Policy

Highlights Corporates: The same indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are once again sending a positive signal. Investors should tactically increase exposure to corporate bonds at the expense of Treasuries. Duration: Treasury yields will rise in the coming months as credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has fallen too far, and it is now well below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. Feature We continue to view the 2015/16 episode as the appropriate comparable for current market behavior, and the same indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are once again sending a positive signal. As such, we recommend increasing portfolio allocations to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds at the expense of Treasury securities (see the Recommended Portfolio Specification Table on the last page of this report). Importantly, our cyclical view of the credit cycle has not changed. Elevated corporate debt balances and a relatively flat yield curve suggest that we are in the awkward middle phase of the cycle when excess returns from corporate credit tend to be positive, but low.1  However, recent spread widening has been excessive for this middle phase of the cycle, and we expect spreads to tighten from oversold levels during the next few months. Three Reasons To Upgrade Credit (& One Key Risk) Reason 1: Elevated Spreads The first reason to upgrade corporate credit is the attractive entry point (Chart 1). Outside of the Aaa space, 12-month breakeven spreads for every credit tier (encompassing both investment grade and junk) are above their respective historical medians. For example, the 12-month breakeven spread for the Baa credit tier is at 59%. This means that the spread has been tighter than its current level 59% of the time since 1988 and wider than its current level 41% of the time. Historically, spreads tend to hover within the tight-end of their historical range during this middle phase of the credit cycle, and only cheapen significantly when the yield curve inverts and the default rate moves higher. Chart 1Corporate Bonds: Attractive Entry Point Reason 2: Fed Capitulation The 2015/16 roadmap is applicable to the current market because in both cases credit spread widening was driven by the combination of weaker global growth and relatively hawkish Fed policy.2 With that in mind, an important pre-condition for spread tightening is a shift in the market’s expectations for Fed policy. Investor psyche must change from viewing monetary policy as restrictive to viewing it as accommodative. Chart 2 shows the three indicators we’ve been monitoring to signal when this shift occurs. All three called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads, and all are sending a strong buy signal at the moment. Chart 2Fed Capitulation Indicators Send A Strong Signal... Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter, the change in the fed funds rate that is priced into the overnight index swap curve for the next 12 months, has collapsed from an early-November peak of 66 bps all the way to -4 bps (Chart 2, top panel). The gold price has also rebounded smartly (Chart 2, panel 2). Gold tends to rally when the market perceives that monetary policy is becoming more accommodative because the increased risk of future inflation makes gold’s “store of value” characteristics more appealing.3 Finally, the trade-weighted dollar has started to depreciate (Chart 2, bottom panel). This signals that U.S. monetary policy is easing relative to the rest of the world, and is historically correlated with stronger global growth. Reason 3: Imminent Global Growth Rebound The high-frequency global growth indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are not sending as strong a signal as the monetary policy indicators, but there has been some positive movement (Chart 3). Chart 3...While There Is Positive Movement In Global Growth Indicators The CRB Raw Industrials index has only flattened-off in recent weeks (Chart 3, top panel), but the Market-Based China Growth Indicator created by our China Investment Strategy team has been rising quickly (Chart 3, panel 2).4  Finally, the price of global industrial mining stocks is no longer in free-fall. Rather, it is showing some signs of stabilization (Chart 3, bottom panel). Of the six indicators shown in Charts 2 and 3, four are sending strong buy signals and the other two are more or less neutral. In sum, we think this is enough of a signal to upgrade exposure to corporate bonds. One Key Risk The key risk to our tactical upgrade is that there is no follow-through from Fed easing to stronger global growth. In 2016, Fed capitulation coincided with a ramp-up in Chinese stimulus efforts. Chart 4 shows that our China Investment Strategy team’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator moved sharply higher in early 2016.5 Moreover, all six components of the indicator participated in the uptrend. At present, only some components of the Leading Index have rebounded and the overall index has merely leveled-off. Chart 4Chinese Growth Is The One Key Risk When it comes to Chinese growth, a trade deal with the U.S. would certainly help matters. However, the risk remains that Chinese policymakers continue to curb credit growth so much that the pass through from easier Fed policy to global growth is weaker than in 2016. Bottom Line: With Fed rate hikes priced out of the market and signs of stabilization in high-frequency global growth indicators, the toxic combination of tight Fed policy and weak global growth is disappearing. This should allow credit spreads to tighten from current oversold levels. The rapid shift in monetary policy expectations makes us think that spread tightening could occur over a relatively short timeframe. As such, we would recommend this upgrade only to tactical (3-6 month) investors. Those with longer investment horizons may be better served by waiting for spreads to tighten and then using that opportunity to reduce cyclical corporate bond exposure. A Note On Portfolio Duration As mentioned above, the market has completely priced out Fed rate hikes. At present, the overnight index swap curve discounts 4 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months and 17 bps of rate cuts over the next 24 months. This shift in market rate expectations is the main reason for our rosier outlook on corporate spreads, but it’s important to remember that the causation between credit spreads and policy expectations runs both ways (Chart 5). It is the recent spread widening and sharp tightening in financial conditions that caused the Fed to adopt a more accommodative policy stance in the first place (Chart 6). In the background, the U.S. economic data remain robust. The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast model projects above-trend real GDP growth of 2.5% in 2018 Q4 and 2.1% in 2019 Q1. The corollary is that once credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease, the Fed will have no further reason to stay on hold. Chart 6Financial Conditions Likely Going To Ease Going Forward If financial conditions ease during the next few months, as we expect, then it is very likely that the Fed will be ready to lift rates again at the June FOMC meeting. The fed funds futures curve currently discounts less than a 20% chance of that happening.  Bottom Line: The U.S. economic data are solid. The sharp fall in rate hike expectations and Treasury yields is purely a reaction to tighter financial conditions. Treasury yields will rise in the coming months as credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Inflation & TIPS The main reason why the Fed feels comfortable responding to tighter financial conditions by adopting a more dovish policy stance is that inflation remains well contained. Last week’s CPI report showed that core CPI grew by 2.2% in 2018, somewhat below levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target (Chart 7).6 Chart 7Inflation Remains Well Contained Looking at the monthly changes, we also see that core CPI has increased by roughly 0.2% in each of the past three months. This translates to an annualized rate of approximately 2.4%, in line with the Fed’s target (Chart 8). The monthly changes shown in Chart 8 also reveal that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will almost certainly decline next month when the strong 0.35% print from last January falls out of the trailing 12-month sample. Chart 8Muted Inflationary Pressures For Now However, after next month base effects start to turn supportive. Our Base Effects Indicator, an indicator that compares rates of change in core CPI ranging from 1 to 11 months, predicts that year-over-year core CPI inflation will be higher six months from now (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect Higher Inflation Six Months From Now The conclusion is that inflationary pressures appear muted right now, and will continue to appear muted through the end of February. However, we expect them to ramp up again as we head into March. Come June, it is quite likely that the Fed will be feeling the pressure to lift rates as inflation approaches target. Coincident with a renewed uptick in inflation, TIPS breakeven inflation rates are also biased higher during the next six months. Slowing global growth and falling oil prices drove long-maturity breakevens lower during the past few months, with the result that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is now 1.83%, 14 bps below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model (Chart 10).7  Chart 10Message From Our Adaptive Expectations Model Our Adaptive Expectations model contains three independent variables: The 10-year trailing rate of change in core CPI (Chart 10, panel 3) The 12-month trailing rate of change in headline CPI (Chart 10, panel 4) The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge (Chart 10, bottom panel) Of those three variables, the 10-year trailing rate of change in core CPI carries the largest weight. This long-run measure of core inflation is currently running at an annualized pace of 1.83%. This translates roughly to an average monthly increase of 0.15%. In other words, as long as monthly core inflation prints above the 0.15% level, the fair value from our Adaptive Expectations model will continue to rise. Bottom Line: Core inflation has been steady during the past few months, but base effects will turn positive after next month’s report. This means that we will probably see higher year-over-year core CPI inflation in six months. With the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate already well below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model, we expect TIPS will outperform nominal Treasuries during the next six months.