSCI China Growth index trades relative to the global benchmark are explicitly cyclical in orientation, and may suffer meaningful further losses over the coming few months before ultimately recovering. As a final point, Table 1 highlighted that a meaningful decline in the exchange rate is likely required in order to stabilize the earnings outlook. Chart 10 shows that currency weakness persisted well past the trough in relative Chinese investable equity performance during the 2015/2016 episode, and we would expect a similar result in the current environment given the nature of the shock. As such, we recommend investors hedge the inherent RMB exposure from a long US$ cyclical position in Chinese stocks by opening a long USD-CNH trade today, with high odds of a break above 7 in the coming weeks. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The first, second, third “round” of tariffs reference the $50/$200/$300 billion tranches of imported goods subject to U.S. tariff announcements since last summer. 2 IMF Working Paper WP/19/9, “Macroeconomic Consequences of Tariffs”, by Davide Furceri, Swarnali A. Hannan, Jonathan D. Ostry, and Andrew K. Rose. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Six Questions About Chinese Stocks,” dated January 16, 2019, and Weekly Report “A Gap In The Bridge,” dated January 30, 2019 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging,” dated August 29, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4  Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Is China Making A Policy Mistake?,” dated October 31, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights U.S. Bond Strategy: U.S. Treasury yields are already priced for rate cuts and lower inflation, even as U.S. (and global) growth indicators are improving and U.S. realized inflation has ticked up. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on U.S. duration, even in the face of the current U.S.-China trade tensions. Stay overweight U.S. corporates versus Treasuries as well, with global growth indicators improving and U.S. monetary policy not yet restrictive. European Bond Strategy: Government bond yields in core Europe are too low relative to tentative signs that growth has bottomed out. At the same time, tight euro area corporate bond spreads already discount better economic momentum. Stay below-benchmark on euro area duration exposure, but maintain only a neutral weighting on euro area corporate bonds. Feature Monetary & Fiscal Policy Is More Important Than Trade Policy Chart 1Government Bonds Are Overvalued Government Bonds Are Overvalued Government Bonds Are Overvalued The old market bugaboo from 2018, “global trade uncertainty”, returned last week after the U.S. and China failed to reach a trade deal by last Friday’s deadline. The Trump Administration followed through on its threat to raise the tariff rate on $200 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S. from 10% to 25%, effective immediately. China retaliated by announcing fresh tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. exports to China, effective June 1st. Global equities have responded negatively, with the S&P 500 down -5% since President Trump first Tweeted his threat to increase tariffs on May 5. Global bond yields have declined in a standard risk-off move. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield dropped -13bps over the past week - despite higher-than-expected April CPI and PPI inflation releases – and now sits at 2.40%. Meanwhile, the 10-year German Bund has dipped back into negative territory despite recent data releases showing an unexpected pickup in German industrial activity in March, and a sharp increase in Euro Area core inflation in April. Despite the greater uncertainty, we do not see a case for making any changes to our recommended pro-growth medium-term fixed income recommendations on duration (below-benchmark) or asset allocation (overweight corporates versus government debt). The BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Duration Indicator continues to climb, indicating cyclical pressures for higher global bond yields (Chart 1). Yet at the same time, the deeply negative term premium component of yields in the U.S. and Europe (and most other developed markets) suggests that there is a lot of pessimism on growth and inflation (and a big safe-haven bid from investors) embedded in the current level of yields. Despite the greater uncertainty, we do not see a case for making any changes to our recommended pro-growth medium-term fixed income recommendations on duration (below-benchmark) or asset allocation (overweight corporates versus government debt). Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy now believe that the odds of a trade agreement being reached this year are a 50/50 coin flip. If the talks do break down completely, however, China’s policymakers will almost certainly ramp up additional stimulus measures to offset the hit to growth from the U.S. tariffs. As a reminder, China’s exports to the U.S. only account for around 3.5% of China’s GDP (Chart 2), so U.S. tariffs matter far less than domestic stimulus via fiscal and monetary easing. Thus, any additional stimulus will help sustain the current blossoming rebound in global growth, which has been fueled in part by improved economic sentiment and a pickup in Chinese credit growth (Chart 3). In addition, Chinese import demand has ticked higher, our global leading economic indicator (LEI) is bottoming out, the ZEW surveys of economic sentiment are climbing higher and even the OECD LEI for China is starting to perk up. Chart 2China-U.S. Trade Is A Small Part Of The Two Economies China-U.S. Trade Is A Small Part Of The Two Economies China-U.S. Trade Is A Small Part Of The Two Economies Dovish central banks will also help limit the damage from increased trade uncertainty. In particular, the Fed will not rock the boat and stay “patient” by keeping rates on hold for longer. Chart 3A Consistent Message On A Global Growth Recovery A Consistent Message On A Global Growth Recovery A Consistent Message On A Global Growth Recovery Although given the inflationary implications of higher tariffs and the FOMC’s belief that the recent dip in core PCE inflation was “transitory”, the current market pricing for Fed easing appears too optimistic. Dovish central banks will also help limit the damage from increased trade uncertainty. We did get our first post-tariff read on the Fed’s thinking last Friday, and it did not sound like rate cuts were on the way. Atlanta Fed president Raphael Bostic noted that the most recent CPI and PPI inflation readings suggest that “price pressures are a little hotter” and that the U.S. is “almost to the cusp where we are going to see prices move”.1 He also noted that U.S. businesses are far more likely to pass on a higher 25% tariff on Chinese imports to consumer prices, where previously they had been more willing to absorb the higher cost of the smaller 10% tariff. Of course, an even bigger near-term selloff in global equity and credit markets is possible, if the current impasse between D.C. and Beijing persists without any indication of fresh negotiations. BCA Global Investment Strategy has recommended a tactical hedge to the overall overweight allocation to global equities in our House View matrix by shorting the S&P 500 index.2 However, we do not see the need to make any similar recommendations on the U.S. fixed income side – both the below-benchmark duration stance and the overweight corporate credit tilt - for the following reasons (Chart 4): Our Fed Monitor continues to signal that no rate cuts are required in the U.S., while -31bps of cuts over the next year are already discounted in the U.S. Overnight Index Swap curve. U.S. financial conditions have only tightened modestly on last week’s moves – after the substantial easing seen year-to-date – and still point to above-trend GDP growth over the rest of 2019. U.S. inflation expectations have dipped back to recent lows, even as realized inflation has hooked up; TIPS breakevens are now 40-50bps below levels consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target. The Treasury market is now very overbought from a momentum perspective, while duration positioning is now very long according to the JPMorgan Client Survey. The reaction of U.S. corporate credit spreads to the trade headlines has been relatively muted to date (Chart 5), less than what was seen last December when the market feared a hawkish Fed policy mistake – over the medium-term, monetary policy matters more than trade policy for credit markets. Chart 4Stay Below-Benchmark U.S. Duration Stay Below-Benchmark U.S. Duration Stay Below-Benchmark U.S. Duration Chart 5A Modest Reaction (So Far) To The Tariffs A Modest Reaction (So Far) To The Tariffs A Modest Reaction (So Far) To The Tariffs In other words, U.S. Treasury yields now discount a lot of bad news and, thus, have limited downside even in the event of a further breakdown of U.S.-China trade talks. On the other hand, any positive news on fresh U.S.-China negotiations could send both equities and bond yields substantially higher and tighten credit spreads. On a risk/reward basis, a below-benchmark U.S. duration stance and overweight tilt on U.S. corporates are still warranted, even with the more elevated uncertainty on U.S.-China trade. Bottom Line: U.S. bond yields are already priced for rate cuts and lower inflation, even as U.S. (and global) growth indicators are improving and U.S. realized inflation has ticked up. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on U.S. duration, even in the face of the current U.S.-China trade tensions. Stay overweight U.S. corporates versus Treasuries as well, with global growth indicators improving and U.S. monetary policy not yet restrictive. European Bond Markets – Too Much Bad News In Yields, Too Much Good News In Credit Spreads With markets now focused on the U.S.