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity?”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Signal From Gold?”, dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For further details on how this indicator is constructed please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 The Li Keqiang Leading Indicator is a composite indicator of money and credit growth measures designed to predict changes in the Li Keqiang Index (a coincident indicator of Chinese economic activity). For further details on how the Leading Index is constructed please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 The Fed targets 2% PCE inflation. CPI inflation tends to run about 0.4%-0.5% higher than PCE, which means the Fed’s target is roughly 2.4%-2.5% for CPI. 7 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Survey data are easing, but that should not come as a surprise: The economy should decelerate as fiscal thrust is dialed back. Just a little patience (yeah-eah): A chorus of Fed speakers have taken to the podiums to reassure the public that the FOMC is taking its concerns seriously. The labor force participation rate popped in December, but investors shouldn’t count on it to produce a Goldilocks dual-mandate outcome: The demographic obstacle to continued part-rate gains is formidable. It is too early to de-risk portfolios: We remain constructive on risk assets and the economy. Feature Walking past flat-screen TVs during the workday has become considerably more pleasant. CNBC has switched out its red-drenched Market Sell-Off backdrop for a bright-green backdrop framing cheerful messages like, “Stocks are on track to rise for the third day in four.” In the ten sessions following Christmas Eve, the S&P 500 gained a stout 10%. Even a sharply negative preannouncement from Apple, and the prospect that 8% of Amazon’s outstanding shares could eventually hit the market, failed to halt the upward march. Only the disappointing December ISM Manufacturing survey has managed to bother the equity market over the course of the snapback rally, but the disappointment was quickly forgotten upon the next morning’s release of the gangbusters December employment report. The down-2.5%-one-day-up-3.5%-the-next action highlighted the fragility of the investor psyche. Markets are deeply uncertain about the economy, and how the Fed’s rate-hiking campaign will impact it. This week, we consider the evidence from the ISM and NFIB surveys, the recent wave of comments from Jay Powell and the regional Fed presidents, and the labor market to reassess our outlook for financial markets and the economy. Survey Says Over the first two weeks of January, the ISM surveys, the NFIB small business survey and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) all indicated slowing in their subject areas. An investor could point to them as evidence that the expansion is on its last legs, but we interpreted them as mixed, and do not see them as an argument for de-risking portfolios. Recall that the economy grew so far above trend in 2018 because of a generous helping of fiscal stimulus; as the stimulus is throttled back, the economy will decelerate. Markets had already factored the survey results into their expectations and took them in stride (Chart 1). Chart 1Soft Data Are Not A Surprise The magnitude of the weakness in the manufacturing ISM survey did come as a surprise. Beneath the headline (Chart 2, top panel), the employment reading slipped (Chart 2, second panel) and prices paid plunged (Chart 2, third panel), suggesting that the economy may not be so robust after all, but at least stagflation is not yet a concern. New orders, the component with the best leading properties, fell a whopping eleven points to get uncomfortably close to the boom/bust line (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2Manufacturing May Be Wobbling, ... Manufacturing accounts for a modest share of U.S. employment and output, and we don’t dwell too much on it per se, but it may provide a window into global conditions. Trade tensions’ impact on global growth has been our foremost worry this year, and it is possible that the weakening manufacturing ISM points to weakness in the global economy. The U.S. is fairly inured from global weakness relative to other economies, but there is no such thing as decoupling. Weakness in the rest of the world will eventually make itself felt in the U.S., and we are watching the trade climate and global conditions carefully. The services ISM also declined more than expected, but a reading in the 57-58 range is strong, and points to an economy growing above trend. Employment (Chart 3, second panel) and new orders (Chart 3, bottom panel) both remain at or above a standard deviation above the mean. It is often true that markets care more about incremental changes than levels, but it is not an always-and-everywhere rule. In the context of an economy operating well above capacity, some slowing is both inevitable and desirable. We will watch the services ISM for signs of continued slowing, but we do not yet see any cause for concern. Chart 3... But Services Are Still Strong Small-business optimism continues to support a constructive take on the economy, despite the modest pullback in the NFIB survey and some of its key components. The headline index has come off of the all-time highs it set in 2018, but remains at very high levels relative to history (Chart 4, top panel). Job openings hit an all-time high in December (Chart 4, second panel), underscoring the message from the persistently strong payrolls data, and the share of small businesses deeming it a good time to expand (Chart 4, third panel) and that plan to expand headcount over the next three months (Chart 4, bottom panel) are well above one-standard-deviation levels. Surveys are soft data, but both the headline optimism index and the good-time-to-expand component have begun to slide well in advance of the last three recessions, suggesting they’re useful leading indicators. Chart 4Small-Businesses Are Still Bulled Up As strong as the employment picture has been, it is only a coincident indicator. The dot-com recession took employers (Chart 5, top panel) and job-hopping employees (Chart 5, bottom panel) by surprise, but there is nothing in the rate of job openings or quits in the JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data that should inspire concern about the state of the economy. The series are off their highs, but there’s nothing to worry about at their still-elevated levels. Chart 5Softer, But Hardly Soft Bottom Line: Survey data have weakened as fiscal stimulus has waned, just as investors should have expected. We are keeping a close eye on the new orders component of the ISM Manufacturing survey, but nothing in the services ISM, NFIB or JOLTS surveys merits too much concern. FOMC Members Speak (And Speak, And Speak) The New Year brought an avalanche of comments from FOMC members. Chairman Powell, Vice Chairman Clarida, and seven regional presidents gave speeches, made appearances, or sat for interviews in the first two weeks of January, and New York Fed president Williams gave a long interview to CNBC two days after the December meeting. Away from uber-dove Bullard (St. Louis), who warned in a Wall Street Journal interview that further rate hikes could tip the economy into a recession, the various officials stressed the Fed’s open-mindedness. (Bullard, who is an FOMC voter this year, has repeatedly urged caution about hiking too much.) The overall thrust of the remarks has been to accentuate the FOMC’s commitment to go where the data lead. Echoing the language in the December minutes, several speakers noted that the Fed can be “patient,” given that inflation shows no signs of breaking out. The impact has been to soothe markets, which seem to be acutely concerned that rate hikes might go too far. (Though the speakers did little to ease concerns about balance-sheet reduction, or “quantitative tightening,” the Treasury, corporate-bond, and equity markets retraced much of their risk-off moves anyway.) Jay Powell set the tone for the overall message in a public appearance on January 4th, when he said the Fed “was listening sensitively to the message the markets are sending.” He underlined the data-dependency theme in an appearance last week, in which he said that, “we can be patient and flexible and wait and see what does evolve, and I think for the meantime, we’re waiting and watching. You should anticipate that we’re going to be patient and watching, and waiting and seeing.” His FOMC colleagues took care to drive home the same talking points, noting that data dependency includes following sentiment surveys, talking with business contacts, and watching markets. The speakers and the minutes also highlighted the discrepancy between robust 2018 growth of at least 3% and the much gloomier outlook implied by financial markets’ dreadful fourth quarter. None of the sensitive listeners disregarded the markets’ concerns, though Boston president Rosengren suggested that the markets may have gotten carried away. “My own view is that the economic outlook is actually brighter than the outlook one might infer from recent financial market movements.” Although we think the Fed will hike several more times before reaching this cycle’s terminal fed funds rate, the uniformity of the FOMC member comments leads us to expect that it will take a break, perhaps until June. Bottom Line: Our terminal fed funds rate estimate remains considerably higher than the money market’s, but we expect the Fed will pause for a few meetings. A pause may soothe markets and unwind the tightening of financial conditions that occurred in the fourth quarter, clearing the way for the Fed to resume its tightening campaign. Labor-Market Goldilocks The December employment report pointed the way to an outcome that could satisfy financial markets and FOMC doves like Minneapolis president Kashkari. Despite the outsize expansion in nonfarm payrolls, the unemployment rate rose by two ticks because of a surge in labor force participation. Last week, Kashkari attributed his ongoing aversion to rate hikes to the possibility that there’s more slack in the labor market than the committee may realize. “There might be a lot more people out there that we just don’t know [about] that are uncounted. Let’s go figure that out, and if we see inflationary pressures building, we can always hike rates then.” If the participation rate rises at a pace that allows new labor supply to offset continuing demand for workers, expanding payrolls don’t have to exert any generalized upward pressure on wages. Absent upward wage pressure, inflation could easily remain well-behaved. One month doesn’t make a trend, but December’s 63.1% reading brought the part rate back to the top of the range that has been in place for five years (Chart 6). A breakout could point the way to a Goldilocks outcome of inflation-free employment gains, but demographics suggest that there’s a limit to how much the part rate can advance. Chart 6Back To The Top Of The Range The demographic drag on participation is largely a function of the baby boomers’ extended departure from the work force. AARP estimates that at least 10,000 of them turn 65 every day, and will continue to do so into the 2030s. Boomer employment was in its heyday in the late ‘90s, when potential participation exceeded 67% (Chart 7, top panel), and all of the baby boomers were in their prime working years.1 Now that they are exiting the labor force in a lengthy procession, labor force participation is swimming upstream, and it may not be able to do much more than hold the level it’s maintained since 2014. Chart 7How Much More Slack? The shrinking supply of discouraged workers (workers who would start a job tomorrow if they were offered one, but are no longer actively looking for work and are therefore not counted as unemployed), suggests that much of the slack in the labor market has already been consumed (Chart 7, bottom panel). The disability rolls could be a source of Kashkari’s “uncounted” potential workers, however. The share of idled workers receiving disability benefits rose after the crisis (Chart 8), accounting for some of the widening gap between the part rate and the demographically-adjusted part rate. It is possible that some people who weren’t truly disabled will be motivated to come back to work, and their return to the work force may account for some of the pickup in participation, but our best guess is that they represent no more than a marginal source of labor supply. Chart 8Disability Claimants Won't Save The Day Bottom Line: The available evidence suggests that the labor market is quite tight. We expect that upward wage pressures will become increasingly apparent across 2019. Investment Implications An increasingly conciliatory Fed offers additional support for our equity overweight. A Fed pause might relieve some upward pressure on interest rates, but we expect that relief will only be temporary. As financial markets heal, easier financial conditions will clear the way for the Fed to resume its rate-hiking campaign. The sharp decline in Treasury yields at longer maturities only increases our conviction in underweighting Treasuries and maintaining below-benchmark duration positioning in all bond portfolios. As we noted last week, we think the high-yield bond market overreacted last quarter. Against a benign default outlook for 2019, 200 basis points of spread-widening seems extreme. A spread-product upgrade would fit with our equity upgrade, but we will wait until our U.S. Bond Strategy colleagues complete their review of their own recommendation before we consider changing our call. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Workers between the ages of 25 and 54, inclusive, are considered to be in their prime working years. The boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, and they were all in their prime working years from 1989 (when the youngest cohort turned 25) to 2000 (when the oldest cohort turned 54). 2018 was the last year that any of the boomers were between 25 and 54.

Dear Client, This Wednesday January 9th 2019, we are publishing a joint report co-written with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team. There will be no report on Friday. Best Regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Highlights So What? U.S. President Donald Trump is not solely focusing on stock prices, but he does not want an entrenched bear market to develop under his watch. Why? Entrenched bear markets often herald recessions. A recession would seriously endanger Trump’s re-election chances. The Federal Reserve will not alter its course to please Trump, but it will pause in order to safeguard the economy. While at first the dollar will weaken in response to a Fed pause, economic fundamentals argue that the greenback will enjoy a last hurrah before a true bear market can begin. Feature Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s legendary concern for the stock market, the S&P 500 is nonetheless down 6.7% since his G-20 truce with Chinese President Xi Jinping. We mark that date as notable on Chart I-1 – not because we think it caused the markets to plunge, but because many investors thought it would buoy equities into a Santa Claus rally. Further, many investors predicted that the G-20 truce would come about specifically because Trump wanted stocks to do well. Chart I-1Santa Did Not Show Up After The Buenos Aires Meeting There are so many methodological problems with this train of thought that it could be the main thrust of a PhD dissertation. But, for starters, the assertion that Trump is obsessed with stocks embeds causality into a dependent variable. In simple terms, it posits that the stock market’s performance is an end in of itself for President Trump, and thus he will do whatever it takes to prolong the bull market. Here’s a hint for the collective investment community: If something sounds too good to be true, it is almost definitely not true. The idea that the President of the United States, no matter how unorthodox… …Exclusively cares about the stock market… … And has the extraordinary power… ... and mental acumen… …to keep the stock market perpetually rising, is indeed too good to be true. First, President Trump has clearly shown that he does not exclusively care about the stock market, by shutting down the government midway through a bear market. Now, it is not clear to us how a federal government shutdown directly impacts the earnings of U.S. companies, but it is clear that it does not instill confidence among investors that Trump and the incoming Democrat-held House will be able to play nice together, or at least nice enough, to avert a potentially recession-inducing 2020 stimulus cliff (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Can Trump And The Democrats Play Nice Enough To Dodge The Cliff? BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy noted the danger of the government shutdown by calling it “the one true midterm-related risk.” The reasoning was that, “A lame duck Congress, or worse a Democratic Congress, will give President Trump all the reason he needs to grind things to a halt over his wall, with a view to 2020.” Further to this point, Trump has not exactly been a boon to the stock market since passing his signature legislation – the tax reform bill – at the end of 2017. Throughout 2018, he has focused his policy on a trade war with China, and we would also argue with a view towards the 2020 election. Now admittedly, the stock market completely and utterly ignored all bad news on the trade front (Chart I-3) – ironically, until a truce was called! – but the fact remains that President Trump did not listen to the almost-certain advice from his “globalist” advisors that a trade war could, at some point, hurt the S&P 500. Chart I-3The Market's Schizophrenic Relationship With The Trade War Second, the President of the United States of America is not a medieval king. He is not even the president of China nor even the prime minister of Canada (both policymakers with far more power inside their own political systems than the American president).1 The president is massively constrained in terms of economic policy by the Congress, a branch of government he only nominally has influence over. Further, his regulatory policy can be impeded by the bureaucracy and the courts. In addition, steering an economy as massive and multifaceted as that of the U.S. is not a one-man job. It is not a “job” at all. The best a president can do is set the conditions in place – through regulation, tax policy, and rhetoric – which stokes animal spirits in a positive direction. For much of 2017 and early 2018, President Trump did this. But the stock market, and the economy by extension, always wants more. More pro-business regulation and more reassuring rhetoric. President Trump generally gets an A on the former, but an F on the latter. Not only is the trade war a concern to investors, but so are a slew of other confidence-deflating comments by the president on FAANG regulation, the government