-China trade squabble, the European economic situation is garnering few headlines. Investors may be missing out on a good story, with euro area data now more frequently surprising to the upside (Chart 6). The ZEW measures of economic sentiment have been picking up in the past few months, most notably in Germany and France, even with current conditions still perceived to be soft. Improved sentiment is where economic upturns begin, however, and it looks like better days lie ahead for European growth. Investors may be missing out on a good story, with euro area data now more frequently surprising to the upside. The 2018 downturn in euro area GDP growth was a result of a sharp downturn in exports that fed into large pullbacks in industrial production. The most recent data, however, shows that exports have started growing again, and production growth is stabilizing (Chart 7). Credit growth has also hooked up in Germany and France, while the credit contraction in Italy and Spain is bottoming out. Chart 6Upside Growth Surprises In Europe? Upside Growth Surprises In Europe? Upside Growth Surprises In Europe? Chart 7Starting To Reverse The 2018 Downturn Starting To Reverse The 2018 Downturn Starting To Reverse The 2018 Downturn The improvement in global leading indicators, such as the China credit impulse and our global LEI diffusion index, points to a rebound in euro area export growth over the latter half of the year (Chart 8). The escalation in the U.S.-China trade dispute is a potential source of concern but, as discussed earlier in this report, Chinese policymakers will likely provide additional stimulus measures to offset any hit from U.S. tariffs. This will help boost European exports to China, especially if Chinese citizens are forced to divert demand away from tariffed U.S. goods towards tariff-free European products. The likely result is that a recovery in net exports will help boost overall euro area GDP growth to an above-trend pace over the next few quarters, which could generate some surprising upside pressures on inflation. Overall euro area inflation remains well below the European Central Bank (ECB) target of “just below” 2%. Looking ahead, faster rates of inflation are more likely over the next 6-12 months (Chart 9). The early “flash” estimate for April headline HICP inflation was 1.7%, but the lagged impact of higher oil prices and a soft euro should provide a lift towards Q4/2019, boosted by faster year-over-year comparisons versus the 2018 plunge in global oil prices. The flash estimate for April also showed that core HICP inflation jumped from 1% to 1.3%. That is a large move even for a data series that has always been volatile, and there may be more signal than noise this time with wage growth also accelerating. Chart 8Exports Set To Boost European Growth Exports Set To Boost European Growth Exports Set To Boost European Growth Chart 9A Whiff Of Inflation? A Whiff Of Inflation? A Whiff Of Inflation? In terms of bond investment strategy, the benchmark 10yr German Bund yield looks too low according to most valuation components (Chart 10): Inflation expectations are too low relative to the rising trend in euro-denominated oil prices, and with actual inflation stabilizing. Our estimate of the term premium component of the Bund yield is also depressed, within 25bps of the deeply negative levels seen during 2015/16, when inflation was near zero and the ECB was most aggressively buying government bonds in its Asset Purchase Program. Our proxy for the market’s expectation of the real neutral short-term interest rate in the euro area - the 5-year EUR Overnight Index Swap rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year EUR CPI swap rate, 5-years forward – is now down to -0.6%. Even allowing for modest potential growth rates in the euro area, and the persistent problems of weak profitability for European banks, such deeply negative real rate expectations discount a lot of pessimism. Similar to the story for U.S. Treasury yields laid our earlier in this report, the medium term risk/reward tradeoff for German Bund yields points to a below-benchmark duration stance as most appropriate. The upside in yields will likely come almost entirely from the inflation expectations component initially, as the ECB will maintain a dovish bias until they are convinced that the economy is indeed accelerating. Thus, we continue to recommend owning inflation protection in the euro area, either through inflation-linked bonds or CPI swaps. Similar to the story for U.S. Treasury yields laid our earlier in this report, the medium term risk/reward tradeoff for German Bund yields points to a below-benchmark duration stance as most appropriate. For spread product, a combination of improving growth, moderate inflation and stable monetary policy should be ideal for the performance of credit. Unfortunately, the robust rally in euro area corporate bonds so far in 2019 has tightened spreads to levels consistent with an accelerating economy (Chart 11). In other words, European corporate credit already discounts the faster growth that is likely to be seen later this year. Just looking at the relationship between credit and the euro area manufacturing PMI, the current level of spreads is more consistent with a PMI several points above the current soft reading that is still below the