shutdown, the White House staffing, the Fed’s independence, and foreign policy writ large. As for the question of mental acumen, President Trump may be a “stable genius,” but no single policymaker is able to influence equities. As an aside, we are shocked by how much the investment community has changed in the past eight years. When we began taking politics seriously in our investment strategy, back in 2011, it took a lot of convincing that systemic political analysis had a role to play with respect to one’s asset allocation. Now, investors are willing to bet their shirt on the actions of one politician. It is as if the investment community is trying to overcorrect for decades of ignoring politics as a valuable input in one single presidential term. So, what does this mean for U.S. equities from here on out? We agree with our clients that the one thing President Trump wanted to avoid was a bear market. We staunchly disagreed that equities could not correct significantly under his watch, and we shorted the S&P 500 outright in September, but we begrudgingly agreed that President Trump, as with all other presidents before him, would rather not deal with a bear market. Those tend to foreshadow a recession, and recessions tend to end re-election bids (Chart I-4). For much of 2019, we expect that President Trump will focus on ensuring that a recession does not occur ahead of his 2020 election bid. This is likely to become a defining motivating factor in all policy, whether domestic, foreign or trade. Can he be successful? It is not up to the U.S. President to determine when a recession hits, but the point is that he is likely to put his re-election bid above all other considerations. As such, we would expect that: The government shutdown will be resolved in January. A compromise will emerge to end the shutdown that falls short of president Trump’s demands. Ultimately, Trump needs Democrats to play ball with the White House and the Republican Senate in order to avert the stimulus cliff in 2020. Trade negotiations may produce a truce. There is a combined, subjective, probability of 70-75% that the ongoing trade negotiations produce either an outright deal (45-50%) or an extension of the talks with no further tariffs (25%). Trump is likely to back off from further trade antagonism, at least until the run-up to the 2020 election. There will be a parallel process where a China-U.S. tech war continues. Attacks on the Fed will cease. At least until the 2020 election, or until the recession actually hits. But with the Fed itself already signalling that it won’t be dogmatic, the reasons to go after the central bank will recede. Bottom Line: President Trump does not care about stock prices any more than other presidents have in the past. What matters to him is to avoid a protracted bear market in equity prices, as it would severely raise the probability of an upcoming recession, endangering his chances of re-election. This means the government shutdown will likely end this month, that the trade negotiations have a solid chance of producing a protracted truce, and that attacks on the Fed will ebb. Can The Dollar Rally Further? Is a U.S. president focused on avoiding a recession in order to get re-elected a good thing or a bad thing for the dollar? While stronger U.S. growth is inherently a positive for the dollar, the current juncture muddies the waters. To begin with, the risk of a correction in the U.S. dollar has risen considerably in recent weeks. The dollar is historically a momentum currency, implying that as much as strength begets further strength, weakness begets additional weakness.2 As a result, the fall in the DXY from 97.5 in December to 96 raises a red flag. This red flag is even more worrisome when looking at the dollar’s technical picture (Chart I-5). The 13-month rate-of-change has been forming a bearish divergence with prices, and both sentiment and net speculative positioning are holding at lofty levels. Not only does this confirm that on a tactical basis, the dollar is losing momentum, but it also highlights that if momentum deteriorates further, a large pool of potential sellers exist. Chart I-5Tactical Risks For The Greenback Policy too constitutes a risk. President Trump could relent on his attacks on the Fed, but as we mentioned, the Fed seems to also be relenting on its own hard-nosed approach to monetary policy. Last Friday, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell highlighted that policy was not on autopilot, and that monetary policy is ultimately data dependent. In fact, the Federal Open Market Committee is not antagonistic to a pause in its hiking campaign, nor to tweaking its balance-sheet policy if economic and financial conditions deteriorate further. The Fed moving away from hiking once every quarter should provide ammunition to sellers of the greenback. However, the interest rate market already has very muted expectations for the Fed, anticipating 6 basis points and 17 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months, respectively (Chart I-6). Thus, to be a durable headwind to the dollar, the Fed needs to be more dovish than what is already priced in. We doubt this will be the case: Chart I-6Scope For A Hawkish Fed Surprise In 2019 The ISM may have been weak, but the U.S. continues to generate a healthy level of job growth, and wages continue to accelerate (Chart I-7). Down the road, this will be inflationary. Consumption, or 68% of GDP, remains healthy. Real retail sales excluding motor vehicle and part dealers are still growing at a 4.3% pace. Robust job and wage growth will continue to support the ultimate driver of household spending: disposable income. Moreover, the household savings rate stands at 6% of disposable income, debt-servicing costs at 9.9%, and overall household debt has fallen to 100%, a level not seen since the turn of the century. The financial health of households insulates them against the negative impact of the tightening in financial conditions recorded this past fall.  Despite the recent deterioration in the ISM and the rise in credit costs, commercial and industrial loan growth continues to accelerate, with both the annual and the quarterly-annualized growth rates of this series rising the most in more than two years (Chart I-8). Chart I-7U.S. Wages Are Still Accelerating Chart I-8Positive Developments On The U.S. Credit Front Based on this combination, we would anticipate the Fed pausing in its hiking campaign for one to two quarters. This would nonetheless represent a more hawkish outcome than the one expected by the market, and thus would not be a dollar-bearish configuration. In our view, the biggest domestic risk for the Fed remains the housing market, which for most of this cycle has been the principal vehicle through which monetary policy has been transmitted to the economy. Housing has indubitably slowed, but the recent pick-up in the purchases component of the Mortgage Bankers Association index gives hope that this sector is making a trough as we write. What about tighter financial conditions: could they also threaten the dollar? After all, the tightening in FCI in the second half of 2018 is acting as a break on growth, diminishing the need for Fed hikes. If stocks and high-yield bonds sell off further, the Fed will likely hike less than we anticipate. However, a Fed pause and the more attractive valuations created by the recent selloff suggest that FCI should not deteriorate much more. Indeed, the 64-basis-point contraction in high-yield spreads since January 3rd shows that financial conditions have begun to ease. Our Global Investment Strategy team thinks that stocks are a buy, a view also consistent with an easing in U.S. FCI.3 As a result, we do not believe that U.S. financial conditions will force the Fed to cut rates, and thus will not create a handicap for the dollar. Finally, the most important factor for the dollar remains global growth. The dollar historically performs best when both global growth and inflation are decelerating (Chart I-9). Because the U.S. economy has a low exposure to both manufacturing and exports, it is a low-beta economy, relatively insulated from the global industrial cycle. Hence, when global growth decelerates, the U.S. suffers less than the rest. As a result, the U.S. syphons funds from the rest of the world, lifting the dollar in the process. Currently, the outlook for global growth remains poor. At the epicenter of it all lies China. Chinese manufacturing PMIs have fallen below 50. There are plenty of reasons to worry that the slowdown will not end here. Chinese consumers too are feeling the pinch, despite having been the recipient of much governmental support, including tax cuts (Chart I-10). Moreover, the fall in the combined fiscal and credit impulse also suggests that Chinese imports could suffer more in the coming months, creating a greater drag on the trading nations of the world (Chart I-11). Finally, China’s rising marginal propensity to save confirms these insights, pointing to slowing Chinese industrial activity and imports as well as deteriorating global export growth and industrial activity (Chart I-12).4 Chart I-10The Chinese Consumer Is Also Hungover   Chart I-11Chinese Credit Trends Point To Weaker Imports...   Chart I-12...And China's Rising Marginal Propensity To Save Corroborates This Risk Ultimately, these developments suggest that China needs to ease policy a lot more before growth can be revived. The reserve-requirement-ratio cuts announced last week are not enough to do the trick and may in fact only alleviate the traditional liquidity crunch associated with the Chinese New Year celebration – nothing more. Instead, we expect Chinese interest rates to continue to lag behind U.S. rates, a development historically associated with a strong dollar (Chart I-13). A tangible symptom that China’s reflation is positively affecting the global growth outlook will be when Chinese rates rise relative to U.S. ones. This is what is needed for the dollar to peak this cycle. We are not there yet. Continued weakness in the global PMI and German factory orders only gives more weight to this view. Chart I-13Rising U.S.