expansionary 50 line. Chart 10Stay Below-Benchmark ##br##Euro Area Duration Stay Below-Benchmark Euro Area Duration Stay Below-Benchmark Euro Area Duration Chart 11Stay Neutral European Corporates & Underweight BTPs Stay Neutral European Corporates & Underweight BTPs Stay Neutral European Corporates & Underweight BTPs We continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to euro area corporates (both investment grade and high-yield), given the competing forces of cyclical improvement but stretched valuation. As for our other major tilt in Europe, we continue to recommend a cautious, below-benchmark, stance on Italian government bonds. The indicators for the Italian economy are lagging the signs of life seen in other large euro area nations, amidst ongoing fiscal squabbles with the EU. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark stance on Italian government bonds until there is more decisive evidence of a rebound in Italian growth, signaled by a rising OECD LEI for Italy (which has been negatively correlated to Italy-German spreads over the past decade). Bottom Line: Government bond yields in core Europe are too low relative to tentative signs that growth has bottomed out. At the same time, tight euro area corporate bond spreads already discount better economic momentum. Stay below-benchmark on euro area duration exposure, but maintain only a neutral weighting on euro area corporate bonds.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-09/fed-s-bostic-warns-consumers-may-feel-hit-on-china-tariff-boost 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Alert, “Stay Cyclically Overweight Global Equities, But Hedge Near-Term Downside Risks From An Escalation Of A Trade War”, dated May 10th 2019, available at gis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights We were on the road last week, discussing our economic and market outlooks: We met with a range of Midwestern clients who focus primarily on the U.S. A majority of our meetings were with fixed-income teams. The Fed will ultimately decide the fate of the expansion, … : Nearly everyone wanted to get a read on how much longer the expansion will last. We offered the view that the Fed will induce the next recession, provided that an exogenous event doesn’t beat it to the punch. … and inflation will be the catalyst that prompts the Fed to act: Inflation was typically far from investors’ minds, and several of our meetings centered on what will drive it, and where and when we expect it will show up. Feature We traveled throughout the Midwest last week, discussing our outlook for financial markets and the economy with a range of investors. We got the sense that our clients are constructive about the economy and are generally open to tilting portfolios in a risk-friendly direction, albeit somewhat grudgingly. They recognized the challenge that worsening U.S.-China trade relations would pose to a constructive call, but were content to wait for more information before adjusting their views or their portfolios. Our views continue to follow the outline we’ve laid out in our written reports. In the absence of economic or financial market excesses, or an exogenous shock that induces a material slowdown, we expect the expansion to roll on until the Fed begins to fear that it’s gone too far and imposes restrictive monetary policy settings to rein it in. Until it does, we expect that the equity bull market will continue and spread product will deliver positive excess returns over Treasuries. The investment strategy takeaway is that it is too early to de-risk portfolios. De-risking will become the order of the day once the Fed resumes tightening monetary conditions via rate hikes. There is currently no sign that the Fed is contemplating a meaningfully hawkish shift, but we expect that inflation pressures will eventually force its hand. Ten years of subdued inflation have made a mockery of recurring post-crisis inflation warnings, and clients have developed a robust immunity to them. What, they wanted to know, has changed enough to resuscitate inflation? Steroid-Fueled Demand Aggregate demand crashed during the crisis and was far short of the economy’s capacity when it bottomed in mid-2009. In economics lingo, that meant that the U.S. economy faced a sizable negative output gap when it embarked on the recovery/expansion. Although the economy grew at a tepid 2% rate over the ensuing decade, capacity grew even more slowly, held back by consistently weak capital expenditures, and the output gap finally closed around the beginning of 2018 (Chart 1), removing a stout inflation-absorbing buffer. Chart 1The Excess Capacity Cushion Is Gone The Excess Capacity Cushion Is Gone The Excess Capacity Cushion Is Gone The United States then poured fuel on the fire by injecting a significant quantity of stimulus into an economy that was already operating at capacity. Corporations and other businesses that viewed the pickup in aggregate demand as a one-off event refrained from expanding capacity to meet that demand, as it appeared as if it would be a poor use of capital. Imported goods from economies that still have excess capacity can relieve some of the pressure of inadequate domestic supply, but they’re unlikely to absorb all of the pressure from excess demand, even in the absence of new tariff barriers. The aggregate 2018-19 stimulus shapes up as a catalyst for higher prices. Capacity vastly exceeded demand when the economy began to turn around ten years ago, but the stimulus package has made it look a little thin. The trouble is that no one can pinpoint exactly when upward price pressures will reveal themselves. Inflation is the mother of all lagging indicators, peaking and bottoming well after business cycle transitions suggest it should (Chart 2). All we can say is that the steroid injection from the stimulus planted the seeds of inflation. Just when they’ll begin to sprout is uncertain, but we believe the Fed’s pause will give them a chance to take root. Chart 2 Wage Inflation The labor market is so tight that it squeaks. The unemployment rate has fallen to a 49-year low; baby boomer retirements will cap the labor force participation rate around its current level (Chart 3, top panel); and discouraged workers (Chart 3, middle panel) and involuntary part-time workers are few and far between (Chart 3, bottom panel). Now that it has been absorbed, the glut of idled workers will no longer serve as a buffer neutralizing upward wage pressures. The labor market is tight as a drum. The pool of discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers is smaller than it was at the last two cyclical peaks, while employer demand is more robust. Employees are starting to gain bargaining power. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) indicates that demand for new workers is intense. As a share of total filled positions, job openings are at an all-time high in the 18-year history of the series (Chart 4, middle panel). No one quits a job unless s/he has another one lined up, and it almost always requires higher pay to induce an employee to jump from Employer A to Employer B. The elevated quit rate thus reveals that employers are poaching workers from each other to meet that demand (Chart 4, bottom panel). After Employer B lures an employee away from Employer A, Employer A hires a worker from Employer C or Employer D, which now has an opening it needs to fill. The employment merry-go-round creates a self-reinforcing cycle pushing wages higher and endowing employees with newfound bargaining power. Chart 3With Fewer Workers On The Sidelines … With Fewer Workers On The Sidelines ... With Fewer Workers On The Sidelines ... Chart 4… Employers Have Turned To Poaching ... Employers Have Turned To Poaching ... Employers Have Turned To Poaching Self-sustaining wage gains could produce price-level increases via a demand-pull or a cost-push mechanism. In a demand-pull framework, businesses observing steady payroll expansions and increased household income may well attempt to push through selling price increases. Under cost-push, corporations raise prices in an attempt to offset increased labor costs. Then again, the pass-through from wage inflation to price inflation might not occur at all, as the dynamics of inflation are not fully understood. What The Fed Believes Investors may be frustrated by the lack of a clear connection between wages and prices, but they should not be put off by a little ambiguity – there would be no alpha without uncertainty. An absence of realized inflation does not eliminate the prospect of rate hikes. Our Inflation → Rate Hikes → Restrictive Monetary Policy → Recession → Bear Market roadmap may still come to pass. The first step in the chain would simply have to be perceived inflation as opposed to realized inflation, and it’s the Fed’s perception that drives monetary policy, not the public’s. As we stressed in our Special Report on the Phillips curve,1 there is no alternative explanation in mainstream economics connecting the dots between the elements of the Fed’s dual mandate. Every mainstream economic model posits an inverse relationship between inflation and the unemployment rate. Every economist learned about the expectations-augmented Phillips curve multiple times in the course of his or her undergraduate and graduate studies. Until the profession settles on an alternative narrative, the Fed and other major central banks will be beholden to the Phillips curve. The connection between wages and prices is a mystery, but the Phillips curve’s place in mainstream economics remains secure. It’s easy to talk of patience when inflation has been hibernating for ten years, even with the unemployment rate at 49-year lows, but once wage gains begin to exceed 3.5% and 4%, we expect the Fed will change its tune. Wages do not respond to changes in the unemployment rate when there’s ample slack in the labor market, but they do once it becomes difficult to find employees. The varying sensitivity of changes in wages at different levels of unemployment explains the kink in the Phillips curve, but we found the NAIRU-based unemployment gap2 to be a reliable proxy for identifying the point