-China Spreads Point To A Stronger Dollar Practically, we think a move in DXY to 94 or EUR/USD to 1.17 is likely in the coming weeks. However, the combined realization that the U.S. economy will not go into recession – and that therefore the Fed will not pause for the whole of 2019 – and that global growth has yet to bottom, means at those levels the dollar will be a buy. The yen is likely to suffer most in this context. If the markets begin pricing in a stronger U.S. economy than what is currently anticipated, U.S. 10-year yields will rise and the U.S. yield curve will steepen, hurting the JPY in the process. EUR/JPY is an attractive buy right now (Chart I-14). Chart I-14EUR/JPY Set To Rebound Bottom Line: As the market begins digesting the reality of a Fed pause, the dollar could experience some short-term vulnerability, pushing DXY toward 94 and EUR/USD toward 1.17. However, we would anticipate the dollar’s weakness to end at those levels. Interest rate markets are already pricing in Fed rate cuts, something we believe is not warranted. Moreover, financial conditions are set to ease, which will give comfort to the Fed that it can resume hiking. Finally, Chinese growth has more downside, which normally leads to a dollar-bullish environment.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com ​​ Footnotes 1 The comparison may not entirely be apt since not even the President of China was able to avert the stock market collapse in China in 2015. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies in Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, titled “Market Alert: The Correction Cometh, The Correction Came: Upgrade Global Equities To Overweight”, dated December 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Fade The Green Shoots”, dated December 14, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Are Markets Too Pessimistic On U.S. Growth & Inflation? What Is China’s Economic Pain Threshold To Trigger A Policy Response? Have Central Banks Become Less Concerned About Financial Markets? Feature Happy New Year! 2019 has started much like 2018 ended, with elevated global market volatility. The combination of more evidence of slowing global growth – fueled by spillovers from U.S.-China trade tensions – and central banks perceived to be overly hawkish has crushed investor sentiment. Money has flooded out of risk assets like equities and corporate debt and shifted into the traditional safe haven assets – government bonds, surplus currencies like the Japanese yen and even gold. U.S. equities and credit, which had been a refuge from the global market weakness for much of last year, have underperformed sharply as markets have moved to price in the global economic softness reaching U.S. shores. These market trends obviously run counter to our recommended positioning for overall portfolio duration (below benchmark) and credit exposure (neutral overall, favoring the U.S. over Europe and Emerging Markets). Yet we advise staying the course with our recommendations, as market pricing has become too pessimistic relative to likely global growth and inflation outcomes. The bulk of the recent decline in global bond yields has come from falling inflation expectations, which have been linked to the sharp fall in oil prices seen in the final months of 2018 (Chart of the Week). This is shown in Table 1, which presents the breakdown of the decline in the 10-year benchmark government bond yields for the major developed markets since the peak in U.S. Treasury yields back on November 8. Real yields have fallen by a more modest amount than inflation expectations in most countries, even with the pullback in cyclical indicators like the global PMI. Expected 2019 rate hikes are now fully priced out of money market curves, most notably in the U.S. Chart of the WeekSlowing Growth Is Not Why Yields Have Plunged   Table 1Decomposing 10-Year Yield Changes Since The November 2018 Peak In our view, there are three vital questions regarding the recent market turbulence that must be answered before determining the appropriate global fixed income investment strategy over the next 6-12 months. The answers lead us to maintain our current recommendations on duration, country allocation and credit exposure, even with the recent market turbulence. 1) Are Markets Too Pessimistic On U.S. Growth & Inflation? The December reading for the U.S. ISM Manufacturing purchasing managers’ index (PMI) released last week showed the largest single month deceleration since 2008 (Chart 2). All the main subcomponents of the ISM index fell, including the New Orders and Export indices which are now close to falling below the 50 threshold (Chart 3). Coming on the heels of China’s PMI dipping below 50, markets became more worried that the mighty U.S. economy was being dragged down to the weaker pace of growth seen outside the U.S. Chart 2Decomposing 10-Year Yield Changes Since The November 2018 Peak   Chart 3U.S. ISM Overstating U.S. Economic Weakness Yet when looking a broader array of U.S. indicators, the domestic economy still appears to be in good shape, albeit with some lost growth momentum. Consumer confidence remains solid, employment growth is accelerating, household incomes are growing at a faster pace and the personal savings rate remains elevated – all of which provide support for a faster pace of consumer spending (third panel). At the same time, the U.S. Conference Board leading economic indicator is still pointing to a healthy above-trend pace of GDP growth in 2019. U.S. Treasury yields have fallen to levels consistent with the drift lower in the ISM index (top panel), with the market now discounting one full 25bp rate cut to occur within the next twelve months. That will not happen given the tightness of the U.S. labor market and persistence of underlying domestic inflation pressures. The robust December gain reported in last Friday’s U.S. Payrolls report (+312k) may have surprised the markets, but our U.S. Employment Growth model had been signaling a faster pace of job growth for the past several months (Chart 4). The year-over-year growth in Average Hourly Earnings rose to 3.2%, the highest level in nearly a decade. With the overall unemployment still at a historically low 3.9% as labor demand is increasing, wages are likely to remain under upward pressure in the next 6-12 months. Chart 4U.S. Employment & Wages Are Accelerating Given this backdrop of economic growth that is likely to remain above-trend throughout 2019, it will be difficult to generate a sustained downturn in U.S. inflation this year, even given the lagged impact of the strong U.S. dollar and lower oil prices. While some decline in headline inflation measures is inevitable in the coming months given the rapid pace and magnitude of the 2018 oil plunge, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy team continues to see a positive demand/supply balance helping push oil prices back towards the $80/bbl level in 2019.1 That would ensure that any decline in headline U.S. inflation would be short in duration, and of far less magnitude than the move that occurred after the 2014/15 oil plunge given the more robust domestic inflation backdrop (Chart 5). Chart 5This Is NOT A Repeat Of the 2015/16 Deflation Scare A sober assessment of the U.S. economic and inflation data leads us to conclude that U.S. interest rate markets have swung too far to the dovish side. The inflation expectations component of U.S. Treasury yields is now too low, and the Fed rate cut that is now discounted in money markets will not materialize. Rate hikes are the more likely outcome, the repricing of which will put renewed upward pressure on Treasury yields. 2) What Is China’s Economic Pain Threshold To Trigger A Policy Response? Of the potential catalysts that could turn the current investor pessimism into optimism, signs of improving Chinese growth would likely top the list. China’s economy has lost considerable momentum, with year-over-year real GDP growth slowing to 6.5% in the third quarter of last year and higher frequency data showing a further deceleration in the fourth quarter. The profit warning issued by Apple last week, prompted by an unexpectedly sharp slowing of Chinese mobile phone demand, is a sign that Chinese consumer spending may be faltering. There are several causes for the growth slump, both domestic and foreign. Chinese authorities have been clamping down on domestic leverage given elevated private debt levels, while also taking action to reduce domestic pollution levels – policies that all have helped dampen industrial activity. More recently, and more importantly, the U.S.