at which the labor market meaningfully tightens (Chart 5). Chart 5NAIRU, … NAIRU, ... NAIRU, ... The natural rate of unemployment is only a concept, however, and the CBO series we use to calculate the unemployment gap is subject to retroactive adjustments intended to better match the CBO’s estimates with real-world observations. We therefore incorporated two alternative measures of labor market slack to test the robustness of the unemployment-gap framework. The first is the Jobs Plentiful/Jobs Hard To Get responses from the Conference Board’s consumer confidence survey. The top panel of Chart 6 calculates the difference between Jobs Hard To Get and Jobs Plentiful; when it’s positive (negative), survey respondents are indicating that the labor market is soft (tight). The disparity in wage growth between the soft and the tight states, as estimated by the hoi polloi, is a little larger than under the CBO’s revised NAIRU estimates, suggesting Main Street may be better positioned to evaluate labor-market dynamics than D Street (the CBO’s address). Chart 6… The Consumer Confidence Survey, … ... The Consumer Confidence Survey, ... ... The Consumer Confidence Survey, ... To get away from the arbitrariness of the unemployment rate and the uncertainty of NAIRU estimates, we considered the employment gap from the perspective of the prime-age (non-)employment-to-population ratio (Chart 7). It also supports the conclusion that wage gains are a function of the degree of labor market slack, but the outlier results from the crisis render the mean non-employment ratio since 1985 a less-than-perfect boundary between tightness and slack. The prime-age (non-)employment-to-population ratio better fits the standard Phillips curve framework, producing a solidly linear relationship (Chart 8). It points to further wage gains as prime-age employment increases. Chart 7… And Prime-Age (Non-)Employment All Point To Faster Wage Gains ... And Prime-Age (Non-)Employment All Point To Faster Wage Gains ... And Prime-Age (Non-)Employment All Point To Faster Wage Gains Chart 8 If productivity continues to grow by leaps and bounds – the fourth-quarter gain was impressive, the first-quarter’s was eye-popping – the Fed won’t feel much pressure to hike rates. Productivity is a function of capital expenditures; workers are able to increase output when they’re provided with more and better tools. Capex has been extremely weak ever since the crisis in the U.S. and the rest of the world, however, and we do not think that investors should count on productivity remaining much above its low 1%-plus trend level of the last several years. Investment Implications The ultimate effect of the Fed’s pause will be to extend the duration of the expansion, assuming that an exogenous shock does not pull the plug on it. Extending the expansion will have the effect of extending the equity bull market, and the period in which spread product generates positive excess returns over Treasuries. There is no free lunch, and dovishness now will be offset by hawkishness later. Larger bull-market gains will ultimately be countered by larger bear-market losses. That is a concern for another day, however, and we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities and spread product in balanced portfolios. We do not see a recession until the second half of 2020 at the earliest. Our best guess is that it will begin around the middle of 2021, so it is too early to de-risk portfolios or shift to a more defensive asset allocation profile.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report,  “The Phillips Curve: Science Or Superstition?”, published February 26, 2019. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The unemployment gap in the top panel of Chart 5 is calculated by subtracting the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of NAIRU from the official unemployment rate. NAIRU, or the natural rate of unemployment (u*), is the minimum unemployment rate that would exist even in a full-employment economy. It results from structural factors like skill and geographic mismatches. The CBO currently estimates that NAIRU is 4.7%; the Fed’s dots suggest that it estimates u* is around 4.6%.  

We are strongly committed to our 2 percent inflation objective and to achieving it on a sustained and symmetric basis. – Jerome Powell, May 1, 2019 St Louis Fed President James Bullard, a voting member of the central bank’s policy committee, said he “certainly would be open to a cut” should inflation continue to fall short of expectations after the summer. – Financial Times, May 3, 2019 The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of prices (the core personal consumption deflator) rose by 1.6% in the year to March, a shortfall from the 2% inflation target. Moreover, the 10-year-moving average of core inflation has remained persistently below the 2% level over the past 17 years (Chart 1). Recent comments from some policymakers and market analysts highlight growing concerns about this shortfall. Personally, I see little to worry about. Chart 1Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% For investors, high and rising inflation is a terrible thing, as is its even more evil twin, a high and accelerating pace of deflation. The Holy Grail for investors and policymakers alike is for actual inflation and inflation expectations to remain both low and stable. It seems to me that this has been achieved, with resulting huge benefits to the economy and financial markets. It matters little that inflation has fallen slightly short of the arbitrary 2% target. If inflation was problematically low, what might we expect to see? Importantly, companies would be complaining about a tough pricing environment and pressure on profits. Yet, S&P 500 profit margins are close to an all-time high (Chart 2). And that is providing powerful support to the stock market, with the S&P 500 also close to its highs. If there were building deflationary pressures in the economy, then it also would be reasonable to expect spreading signs of economic distress. While not every indicator is flashing green, the overall economy is doing just fine. Healthy employment growth, rising real wages and strong profits are more consistent with a nascent inflation problem than with deflation. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, small companies’ main problem is the quality of labor, not concerns about demand. Excessively low inflation is a problem for debtors, but loan delinquency rates – albeit a lagging indicator – are well contained. The Fed makes a big deal about the importance of keeping inflation expectations anchored – i.e. stable at a low level. There does not appear to be any major problem on this front. For example, the New York Fed’s survey of consumers shows median expected inflation of 2.9% in three years’ time (Chart 3). The University of Michigan Survey of Consumers shows expected inflation of 2.3% over the next 5-10 years. The gap between nominal and real 10-year Treasury yields – a proxy for financial market inflation expectations – is lower (currently 1.88%), but that measure moves around a lot and is highly correlated with oil prices. No measures of expected inflation are in free-fall or dangerously low. Chart 2No Signs Of Pricing Distress No Signs of Pricing Distress No Signs of Pricing Distress Chart 3Inflation Expectations Are Contained Inflation Expectations Are Contained Inflation Expectations Are Contained   What If? Suppose that the Fed had been prescient enough to realize 10 years ago that, despite its best efforts, core inflation would average only 1.6% rather than the desired 2% over the coming decade. Presumably, the Fed would have taken even more extreme actions than actually occurred, implying a bigger expansion of its balance sheet. It is unclear whether it would have been any more successful in pushing up actual inflation. But we can be sure that it would have further inflated asset prices and encouraged even more leverage in the corporate sector. Increased financial imbalances in the economy – asset price overshoots and greater leverage – would not have been an attractive trade-off to pushing up inflation by an average 40 basis points. The core problem is that monetary policy is ill-equipped to deal with the forces that have held back economic growth. A combination of demographics, high debt and slower productivity growth have limited the U.S. economy’s potential. Thus, I have a lot of sympathy for Larry Summer’s secular stagnation thesis. Yes, that implies that the real equilibrium interest rate is very low and, therefore, that monetary policy needs to be accommodative. But it also implies that force-feeding the system with easy money is more likely to lead to asset bubbles and financial distortions than to increased consumer price inflation. What About Policy Ammo For The Next Downturn? One of the main arguments for getting inflation up is to give the Fed more scope to ease policy in the next recession. In the past, the Fed has cut the funds rate by an average of around 500 basis points during recessions. Going into the next downturn with inflation and thus interest rates close to current levels means it would not take long for the funds rate reach the constraints of the zero bound. However, this also would be the case if core inflation was at or modestly above the 2% target. That is why some commentators (e.g. Olivier Blanchard and Larry Summers) have argued for an inflation target of 4% during good times in order to allow for a large fall in interest rates when times turn bad. As long as inflation is in moderate single digits, its stability probably is more important than its level. In other words, if inflation was at 4% and was expected by all economic and financial agents to remain at that level for the foreseeable future, then the economy should not perform any worse than if inflation had stabilized at 2% - and it might even perform better. However, central banks have long had the view that the higher the inflation rate, the less stable it would be. And the same logic would apply to the downside if there was deflation. For example, once inflation rises from 2% to 4%, then it could