-China tariff war has started to have a real economic impact on the economy through slowing trade activity and diminished business confidence. Given the Chinese government’s perpetual interest in maintaining domestic stability by limiting any cyclical increases in unemployment, the incentive is there for policymakers to provide renewed stimulus to put a floor under economic growth. The last such boost came in 2015/16, when the Chinese government implemented an aggressive expansion of fiscal spending alongside monetary policy measures such as interest rate cuts, reductions in reserve requirement ratios and currency depreciation. That package was enough to cause a sharp reacceleration of the Chinese economy, but only after nominal GDP growth had fallen to an 16-year low of 6.4% at the end of 2015 (Chart 6). Chart 6Nominal China Growth Less Than 7.5% Should Trigger More Stimulus … Policymakers will likely be forced into action again in 2019 if nominal GDP growth, which hit 9.6% in the third quarter of 2018, falls back below 7.5%. Forward-looking economic measures like our Li Keqiang leading indicator and the export orders component of China’s manufacturing PMI suggest that weaker growth outcome could occur by mid-2019. China’s policymakers are likely to announce some form of stimulus in the first half of the year help counteract the growth slump, which could help boost global investor confidence (especially if it is accompanied by a new trade agreement with the U.S.). While Chinese policymakers are now under more pressure to provide stimulus measures, the tools available to them are more limited than was the case in 2015/16 (Chart 7). Interest rate cuts could happen if growth continues to fall more rapidly than expected, but that would create a burst in private sector leverage that policymakers would seek to avoid. The currency could also be weakened further, but the USD/CNY exchange rate is already back to near the 7.0 level reached in the 2016 devaluation. Chart 7...Atlhough Policy Options Are More Limited Than 2016 That leaves additional cuts in the reserve requirement ratio and increases in fiscal spending as the two most likely means for China to stimulate its economy in the coming months. Yet even the fiscal channel has limits, given the much higher starting point for the budget deficit today (3.7% of GDP) than in 2015 (2%). So while the trigger for a China policy stimulus will likely be reached by mid-2019, the magnitude of the stimulus will be nowhere near as large as the 2015/16 measures. This will help stabilize global growth expectations, but likely not by enough to provide a major boost to global commodity prices or export demand from emerging market countries that are heavily dependent on China. This leads us to remain cautious on emerging market credit exposure, as we prefer to own U.S. corporate debt instead where the growth/profit outlook is better. 3) Have Central Banks Become Less Concerned About Financial Markets? A popular market narrative of late has been that the Fed “made a mistake” with its last rate hike in December. A similar argument was made for the ECB choosing the end its Asset Purchase Program last month with inflation still well short of its target and European growth decelerating. The idea that central banks had fallen “out of tune” with financial markets has spooked investors who fear that policymakers are carrying out a pre-conceived plan to normalize monetary policy without any regard to financial markets. We find this to be a highly dubious conclusion. Central bankers still care about financial markets – or, more accurately, financial conditions – but the hurdle for policymakers to respond to falling asset prices is higher now than in previous years because of a lack of spare economic capacity. Simply put, any tightening of financial conditions must be large enough to trigger a slowing of growth to a below-potential pace, resulting in rising unemployment and weaker inflation pressures. That has not been the case – yet – in the major developed economies. Financial conditions indices (FCIs) – which measure the combined impact of equity prices, credit spreads and currencies – typically lead economic growth by 2-3 quarters. The latest selloffs in equity and credit markets in the U.S. and Europe, while significant, have not been large enough to push FCIs for those regions to levels that would be consistent with below-trend growth, using the 2015/16 episode as a reference point (Chart 8). Chart 8Tightening Financial Conditions Not Signaling Below-Trend Growth...Yet Financial conditions in the U.S. are much closer to that 2015/16 reference point than in Europe, where bond yields remain very depressed and the euro is still an undervalued currency. Yet the domestic U.S. economy is in a much better state than was the case in 2015/16, as discussed earlier in this report. It is highly likely that the level of the U.S. FCI that would trigger a move to below-trend U.S. growth is much different today than in 2015/16. In other words, it would take a bigger widening of U.S. corporate credit spreads, or a sharper selloff in U.S. equity values, to generate the same type of drag on U.S. growth relative to 2015/16. Yet U.S. interest rate markets have already responded as if there was no such change in the amount of FCI tightening that would result in a more dovish Fed policy. The U.S. money markets have gone from pricing three rate hikes in 2019 to one rate cut, while bond investors have largely neutralized their bearish Treasury duration positioning (Chart 9). Chart 9USTs Now Discounting Too Much Fed Dovishness That swing in sentiment on the Fed’s next move flies in the face of the underlying health of the U.S. economic data, as well as our Fed Monitor which continues to signal the need for more Fed rate hikes (Chart 10). Our other Central Bank Monitors tell a similar story (outside of Australia), with the Monitors signaling no need for easier monetary policy but with money markets pricing out any probability of a rate hike over the next year. This leaves global government bond yields exposed to any sign that global growth momentum is stabilizing, particularly with the inflation expectations component of bond yields also vulnerable to a rebound in oil prices (Chart 11). Chart 10Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Repricing Of Rate Hikes   Chart 11Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Rebound In Oil Prices Our conclusion is that financial conditions in the major economies have not yet tightened by enough to end the process of normalizing global monetary policy from the extraordinarily accommodative settings seen in recent years. In other words, bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Volatility Will Persist: 2019 Brent Forecast Lowered to $80/bbl”, dated January 3rd 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Risk assets have had a rough go of it since we last published on December 17th: Equities have been through the wringer, spreads have widened sharply, and the 10-year Treasury yield has tumbled to an 11-month low. We don’t put much stock in the talk that the Fed is about to go too far, … : We still judge that the fed funds rate is comfortably shy of its equilibrium level. The economy will decelerate this year, but fiscal stimulus will keep it growing above trend. … and even if market-unfriendly policies merit a lower equity multiple, … : A bull market in Washington uncertainty is a recipe for a lower multiple, and there are no signs that policy uncertainty will ebb any time soon. … we think the time has come to put our cash overweight to work: Equities priced in a lot of bad news when the forward multiple fell below 14. If earnings hold up like we think they will, a recovery to the mid-15s would deliver a double-digit gain, and that merits an equity overweight relative to cash and bonds. Feature Thanks to Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve falling on Mondays, we haven’t published since December 17th. A lot has happened in those three weeks, starting with the FOMC’s final 2018 meeting. As we’ve gathered our bearings and tried to set a course forward through the volatility, we’ve asked ourselves several questions about markets, policy and the economy. This week’s report reviews those questions, including the ones the clients we met three weeks ago might want to ask now. Is the expansion coming to an end? Not just yet; we still think it has at least a year to run. Following several uninspiring releases, the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow forecast of real final domestic demand has slipped to 3.3% from 3.8%, but it’s still 3.3%. That may seem too good to be true this late in the cycle, but that’s what 100 basis points of fiscal stimulus can do when injected into an economy already operating at full capacity. The IMF estimates there’s still another 40 basis points of stimulus coming in 2019, and we expect that that infusion will be enough to stave off the next recession until 2020 or beyond. Is the Fed about to make a policy mistake? We do not think so. Although the neutral, or equilibrium, policy rate is only observable after the fact, research from the head of the New York Fed holds that the FOMC is not on the verge of breaching the neutral threshold. The widely-followed Laubach-Williams model estimates that the real neutral rate is between 0.75 and 0.875%, or 2.75-2.875% in nominal terms.1 Our internal equilibrium fed funds rate model sees even more breathing room – it estimates that the (nominal) equilibrium rate is around 3%, and that it will rise to around 3⅜% by the end of the year. U.S. equities have been hypersensitive to perceived inflection points in monetary policy throughout the sell-off, which began roughly after Jay Powell said in an October 3rd interview that interest rates were “a long way from neutral.” Interestingly, though, the money market’s expectations never really budged. At the time of the Powell interview, it was pricing in a December hike to 2.50%, and a 40% chance of one more hike to 2.75%. It would take the probability of a 2.75% terminal rate up to 80% in early November, but it was again calling for a 40% chance of 2.75% when we were on the road during the two-day December meeting. It now puts the odds of an additional hike at just 4%, and says the Fed will have cut rates once by the middle of next year (Chart 1). Chart 1According To The Money Market, The Fed's Done We do not know what is behind the money market’s obstinacy, but we see an economy that has far more accommodation than it needs. While we think it’s inevitable that the Fed will tighten into a recession – that’s life with a blunt monetary policy instrument that works with long and uncertain lags – we don’t think it is on the verge of doing so. Fiscal stimulus will ensure that the U.S. economy grows above trend again this year, and there are no imbalances in housing2 or the other cyclical segments of the economy that would make the expansion particularly vulnerable (Chart 2). Elevated rates of job openings (Chart 3, middle panel) and job quits (Chart 3, bottom panel) indicate that the labor market will continue drawing in workers (Chart 3, top panel), supporting consumption and growth. Chart 2No Signs Of Overheating, ...   