easily move from 4% to 6% etc. Given the challenges of fine-tuning monetary policy, that view has merit. Raising the inflation target is all very well, but if central banks are having trouble getting the rate to 2%, how on earth would they get it to 4%. And the same point applies if the Fed were to shift from targeting the inflation rate to targeting the level of prices or of nominal GDP. If boosting the Fed’s balance sheet from less than $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion did not get inflation to 2%, what would it take to get inflation to 4%? It is always possible to increase inflation. For example, the government could give all households a check for $10,000 that had to be spent on domestically-produced goods and services. Furthermore, assume the checks were valid only for one year and the fiscal costs were directly financed by the Fed. This would undoubtedly unleash a powerful consumer boom and a spike in inflation. And the government could keep repeating the exercise until a sustained inflation upturn took hold. But that is an unrealistic scenario except in the event of an Armageddon economic situation. And it hardly would fit in with keeping inflation stable at a modestly higher pace. A recession is very likely within the next couple of years and monetary policy will indeed face major constraints on its actions. We undoubtedly would see renewed quantitative easing on a heroic scale with an expanded range of assets purchased by the central bank. And advocates of Modern Monetary Theory may well have their wishes granted with direct monetary financing of fiscal deficits. But, as already noted, policymakers would face these policy challenges regardless of whether inflation was modestly below or above the 2% target. Be Careful What You Wish For The Fed spent three decades squeezing inflation out of the system. In the 1970s and 1980s, high inflation expectations were deeply embedded in the behavior of consumers, companies and investors. It was a long and at times painful process to change that psychology. With inflation expectations now in the range of 2% to 3%, the Fed can claim success. Why would they want to risk undoing that achievement? Letting the economy run hot to try and offset sub-2% inflation with a period of above-2% inflation would be a dangerous strategy. History shows us that central banks have both limited understanding of the inflation process and limited control over the economy. If policymakers were successful in raising inflation, they run the risk that expectations would no longer be anchored. Moreover, the Fed would have a massive problem in communicating the logic of a pro-inflation strategy. Having spent so long in selling the message that low and stable inflation is the best way to maximize long-run economic growth, it likely would create considerable confusion to then say that a period of higher inflation was acceptable. Investors and businesses would face huge uncertainty about the magnitude and duration of an inflation overshoot and about whether the Fed could even control the process. The Fed’s credibility undoubtedly would suffer. It is true that policymakers know how to bring inflation back under control – they simply have to tighten policy. But that introduces increased instability into the economy and financial markets. Rather than be obsessed about hitting the 2% target, policymakers should be happy that they have met the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act: “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” The Policy Outlook And Market Implications The Fed was right to stop raising interest rates. The economy does not appear to be on the verge of overheating and there are enough risks to the outlook to warrant a cautious wait-and-see approach to policy. Yet, I am somewhat troubled by the dovish tone of some Fed officials. Thank goodness President Trump’s recent choices for Fed Board positions are now out of the picture. If I am worried now, I can only imagine how much worse I would have felt with Stephen Moore and Herman Cain on the Board. With no recession on the horizon and the labor markets extremely tight, I fully expect to see inflation gather steam later this year. But I suspect that the Fed will be slow to react. And then the timing of the 2020 elections will become a factor. The FOMC is not particularly sensitive to political considerations, but this is no ordinary President. The Fed would have to be very sure of itself before it started raising rates again in the midst of the election cycle. The bottom line is that we are setting up for a monetary policy error with the Fed falling behind the inflation curve later this year or in early 2020. This will be positive for risk assets in the short run, but poses a big threat down the road. Notwithstanding our concerns about the near-term market impact of current U.S.-China trade tensions, our strategy is thus to remain overweight equities and corporate credit until we see signs that financial conditions are about to significantly tighten.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com