Chart 3... And The Jobs Outlook Is Strong You aren’t still calling for four rate hikes this year, are you? Let’s call it three, now that the market-driven tightening in financial conditions (Chart 4) has already done some of the work of cooling off the economy. We take the Fed at its word when it says its actions are data-driven, and we don’t think that it will pile on when credit spreads have shot up to their 2015 oil-collapse/shale-patch-distress levels (Chart 5) and equity prices have swooned. If credit spreads retraced meaningfully, and equities went back to making new highs, four hikes might come back into play. Conversely, if spreads continued to widen and took aim at their 2016 peaks, two hikes might become more likely than three. Given our expectations for spreads (they will not approach 2015-6’s quasi-recession levels, but corporate leverage is too high to support material narrowing), and equities (the S&P 500 will be hard-pressed to eclipse September’s high), our base case is three hikes. Chart 4Tighter, Yes; Tight, No   Chart 5Spreads Say It's 2015-6, ... Have the economic fundamentals really deteriorated that much over the last three months? Not that we can tell. There have been some high-profile data disappointments here and there, like the punk manufacturing ISM release last Thursday, but the overall message has been positive, and Friday’s jobs report was consistent with an economy growing above trend. The economic surprise indexes have been declining since November, but they’re not at levels that are anywhere out of the ordinary (Chart 6). Our earnings-per-share model still sees robust growth for corporate earnings (Chart 7). Chart 6... But The Data Beg To Differ   Chart 7Earnings Will Decelerate, But They Won't Contract We are as discomfited by the prospect of new trade barriers as any other economists, and we have eyed the divergence between U.S. acceleration and rest-of-the-world deceleration with increasing wariness. Even for an economy as comparatively closed as the U.S., decoupling is only a temporary phenomenon. We tend to equate global activity with global trade, and generally view developing economies as especially dependent on trade. It is still early days, but we have found it mildly encouraging that EM activity and EM equities have been outpacing their DM equivalents. The growth backdrop can’t be that bad if the emerging markets are perking up. Do you still think the S&P 500 has yet to make its highs? Maybe, but we wouldn’t bet on it. We view stock prices, P, as the product of expected earnings, E, and the multiple investors are willing to pay for those earnings, P/E. If our confidence in the expansion is not misplaced, and corporate earnings match analysts’ consensus bottom-up expectations of $174, topping September 20th’s 2,930.75 closing high will require a multiple approaching 17. If analysts project year-over-year EPS gains across all of 2020’s quarters, E will rise over the course of the year, reducing the P/E expansion needed to make a new high, but an assault on the peak cannot succeed without a meaningful re-rating from today’s multiple in the 14s. Although multiple expansion has played second fiddle to earnings growth (Chart 8, middle panel) across the nine-and-a-half year bull market, it declined nearly 30% peak-to-trough in 2018, and was entirely responsible for the fourth-quarter sell-off (Chart 8, bottom panel). While we think the de-rating has gone too far, the last three months have persuaded us that a return to the 18.8 peak is too much to ask. Our working hypothesis is that the equity market has decided that Washington has become enough of an impediment that the market multiple has to come off a couple of points. Markets hate uncertainty, and the policy climate is flat-out unsettled: the principal architect and guarantor of the international postwar order repeatedly threatens to topple that order; the U.S.-China showdown does not appear to be nearing a resolution; and both political parties seem willing to sacrifice the economy to gain an advantage in 2020. In the absence of new deregulatory initiatives or tax cuts to balance out the broadly investment-unfriendly instincts of several of D.C.’s power players, a poisonous partisan climate and a dysfunctional administration can no longer be ignored. Chart 8Earnings Built The Bull Market; De-Rating Almost Wrecked It Okay, so what do you do now? We upgrade equities to overweight with the cash we raised in mid-June when we downgraded them from overweight to neutral. Although we wouldn’t bet on the S&P 500 topping 2,931, it doesn’t have to do so to generate alluring prospective returns. From a 2,500 starting point, a target of 2,750, or $174 earnings at a 15.75 multiple, would generate a 10% capital gain. If the economy holds up in line with our base-case expectation, it’s hard not to like U.S. equities at current levels. We were eager to put our cash overweight to work as we watched equities gyrate in October and November, but the combination of December’s valuation reset and the improved equity outlook from our Global Investment Strategy colleagues’ MacroQuant model encourages us to pull the trigger now. More money is made when conditions, or perceptions, go from terrible to bad than when they go from good to great. As the approaching earnings season redirects attention to the solid fundamental outlook, and the Treasury secretary stops taking actions that make investors wonder if conditions are far worse than they feared, there is a path for perceptions to improve. Chart 9Spreads Have Overreacted We continue to hold to our view that markets are underestimating the potential for inflation, making Treasuries vulnerable, especially at longer maturities. We reiterate our recommendation to underweight bonds via an underweight in Treasuries, and to hold interest-rate duration below benchmark in all fixed-income categories. We continue to recommend a neutral weighting in credit-sensitive fixed income, as the spread widening is incompatible with projected defaults (Chart 9), but we are not counting on meaningful spread compression this late in the cycle.   Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 From the spreadsheet containing updated estimates of the baseline model described in “Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest,” by Thomas Laubach and John C. Williams, published in the November 2003 Review of Economics and Statistics, located at https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/rstar, and accessed January 3, 2019. 2 We discussed housing at length in the November 19 and December 3, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Housing: Past, Present And (Near) Future,” and “Housing Seminar,” respectively, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, In lieu of next week’s report, I will be hosting a webcast on Wednesday, January 9th at 10 AM EST, when I will be discussing the economic and financial market outlook for 2019 and answering your questions. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The lack of major financial and economic imbalances in the U.S., as well as the Fed’s ability to moderate the pace of rate hikes, reduce the risk of a vicious cycle where tighter financial conditions lead to slower economic growth and even tighter financial conditions. The scope for central banks to cut rates is more limited outside the United States. Imbalances are also greater abroad. Nevertheless, the news is not all bleak, with the recent rebound in China’s credit impulse being a case in point. We turned more bullish on risk assets following December’s post-FOMC equity sell-off. A moderately overweight position in global equities over a 12-month horizon is currently justified. While we continue to favor the U.S. over other bourses in dollar terms, our conviction level in this regional bias has decreased. Treasury yields are likely to rise in an environment where U.S. growth is strong enough to enable the Fed to continue raising rates. Outside Japan, global government bond yields will also increase in 2019. We are removing our long June-2019 Fed funds futures contract hedge, and we are now solely outright short the December-2020 contract. We are also taking profits on our March-2019 EEM ETF put for a gain of 104%. Feature Merry Crisis And A Happy New Fear Santa arrived early this year. The plunge in stocks allowed investors to buy some of the world’s premier companies at a mouthwatering 20%-to-30% discount to what they would have paid just a few months earlier. What a gift! Needless to say, most investors would not regard last month’s stock market performance in such a favorable light. But why not? One answer is that investors must mark their portfolios to market. Thus, even if the decline in equity prices raised future returns, it still implied a decline in present net worth. Yet, this cannot be the whole explanation, because if all investors expected stocks to bounce back quickly, they would not have sold in the first place. Clearly, many investors must have come to the conclusion that the stock market would not only go down but stay down. However, this presents a puzzle. The economic environment did not change that much in the weeks leading up to the October sell-off. Growth has slowed more recently (Chart 1), with this morning’s disappointing ISM manufacturing report being the latest example, but this appears to have been mainly a response to the souring market climate rather than the cause of it. Chart 1Tighter Financial Conditions Have Led To Slower Growth Reverse Causality? This raises an intriguing possibility: What if the drop in stock prices and jump in credit spreads that began in late September hurt expectations of economic growth by enough to justify a further discount in risk asset valuations? Such a “Financial Conditions Index (FCI) doom loop” is not just a theoretical construct. The last two U.S. recessions were both the products of burst asset bubbles — first the dotcom bubble and then the housing bubble. Could such a self-fulfilling vicious cycle be erupting again? If so, any rally in stocks or credit should be sold into, just as was the case in both 2001 and 2007. U.S. Fairly Resilient To A Doom Loop Fortunately, there are two reasons to think that such an outcome will not reoccur, at least not in the United States. First, as Box 1 explains, an FCI doom loop is more likely to unfold when economic growth becomes very sensitive to changes in financial conditions. This normally happens when economic and financial imbalances are elevated. That does not appear to be the case today. Unlike in the lead-up to the last two recessions, the U.S. private sector is a net saver whose income outstrips spending by 2.1% of GDP (Chart 2). Cyclical spending – the sum of residential investment, business capex, and expenditures on consumer durable goods – is also far below prior business-cycle peaks as a share of GDP (Chart 3). Chart 2The U.S. Private Sector Is A Net Saver Chart 3U.S. Economy: Cyclical Spending Is Still Restrained Despite recent releveraging in some categories, U.S. household debt has continued to decline in relation to the size of the economy. The ratio of personal debt-to-disposable income is now 34 percentage points below pre-crisis levels (Chart 4). Chart 4Household Leverage Is Below Its Peak U.S. corporate debt has moved in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, while the ratio of U.S. corporate debt-to-GDP has climbed to a record high, it is still quite low by global standards (Chart 5). Perhaps more importantly, corporate debt is generally held by non-leveraged institutions. If corporate defaults were to rise unexpectedly, the losses to lenders would not pose the same systemic risk to the financial sector as mortgage defaults did during the Global Financial Crisis. Chart 5U.S. Corporate Debt Is High, But It Is Higher Elsewhere The Fed’s Reaction Function It is not surprising that the stock market sell-off accelerated in early October following Fed Chairman, and failed golfer, Jay Powell’s comment that interest rates were “far from neutral.” We think that worries that the Fed will tighten too quickly are misplaced. Yes, monetary policy operates with “long and variable lags.” However, financial conditions, which lead growth, can be observed in real time (Chart 6). Chart 6Global Financial Conditions Have Tightened Most of the tightening in financial conditions since late September has been due to falling equity prices. Our baseline scenario envisions a gain of roughly 10% in the S&P 500 in 2019. A rebound in stocks of this magnitude will reverse most of the recent FCI tightening, thereby allowing the Fed to raise rates three times this year. But if equities continue to sag, the Fed will scale back further monetary tightening or even cut rates. The mere possibility of such a policy response reduces the odds of an FCI doom loop. A Mixed Bag Outside The U.S. The economic outlook is murkier outside the United States. Economic and financial imbalances are greater in the EM space and parts of Europe. Non-U.S. central banks also have less scope to respond to adverse shocks, either because of fears that looser monetary policy will spark capital outflows (as is the case in many emerging markets) or because of the presence of the zero-bound constraint on interest rates (as is the case in the euro area and Japan). Nevertheless, the situation is not that bad. EM assets have been fairly resilient over the past few months, at least in comparison to their developed economy counterparts (Chart 7). China’s credit impulse has actually perked up, an indication that while credit growth is falling, it is doing so at a slower pace. Chart 8 shows that the Chinese credit impulse is highly correlated with global industrial commodity prices. We still expect global growth to slow in the first half of 2019, but at this point, much of the slowdown has been discounted in asset markets. With that in mind, we are raising the stop on our short AUD/JPY trade to 10% and instituting a profit target of 15%. Chart 7EM Assets Have Been Outperforming Recently   Chart 8The Increase In China's Credit Impulse Bodes Well For Industrial Commodity Prices The Perils Of Discrete Decision-Making One of the annoyances of being an investment strategist is that you often feel compelled to take discrete views on where the markets are heading. Are you bullish, bearish, or neutral? Actually, it is usually just bullish or bearish because most people regard neutral views as lacking in conviction and insight. This incentive structure is counterproductive. Not only does it cause analysts to turn a blind eye to incoming data that may challenge their thesis, it disregards how professional investors actually operate. Successful investors scale into positions as the market gets cheaper and scale out as it becomes more expensive. Trying to time the bottom (or the top) with exact precision is futile. With that in mind, we are going to tweak the way we make recommendations going forward in order to improve transparency, accountability, and accuracy. Rather than simply stating whether we are bullish, bearish, or neutral, we will assign the main asset classes a subjective score between zero and one hundred, with 0-to-40 being bearish, 40-to-60 being neutral, and 60-to-100 being bullish. We will adjust the score in every publication. To add analytic rigor to this framework, we will also compare our subjective model score with that of our MacroQuant model. Where Things Now Stand We downgraded global equities last June, but moved back to overweight following December’s post-FOMC meeting sell-off, as valuations reached that rather blurry line at which a modest equity overweight was warranted. Our subjective score for global equities currently stands at 65%, above the model’s estimate of 50%. Our moderately bullish view reflects our expectation that global growth will stabilize by mid-year and monetary policy will remain accommodative, even if the Fed raises rates by more than what the markets are currently discounting. Tempering our enthusiasm is the recognition that the business cycle is getting long in the tooth – especially in the U.S. – and that global equity valuations, while far cheaper than they were a few months ago, are still significantly less favorable than they were near past market bottoms (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Equity Valuations Have Improved Regionally, we continue to favor U.S. stocks over other developed markets, and DM over EM more broadly. However, our conviction level on this view is not high, and we are prepared to revise it if it looks like global growth is accelerating, an outcome that would limit any further dollar strength (our subjective dollar score currently stands at 70%, below the model’s estimate of 92%). Reflecting our expectation of decent global equity returns in 2019 and our waning conviction to be underweight EM, we are taking profits on in our March-2019 EEM ETF put for a gain of 104%.  Please note that our view on EM is more optimistic than that of Arthur Budaghyan, BCA’s chief emerging markets strategist, who continues to see considerable downside risks to EM assets. For now, Treasury yields are likely to rise in an environment where U.S. growth is strong enough to enable the Fed to continue raising rates. We assign the 10-year yield a score of 30%, which is close to our model estimate of 32%. Accordingly, we are removing our long June-2019 Fed funds futures contract hedge, and we are now solely outright short the December-2020 contract. Core European bond yields will increase, reflecting diminished excess capacity in the euro area and the end of ECB net asset purchases. U.K. yields should also grind higher, as the odds of a soft Brexit (or no Brexit) improve. Only in Japan will yields remain contained, thanks to the BoJ’s ongoing yield curve control regime. We do not expect spread product to have a banner year, but the current yield pick-up should be sufficient to ensure that risky credit outperforms cash. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com     Box 1 The Analytics Of Doom Loops When will a tightening in financial conditions stemming from lower equity prices and higher borrowing costs lead to a vicious circle of slower economic growth and even tighter financial conditions? The answer depends on how sensitive economic growth is to financial conditions in relation to how sensitive financial conditions are to growth. Figure 1 shows two equilibrium schedules, one for the economy (EE) and one for asset markets (AA). Both schedules slope downward. The EE schedule is downward-sloping because easier financial conditions boost growth. If growth is too strong given the prevailing level of financial conditions, economic activity will slow (Panel A). The AA schedule is downward-sloping because equity prices tend to fall and credit spreads rise when growth slows. If equity prices are too high and credit spreads are too narrow for a certain level of growth, then financial conditions will tighten (Panel B). Suppose economic growth is not very sensitive to changes in financial conditions, perhaps because imbalances in the economy are limited (Panel C). Then changes in financial conditions will be fleeting: A decline in equity prices or a widening in credit spreads will not hurt growth very much, allowing the stock market and credit market to quickly normalize. In contrast, suppose that economic growth is very sensitive to financial conditions, so much so that the EE schedule is flatter than the AA schedule. In this case, the economy will be vulnerable to self-reinforcing booms and busts (Panel D). In particular, a small random jump from U to UI will send the economy careening towards a doom loop of ever-weaker growth and tighter financial conditions.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades