Policy

… quick’s the word and sharp’s the action. Jack Aubrey1 Idiosyncratic supply-demand adjustments – some induced by head-spinning reversals of policy (e.g., the U.S. about-face on Iran oil export sanctions) – and uncertainty regarding monetary policy and trade will keep volatility in oil, metals and grains elevated in 2019. We remain overweight energy – particularly oil – expecting OPEC 2.0 to maintain production discipline, and for demand to remain resilient.2 We remain neutral base metals and precious metals, seeing the former relatively balanced, and the latter somewhat buoyant, even as the Fed continues its rates-normalization policy. We remain underweight ags, although weather-induced supply stress has reduced the global inventories some. While we continue to favor being long the energy-heavy S&P GSCI on a strategic basis, tactical positioning will continue to dominate commodity investing in 2019. Highlights Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts goes into effect in January vs. October levels, and should allow inventories to resume drawing. Base Metals: Neutral. Fundamentally, base metals are largely balanced, which is keeping us neutral going into 2019. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices will remain sensitive to Fed policy and policy expectations. Palladium prices have soared as a growing physical deficit noted earlier widens.3 If China cuts sales taxes on autos again, demand could soar. Ags/Softs: Underweight. A strong USD will weigh on ag markets, particularly grains, next year. An agreement on contentious Sino – U.S. trade issues could re-open Chinese markets to U.S. exports. However, the arrest of the CFO of China’s Huawei Technologies in Canada for possible extradition to the U.S. complicates negotiations.   Feature Going into 2019, commodity markets once again are sending conflicting signals. While we continue to favor exposure to commodities as an asset class by being long the energy-heavy S&P GSCI index, which fell 6% this year on the back of the collapse in crude oil prices and flattening of the forward curves in Brent and WTI.  Nonetheless, we believe investors will continue to be rewarded by taking tactical exposure on an opportunistic basis. Volatility remains the watchword, particularly in 1H19, for the primary industrial commodities – oil and base metals. While idiosyncratic supply-demand adjustments will drive prices in each market, Fed policy also will contribute to volatility, as the U.S. central bank likely remains the only systemically important monetary authority following through on rates-normalization. In line with our House view, we expect the Fed to deliver its fourth rate hike of 2018 at its December meeting next week, and four additional hikes next year. On the back of Fed policy, we expect the broad trade-weighted USD to rise another 3-5% in 2019, following a 6% increase in 2018 (Chart of the Week). This will supress demand ex-U.S. for commodities priced in USD, by raising the USD cost of these commodities. Chart of the WeekStronger USD Pressures Commodity Demand Below, we highlight the key themes we believe will dominate commodities in 2019. Oil Markets Still Re-Calibrating Fundamentals We continue to expect global oil demand to remain strong next year, despite the slight downgrading of global GDP growth earlier this year by the IMF. We expect EM import volumes – one of the key variables we track to proxy EM income levels – to hold up in 1H19, which supports our assessment commodity demand will grow, albeit at a slower rate than this year (Chart 2).4 Chart 2Slowing Trade Volumes Might Pre-sage Softer Commodity Demand In 2H19, we see the volume of EM imports dipping y/y from higher levels, then recovering toward year-end. This indicates the all-important level of EM income – hence commodity demand – will remain resilient, but the rate of growth in incomes will slow. This is confirmed by the behavior of the Global Leading Economic Indicators we use to cross check our EM income expectation via import volumes (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Leading Economic Indicators Lead EM Import Volume Changes There is a chance Sino – U.S. trade relations will thaw, which would remove a large uncertainty over the evolution of demand next year. This would be supportive for EM trade volumes generally, particularly imports. However, this is not a given, and we are not assuming any pick-up in demand in anticipation of such a development. We need to see concrete actions, followed by tangible trade improvement first. On the supply side, oil markets still are in the process of re-adjusting to an extraordinary policy reversal by the Trump administration on its Iranian oil-export sanctions last month – i.e., the last-minute granting of waivers to Iran’s largest oil importers. However, following OPEC 2.0’s decision last week to cut 1.2mm b/d of production to re-balance markets in 1H19, we continue to expect prices to recover. Indeed, going into the OPEC 2.0 meeting last week, we had already lowered our December 2018 production estimates for OPEC 2.0, and also reduced 2019 output estimates by ~ 1mm b/d, so the producer coalition’s action did not come as a surprise (Chart 4).5 Chart 4BCA's Global Oil Balances Anticipated OPEC 2.0 Cuts In addition to the cuts by OPEC 2.0, the Alberta, Canada, government mandated production cuts, which will become effective January 1, 2019, to clear a persistent supply overhang that was decimating producers’ revenues in the province. We estimate there is ~ 200k b/d of trapped Alberta supply – i.e., excess production over takeaway capacity (pipeline and rail) – along with ~ 35mm bbls of accumulated excess production in storage the government intends to draw over the course of 2019 at a rate of ~ 96k b/d. This will lower overall OECD inventories, even if the Canadian barrels are transferred south. Net, in addition to the 1.2mm b/d of cuts from OPEC 2.0, the ~ 300k b/d coming from Canada next year will mean close to 1.5 mm b/d of production, or ~1.4mm b/d of actual supply when accounting for the inventory release, is being cut or curtailed from these two sources. We cannot, at this point, forecast over-compliance with the OPEC 2.0 accord, which was one of the signal features of the deal in 2017 and 1H18. The Trump administration’s waivers for Iran’s eight largest oil importers expire May 2019. We view it as highly unlikely the Trump administration will re-impose export sanctions in full on Iranian exports following the expiration of waivers, and fully expect they will be extended at least for 90 days. This is because oil fundamentals will remain tight next year, despite the massive de-bottlenecking of the Permian Basin in West Texas. While an additional 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity will be added to the region, it will not be fully operational until 4Q19. We have ~ 300k b/d of additional supply coming out of the Permian after the pipeline expansions are done in 2H19. Even as pipeline capacity is filled, the U.S. still needs to significantly increase its deep-water oil-export capacity to get this crude to market.6 Bottom Line: We expect the oil market to re-balance in 1H19, as production falls by ~ 1.4mm b/d – the combination of OPEC 2.0 and Canadian production cuts – and consumption grows by a similar amount. The USD will continue to appreciate next year, which, at the margin, will temper demand growth and prices. Gold: Remaining Long Equity And Inflation Risks Trump Higher Rates in 2019 As the U.S. economic cycle matures and advances into its final innings, we continue to recommend holding gold in a diversified portfolio. U.S. inflationary pressure will surprise to the upside in 2019, per our House view, which will offset the effects of somewhat less accommodative U.S. monetary policy in the U.S. The October equity correction is a reminder that, when rising UST yields drag stocks down in late-cycle markets, gold works as an effective hedge against equity risks, and can outperform bonds. In fact, both of the corrections we saw in 2018 likely were caused by a sharp increase in bond yields. This convexity on the upside and downside is what makes gold our preferred portfolio hedge. Easy Monetary Policy + Rising Rate = Bullish Gold Prices Despite being negatively correlated with interest rates, gold tends to perform well when the fed funds rate is below r-star – known as the “natural rate of interest” – and is rising (Chart 5, panel 1).7 When this happens, policy rates are below the so-called natural interest rate consistent with a fully employed economy, which, all else equal, is inflationary. In these late-cycle environments, gold’s ability to hedge against inflation and equity risks dominate its price formation, while its correlation with U.S. real rates diminishes. Chart 5Gold Will Stay in Trading Range In our view, gold will remain in an upward trading range until rates become restrictive enough to depress the inflation outlook (Chart 5, panel 2). Our U.S. strategists estimate the equilibrium fed funds rate is at ~ 3%, and project it will rise to ~ 3⅜% by end-2019. Therefore, despite our House view of four rate hikes next year, we expect the U.S. economy to remain in a below-r-star-and-rising phase for most of the year. Consistent with our House view, we believe U.S. inflation is likely to surprise to the upside next year, which will push gold prices higher (Chart 6, panel 1). The U.S. economy remains strong, particularly on the employment front. This means wage growth will work its way through inflation rates. Chart 6U.S. Inflation Likely to Surprise Admittedly, this is not the consensus view. Investors are not worried about significantly higher inflation (Chart 6, panel 2). However, our Bond strategists argue that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation is stuck below historical levels because of this abnormally low fear of elevated inflation (i.e. > 2.5%). Once inflation starts drifting higher, there will be an upward shift in investors’ inflation expectations. Any short-term dip in inflation on the back of lower oil prices will be transitory, given our view that oil prices will recover next year. If such a transitory dip, or concerns about a global growth slowdown spilling back into the U.S. causes the Fed to pause, we would add to our precious metal view position, given our assessment that this would raise the probability of an inflation overshoot. Lastly, gold prices recently have been depressed by an abnormally high correlation with the U.S. dollar (Table 1). We put this down to speculative positioning: Net speculative positions are stretched for both the U.S. dollar and gold, Table 1Gold Vs. USD Correlations Running Higher Than Normal therefore, any change in expectations likely will be amplified by a reversal in positioning (Chart 7). In the medium-term, we expect the gold-dollar correlation to converge back to its average, which would mute the dollar’s impact on gold. This would, all else equal, raise inflation and equity risks factors. Chart 7Spec Positioning Stretched Bottom Line: We continue to recommend gold as a portfolio hedge for investors, given its convexity – it outperforms during equity downturns, and participates on the upside (albeit not as much). Given our out-of-consensus House view for inflation, we believe gold also will provide a hedge against this risk. Palladium: China Tax Policy Could Lift Price Palladium soared to dizzying heights this year, on the back of an expanding physical deficit (Chart 8). Were it not for the loss of an automobile-tax break in China, which reduced the rate of growth in sales there to unchanged y/y, this deficit likely would have been considerably wider, inventories would have drawn even harder, and palladium prices would have been higher (Chart 9). Chart 8Palladium's Physical Deficit Expanding Chart 9Palladium Inventories Collapse Palladium’s demand is mainly driven by its use in catalytic converters for gasoline-powered cars, which dominate sales in the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest car markets (Chart 10). U.S. sales growth has leveled off this year (Chart 11), as has China’s. However, the China Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) is pressing policymakers to reduce the 10% auto sales tax by half, which could keep palladium demand elevated relative to supply, should it happen.8 Chart 10Auto Catalyst Demand Dominates PalladiumChart 11China Car Sales Could Revive With Tax Cut Russian producers, led by Norilsk Nickel, supply ~ 40% of the world’s palladium. Markets have been fearful U.S. sanctions could be imposed on Norilsk and other Russian producers throughout the year by the U.S., most recently in re Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian naval vessels in international waters, and over Russia’s response to the threatened withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by the U.S., which could be keeping a risk premium firmly embedded in palladium prices.9 With platinum trading below $800/oz, or ~ 65% of palladium’s value, autocatalyst makers could begin to switch out their catalysts (Chart 12). Chart 12Platinum Could Fill Palladium Supply Gap Base Metals: Trade Tensions, USD Cloud Outlook Base metals remain inextricably bound up with EM income growth. When EM incomes are growing, commodity demand – particularly for base metals – is growing, and vice versa. This typically shows up in EM GDP and import volume levels, which we use as explanatory variables in our base-metals price modeling (Chart 13). Chart 13Base Metals Demand Tied To EM Income, Trade Volumes There are, in our view, two significant risks to EM income growth over the short and medium terms: Sino – U.S. trade disputes, which erupted earlier this year. They carry the risk of spreading globally and unwinding supply chains that have taken decades to develop between DM and EM economies;10 Fed monetary policy, which is immediately reflected in USD levels. A strong dollar raises the local-currency costs of commodities for consumers ex-U.S., and debt-servicing costs in EM economies. In addition, it lowers the local-currency costs of producing commodities ex-U.S., which incentivizes producers to raise production to capture this arbitrage, since they are paid in USD. The trade-war risk remains, despite the agreement between presidents Trump and Xi at the G20 in Buenos Aires to work on a trade deal. Even so, the actual level of tariffs imposed by both sides is trivial relative to the level of global trade, which is in excess of $20 trillion p.a. – ~$17 trillion for goods, $5 trillion for services, according to the WTO (Chart 14). Chart 14Sino – U.S. Tariffs Remain Trivial Relative to Overall Global Trade Fed policy, on the other hand, is a threat of far greater moment to EM income growth, and, through this, import volumes, which we use to proxy that growth. The LMEX index, a gauge of base-metals prices traded on the LME, is extremely sensitive to changes in EM import volumes. This is not unexpected, given the income elasticity of trade for EM economies is greater than 1.0. Our modeling finds a 1% increase in EM import volumes translates to a 1.3% increase in the LMEX, which is consistent with the World Bank’s estimate of EM income elasticity of trade.11 Per our House view, we believe markets are too sanguine regarding the possibility of a Sino – U.S. trade deal. Such an event, should it occur, would immediately affect base metals markets, as China accounts for roughly half of base metals demand globally(Chart 15). Market participants’ default setting appears to be the U.S. and China will resolve their trade differences in short order – i.e., by the March 1, 2019, deadline agreed at the G20 meeting – resulting in a win-win for both countries and the world. We are hopeful this view is correct, but we would not take any positions in base metals in expectation of such an outcome. Instead, we think the substantive technological and strategic differences between the two countries, and underlying distrust, will result in a renewed escalation of tensions. Chart 15China Demand Remains Pivotal Base Metals Demand Could Wobble Bottom Line: We remain neutral base metals going into 2019. Fundamentally, most of the metals in the LME index are in balance, or can get there in short order. The Fed’s rates-normalization policy continues to represent a larger short-term risk to EM income growth than Sino – U.S. trade tensions, but, longer term, we continue to expect tension between the world’s dominant economies to escalate. Ags: Trade Tensions, USD Cloud Outlook That’s not a typo in the sub-head above; ags – particularly soybeans – are dealing with the same headwinds bedeviling base metals. The agreement to work on a trade agreement reached at the G20 summit between the U.S. and China lifted grain markets, and supported the upward trend in grain and bean prices. All the same, Sino – U.S. trade relations are prone to go off the rails at any time. The Buenos Aries understanding, after all, only holds for 90 days. In addition to the hoped-for agreement to resolve trade-war issues, grain prices received support from the signing of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This helped align supply-demand fundamentals globally with prices. Focusing too much on China can obscure the fact that the USMCA, which replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), eliminated major uncertainties over the fate of U.S. grain exports to Mexico, the second-largest destination for U.S grains, beans and cotton. In fact, Mexico accounts for 13% of all U.S. ag exports (Chart 16).12 Chart 16Trade Negotiations Hit American Farmers Hard All the same, the Sino – U.S. trade war is hitting U.S. ags hard, particularly soybeans. The 25% tariff on China’s imports of U.S. grains created two parallel agriculture markets. In one market, China is scrambling to secure supplies, creating a deficit. In the other, U.S. farmers are struggling to market their produce overseas, suffering from storage shortages and in some cases left with no option but to leave their crops to rot. Close to 60% of U.S. bean exports historically went to China. The U.S. – China trade war caused a soybean shortage in Brazil, as demand from China for its crops soared, while a record 11% of American beans are projected to be left over after accounting for exports and domestic consumption (Chart 17). Chart 17Bean Shortage in Brazil, Supply Glut in the U.S. A successful resolution to the U.S. – China trade tensions is unlikely to reverse the over-supply of beans globally (Chart 18). In fact, we expect beans stocks-to-use (STU) ratios to build next year, unlike global corn and wheat stocks (Chart 19). This will set a record for the soybean STU ratios, pushing them above 30%. Chart 18Expect Another Bean Surplus Chart 19Bean STU Ratios Will Grow As is the case for metals, the USD will weigh on ag markets, which will make U.S. exports more expensive than their foreign competition (Chart 20). As is the case for all of the commodities we cover, a strong dollar will weigh on prices at the margin. Chart 20A Strong USD Will Make U.S. Exports Expensive Bottom Line: A thaw in the Sino – U.S. trade war should realign global grain markets, but will not keep soybeans from setting new global inventory records. A strong USD will be a headwind for ag markets, as it is for other commodity markets we cover.     Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      This is a fictional character in the movie Master and Commander, based on the novels of Patrick O’Brian. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It was formed in November 2016 to manage oil production. 3      Please see “Silver, Platinum At Risk As Fed Tightens; Palladium Less So,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 15, 2018.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see “The Role of Major Emerging Markets in Global Commodity Demand,” published as a Special Focus in the IMF’s Global Economic Prospects in June 2018 for a discussion of income elasticities for oil, base metals and other commodities in large EM economies. 5      In our current forecast for 2019, we expect Brent to average $82/bbl next year, and for WTI to trade $6/bbl below that.  Please see “All Fall Down: Vertigo In the Oil Market … Lowering 2019 Brent Forecast to $82/bbl,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy November 15, 2018.  We will be updating our supply-demand balances and price forecast next week. 6      At 11.7mm b/d and growing, the U.S. is the largest crude oil producer in the world, having recently eclipsed Russia’s total crude and liquids production of 11.4mm b/d, and the U.S. EIA’s projected 2019 output of 11.6mm b/d.  U.S. crude oil exports hit 3.2mm b/d for the week ended November 30, 2018, an all-time high, according to EIA data.  It is worthwhile recalling crude oil exports were illegal until December 2015.  U.S. product exports totalled 5.8mm b/d for the week ended November 30, and 6.3mm b/d the week before that.  Total U.S. crude and product exports are running ~ 9mm b/d at present, which placed them just above total imports of crude and products – i.e., the U.S. became a net exporter of crude and products at the end of November. 7      The San Francisco Fed defines r-star as the inflation-adjusted “natural” rate of interest consistent with a fully employed economy, with inflation close to the Fed’s target.  r-star is used to guide interest-rate policy consistent with long-term macro goals set by the Fed.  Please see “R-star, Uncertainty, and Monetary Policy,” by Kevin J. Lansing, published in the FRBSF Economic Letter May 30, 2017. 8      Please see “Exclusive: Reverse gear - China car dealers push for tax cut as auto growth stalls,” published by reuters.com October 11, 2018. 9      Please see “Is Norilsk Nickel too big to sanction?” published by ft.com on April 19, 2018, and “U.S. to Tell Russia It Is Leaving Landmark I.N.F. Treaty,” published by nytimes.com October 19, 2018. 10     We discuss this in “Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals,” published July 12, 2018, in BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11     For a discussion of the World Bank’s trade elasticities, please see “Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy June 21, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 12     Canada makes up a smaller share of U.S. exports, at ~ 2%. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q18 Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights The delay to the U.K. parliamentary vote on the current Brexit deal has edged up our assessed probability of no-deal to 20 percent. Our probability-weighted value of the GBP is still around 5 percent higher than today. Nevertheless, the optimal moment to buy the GBP lies ahead, as the Brexit catharsis cannot properly begin until the U.K. parliament expresses its will. Following the recent 35 percent plunge in the crude oil price, both headline and core inflation rates are very likely to fade in the coming months, but this fading is going to be less pronounced in Europe than in the United States. These relative inflation dynamics should give EUR/USD a leg up in 2019. But given the euro area’s connection with the U.K., await more clarity on Brexit before committing to EUR/USD. Chart of the WeekThe Pound Has Decoupled From British Public Opinion On Brexit Feature Please note this report was written before the outcome of Conservative MPs vote of no confidence in Theresa May held on the evening of December 12. To assess the impact of Brexit on the financial markets, we are going to turn to a fundamental concept in physics – the concept of a ‘phase transition’. In physics, a phase transition is a disruptive tipping point at which a body transforms from one state into another. The classic example is when water transforms into ice. If the temperature drops from 10 degrees (Celsius) to a degree or so lower, you will experience no discernible difference in water. Even if the temperature drops to 2 degrees, the difference is only slight. But if the temperature drops to minus 2 degrees, water transforms into ice – and you will experience a huge difference as roads freeze over, pipes burst, and so on… Beware A Sudden Phase Transition We can draw a powerful analogy for how the various forms of Brexit would impact the British economy and financial markets. If the current membership of the EU equates to water at 10 degrees, a ‘Norway plus’ arrangement – European Economic Area (EEA) plus a customs union – might be a temperature only a degree or so lower, a barely noticeable difference. The Brexit deal negotiated by Theresa May (or an amended version of it) might be a temperature of 2 degrees, so a somewhat discernible change. But crashing out of the EU to WTO trading rules would equate to minus 2 degrees, or lower. This Brexit would be hard (Chart I-2). Its properties would be very different. Chart I-2Goods Still Dominate U.K. Exports Also important is the speed of the phase transition. If winter arrives gradually, over the course of several weeks, we can generally prepare, and adapt our behaviour and habits. Thereby, we can even enjoy and thrive in a new climate. But if winter arrives overnight, it causes severe disruption and suffering.1 As Brexit reaches its denouement, the options for the future EU/U.K. relationship – full membership of the EU, a ‘Norway plus’ arrangement, the Brexit deal negotiated by Theresa May, or complete and overnight detachment – are each quite differentiated from the perspective of politics and law. For example, EEA plus a customs union is politically sub-optimal compared with the U.K.’s current full membership of the EU which includes the bonus of precious legal opt-outs. However, from the perspective of an investor in the markets, the first three types of arrangement are not really that different (Chart I-3). Only the last type – complete and overnight detachment from the EU – constitutes a severely disruptive phase transition. Chart I-3For Investors, Brexit Simplifies To A Binary Outcome For Investors, Brexit Simplifies To A Binary Outcome We can simplify the various Brexit possibilities into a binary investment outcome: The complete and overnight detachment ‘no-deal’ outcome – in which GBP/EUR would collapse to below parity. All other outcomes – in which GBP/EUR would initially rally through 1.20, by liberating the BoE to remove its precautionary monetary policy (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4U.K. Economic Fundamentals... Chart I-5...Would Require Higher U.K. Interest Rates Absent The Risk Of A No-Deal Brexit This makes the key question: what is the probability of no-deal? No-deal is the default outcome if a deal or extension to the Article 50 process is not agreed (by both sides) before March 29 2019. Therefore no-deal can happen either if: The U.K. parliament cannot coalesce a majority around a course of action that is also acceptable to the EU27. Or if: The Prime Minister and government – the executive branch – ignores the will of parliament and runs down the clock to no-deal regardless. Looking at the parliamentary arithmetic, it is conceivable that a majority could exist for either ‘Norway plus’, or a new referendum, or no confidence in the current government leading to a general election. As for the Prime Minister ignoring the will of parliament, this is legally possible though politically improbable. Nevertheless, the Article 50 clock is running down. The delay to the parliamentary vote on the current deal, possibly until January 21, has edged up our assessed probability of no-deal to 20%, slightly reducing our probability-weighted value of GBP/EUR to 1.175.2 On a one year horizon, this still offers respectable upside for the GBP versus the EUR or the USD (Chart of the Week). But the Brexit catharsis cannot properly begin until parliament gets a chance to express its will, meaning that the optimal moment to buy the pound still lies ahead. Explaining Central Banks’ Obsession With 2 Percent Inflation Back in 1979, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky formalized a new branch of behavioural finance called Prospect Theory, which would ultimately win Kahneman the Nobel Prize for Economics. One of the key findings of Prospect Theory is that we are incapable of distinguishing the meaning of very small numbers. In the case of price inflation, we cannot really distinguish inflation rates between 0 percent and 2 percent. Anything within this range is indistinguishably perceived as ‘price stability’. Given that we cannot distinguish inflation rates between 0 percent and 2 percent, it is impossible for monetary policy to fine-tune our inflation expectations to a point-target such as 2 percent. And given that it is impossible to fine-tune our inflation expectations, it is also impossible to fine-tune inflation itself to a point-target such as 2 percent. Prospect Theory says it is much wiser to define price stability in terms of an inflation range such as 0-2 percent, because this is how we actually perceive price stability (Chart I-6). But despite this compelling Nobel Prize winning academic evidence, central banks remain obsessed with an inflation point-target, most commonly 2 percent. Why? Chart I-6Price Stability Means An Inflation Range Of 0-2 Percent, Not A Point-Target The reason is that central banks have created a rod for their own back. Once a central bank has staked its credibility in terms of impossibly precise ‘data-dependency’ – such as an inflation point-target – it becomes extremely difficult to move the goalposts without risking accusations of bias, partiality and exceptionalism. Future generations will judge the inflation point-target as one of the monumental errors of early twenty-first century economic policy. But for the time-being this flawed policy will nonetheless govern central bank behaviour, and as investment strategists we must see it in that light.  Following the recent 35 percent plunge in the crude oil price, both headline and core inflation rates are very likely to fade. But this fading is going to be less pronounced in Europe compared with the United States (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). The main reason is that tax rates on fuel are much higher in Europe compared with the United States, and this attenuates the proportionate pass-through into European retail fuel prices from lower (or higher) oil prices. Chart I-7The Connection Between Falling Oil Inflation And Falling Core CPI Inflation Is Weak In Europe... Chart I-8...But Strong In The U.S The ECB has, in any case, committed to keep its policy rates on hold for most of 2019. By contrast, the Fed has been on a one hike per quarter tightening path. Hence, relative to this behaviour, the surprise could be that the Fed indicates an open-ended pause in its tightening. Even if this is discounted to some extent, weak prints on reported inflation in the coming months could still move the rates and currency markets. After a spectacular gain for the EUR in 2017, our stance turned broadly neutral in early 2018 by adding a short position in EUR/JPY to counterbalance a 50:50 long position in EUR/USD and SEK/USD. Overall, this has proved to be a successful strategy (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Euro Consolidated In 2018. Another Leg-Up Is Likely In 2019 Looking ahead to the first half of 2019, the aforementioned relative inflation dynamics should give EUR/USD another leg up. But given the euro area’s connection with the U.K., await more clarity on Brexit before committing to EUR/USD. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week, we have spotted an excellent tactical opportunity in EUR/NZD which is at a technical level that has signaled several previous tuning points. On this basis, the recommended trade is long EUR/NZD setting a profit target of 2.5% with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long EM versus DM achieved its profit target while long banks versus healthcare reached the end of its 65 day holding also in profit. Against this, long nickel versus palladium and short Australian telecoms versus insurance both reached their stop-losses. This leaves two open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 This analogy can also apply to the arrival of spring. If the spring thaw arrives in one day, the consequent severe flooding can also cause terrible disruption and suffering. 2 1.225*0.8 + 0.98*0.2 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Late-cycle pressures will keep pushing bond yields higher. Global growth will remain above trend in 2019, keeping unemployment rates low and preventing central banks from turning dovish. The unwind of crisis-era global monetary policies will continue. Slowing central bank asset purchases will worsen the supply/demand balance for government bonds, resulting in gentle upward pressure on yields via higher term premia. It is too early to worry about inverted yield curves. The time to be concerned about the recessionary implications of an inverted U.S. Treasury curve will come after the Fed has lifted real interest rates to above neutral (R*), which should occur in the latter half of 2019. Expect poor corporate bond returns from an aging credit cycle. While default risk is likely to stay benign through 2019, the greater risk for corporates could come from concerns over future credit downgrades, as well as diminished inflows in a “post-QE” world. Feature BCA’s annual Outlook report, outlining the main investment themes that will drive global asset markets in 2019, was sent to all clients in late November.1 In this Weekly Report, we discuss the four broad implications of those themes for global fixed income. In a follow-up report to be published next week, we will translate those themes into strategic investment recommendations and allocations within our model bond portfolio framework. Key View #1: Late-Cycle Inflation Pressures Will Keep Pushing Bond Yield Higher The main theme from last year’s BCA Outlook was that markets and policy would collide in 2018. This year’s Outlook concluded that those same frictions would persist in 2019, and for similar reasons. The global economy is likely to see another year of above trend growth, after the current deceleration phase bottoms out in the first half of the year. Tight labor markets will continue to force developed market central banks, who still strongly believe in the Phillips Curve relationship as the best way to forecast inflation, to move toward less dovish monetary policies, putting steady upward pressure on global bond yields. Our own Central Bank Monitors signal a need for tighter monetary policy (Chart of the Week), most notably in the U.S. That may sound strange given the recent softening of global growth momentum and plunge in oil prices. Yet economic survey data (like the global ZEW index) show a huge divergence between actual and expected growth, with real bond yields responding more to the former than the latter (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekStill A Bearish Bond Backdrop   Chart 2Global Yields Will Remain Resilient In 2019 The fear of a global economic downturn appears greater than the current reality - a trend likely magnified by the ongoing U.S.-China trade tensions and the sharp fall in oil prices which some are interpreting to be a sign of weaker demand. BCA’s commodity strategists view the oil decline as purely supply driven, and expect that a tighter demand/supply balance will result in oil prices recovering recent losses and rising smartly in 2019. This should lead to a rebound in the inflation expectations component of global bond yields later next year (bottom panel). As was argued in the 2019 BCA Outlook, the conditions for a deep pullback in global growth are not yet in place, especially in the U.S. where consumer fundamentals remain solid (strong income growth, booming net worth and a low debt service ratio). China, where growth is currently slowing, remains the biggest wild card for the world economy, especially given the degree to which emerging market economies are levered to Chinese growth. Yet the most likely outcome is that Chinese authorities will make enough policy adjustments to stabilize the economy in the first half of 2019, which will help put a floor under global growth. With over 80% of OECD economies now with an unemployment rate below estimates of “full employment”, the backdrop today is more conducive to sustained higher inflation than at any point since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (Chart 3). This means that actual inflation readings are likely to be stickier to the upside, especially for domestically focused measures like wages and services which are accelerating in many countries. Chart 3Tight Labor Markets Will Prevent A Sharp Drop In Inflation From the point of view of global central bankers, this means that as long as global growth does not slow sustainably below trend, then unemployment rates are unlikely to begin to rise. For policymakers who slavishly follow the Phillips Curve when forecasting inflation, that will make it difficult to shift to a more dovish policy bias, even if inflation remains below target for a time thanks to the recent pullback in oil prices (Chart 4). Chart 4Central Banks Who Believe In The Phillips Curve Can’t Turn Dovish The degree of policy bias in 2019 will not be uniform, though, which was also the case in 2018. Central banks in countries with core inflation rates closer to policymaker targets (the U.S., Canada, the U.K. if the Brexit uncertainty fades, Sweden) will be more likely to raise rates than those where inflation is still well below target (Japan, the euro area, Australia). Relative government bond market performance over the course of 2019 should reflect those trends. U.S. Treasury yields will still most likely to see the largest increase from current levels as the Fed will lift rates over the full 2019 calendar by more than markets are currently discounting (only 33bps are currently priced in the U.S. Overnight Index Swap curve – a low hurdle to beat). Key View #2: The Unwind Of Crisis-Era Global Monetary Policies Will Continue Quantitative easing (QE) – central banks buying huge amounts of bonds to help keep yields low enough to sustain economic growth amid weak inflation expectations – has been a dominant feature of global bond markets since the 2009 recession. Policymakers have been forced to engage in such unusual activities to try and boost weak inflation expectations even after policy interest rates have been cut to 0% (and even lower in some cases). Now, a decade later, inflation expectations are more stable and much closer to central bank targets in most countries (except, as always, Japan). That means government bond returns are no longer negatively correlated to equity returns (Chart 5), reducing the value of bonds as a hedge to stocks. Chart 5Bonds Are A Less-Effective Hedge For Equities With More Stable Inflation In the 2019 BCA Outlook, several other reasons were given as to why that correlation has been weakening, including a shift towards more consumption and less savings from aging populations entering their retirement years. The biggest change, however, has been the move from QE to “QT” (quantitative tightening) as central banks buy fewer bonds or, in the case of the U.S. Fed, actually letting bonds run of its massive balance sheet. The new year will bring an end to the net new buying phase of the European Central Bank (ECB) Asset Purchase Program. That represents a loss of €180 billion of liquidity into European bond markets compared to 2018 (twelve months at €15bn per month), both for government debt and investment grade corporates which are also part of the ECB’s program. This will come on top of reduced purchases from the Bank of Japan (BoJ), who will likely buy at a reduced ¥30 trillion pace in 2019 (down from around ¥40 trillion in 2018), and from the Fed who will let $600bn of maturing bonds run off its balance sheet ($360bn of which will be Treasuries). That slowing pace of central bank asset accumulation means that private investors must absorb an even greater supply of government bonds next year. The BCA Outlook estimated that the change in the supply of government bonds available to private investors would equal $1.2 trillion in 2019, a huge increase from the $400bn seen in 2018 (Chart 6). This will come at a time when new government bond issuance is set to increase once again thanks to wider U.S. budget deficits, further worsening the global supply/demand balance for government debt from the major developed economies. Chart 6Private Sector To Absorb More Bonds The reduction in the pace of central bank bond buying will continue to put gentle upward pressure on government bond yields, as has been the case since the pace of ECB purchases peaked in 2016 (Chart 7). More importantly, the diminished central bank liquidity expansion means there will be less money going into risky assets via the portfolio balance channel (i.e. private investors taking the funds earned from selling bonds to central banks and placing that in equity and credit markets). Chart 7Upward Pressure On Yields & Vol From 'QT' This creates a backdrop where volatility spikes will be more frequent, as has been the case in 2018 (bottom panel). Risky asset valuations will also be impacted from reduced inflows from yield-seeking investors who have sold government bonds to central banks. This suggests wider credit spreads and lower equity price/earnings multiples, all else equal (Chart 8). Chart 8Risk Asset Valuations Will Continue To Suffer From QT In 2019 Of course, all is not equal. A rebound in global growth could trigger a new wave of inflows into global equity and credit markets with valuations having cheapened in recent months. The important point is that, without central bank liquidity propping up asset prices, global risk assets will trade more off fundamentals in 2019 than has been the case during the past couple of years. Key View #3: Too Soon To Worry About Inverted Yield Curves “Yield curve inversions lead to recessions” is a well-known (if not well understood) relationship that has gained almost mythical status among investors. As the widely-watched spread between 2-year and 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (the 2/10 curve) has melted away during the course of 2018 – now sitting at a mere 13bps – the prognosticating power of the curve has many worried that a U.S. recession could be just around the corner. Especially after the Fed has raised the fed funds rate by 200 basis points over the past three years. Those fears are misguided, for several reasons: 1. The Treasury curve segment with the most successful track record in heralding U.S. recessions is the spread between the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield and the 3-month U.S. Treasury bill rate (Chart 9). That spread is still a firmly positive 42bps. We showed in a Special Report published last July that, on average, the length of time between the inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury curve and the beginning of a recession is seventeen months.2 Chart 9UST Curve Not Close To A True Recessionary Inversion Signal 2. The slope of the Treasury curve is unusually flat given the level of the fed funds rate measured in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. The previous three episodes where the 2-year/10-year Treasury curve has inverted over the past thirty years have occurred when the real fed funds rate was between 300-400bps (Chart 10). The current level of the real funds rate (deflated by headline CPI inflation) is near zero which, in the past, has occurred alongside a 2-year/10-year Treasury curve that had a positive slope between 150-200bps. Chart 10Global Yield Curves Look Too Flat Vs Real Policy Rates... 3. The depressed level of bond term premia is weighing on longer-dated Treasury yields and dampening the slope of the curve. This is happening not only in the U.S., but also in other major bond markets in Germany, the U.K. and Japan (Chart 11). The impact of global QE programs is the most likely common factor. Chart 11...With Global Term Premia Depressed 4. The 2-year/10-year U.S. Treasury curve has never been inverted without the real fed funds rate being above the neutral real rate, also known as R-star (Chart 12). Chart 12No 2/10 UST Inversion Before Real Rates Exceed R* The implication for fixed income investing for 2019 is that it is too soon in the Fed’s monetary tightening cycle to expect an inverted yield curve driven by an overly tight monetary policy. That outcome is more likely by late 2019 after inflation expectations pick up and the Fed delivers at least another 75bps over the course of the year, pushing the funds rate into restrictive territory. Key View #4: Poor Corporate Returns From The Aging Credit Cycle The other major fixed income implication of the 2019 BCA Outlook is that global corporate bond markets are likely to see another year of poor returns (both in absolute terms and relative to government bonds). Spreads remain near historically tight levels across most spread product sectors, suggesting that credit risk premia will need to be repriced higher as the endgame of the multi-year credit cycle draws nearer (Chart 13). Both investors and policymakers have grown increasingly worried about the risks to the U.S. corporate bond market from high corporate leverage. However, as was discussed in the Outlook, U.S. corporate interest coverage remains well above levels that have preceded the end of previous credit cycles and BCA’s models suggest U.S. corporate profit growth will remain solid (albeit much slower than the rapid +20% growth seen in 2018). Chart 13Fading Support For Corporate Bonds From Growth & Policy That does not mean that corporate bonds are without risk. With 50% of global investment grade bond indices now rated BBB (one notch above junk), the greater threat to corporates may come from downgrades. While those are less likely in a growing economy, investors in lower-rated investment grade bonds may require higher yields and spreads to compensate for the future risk of losses as those bonds could become “fallen angel” high-yield debt in the next economic downturn. This impact would be magnified as how many large fixed income managers have mandates that forbid investment in bonds rated below investment grade, thus creating forced selling in the event of downgrades. More fundamentally, the outlook for global corporate bonds, with spreads still much closer to historical tights than long-run averages, remains reliant on strong economic growth momentum and supportive monetary policy. On the former, we do not anticipate a move to sub-trend global growth, as discussed earlier, and corporate bond returns could stabilize once the current downtrend in the world economy subsides (Chart 14). This would likely represent a final period of calm, however. Tightening global monetary policies – both Fed hikes and diminished asset purchases – will create a more bearish backdrop for credit in the latter half of 2019 as markets begin to discount slower economic growth in 2020. Chart 14Fading Support For Corporate Bonds From Growth & Policy   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the December 2018 edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2019 – Late Cycle Turbulence”, available at bca.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Three Frequently Asked Questions About Global Yield Curves”, dated July 31st 2018, available at gfis.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 So What? The tech war will continue to disrupt the trade truce. Why? The U.S. and China have legitimate national security concerns about each other’s tech policies. The 90-day trade talks cannot succeed without some compromises on tech issues. Chinese structural reforms could also reduce U.S. concerns over tech transfer. Feature The fanfare over President Donald Trump’s tariff ceasefire, agreed at the G20 summit on December 1, has already proved short-lived. We know now that on the same day President Trump sat down with Chinese President Xi Jinping to negotiate the truce, Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei, under a U.S. warrant. Huawei is the world’s biggest telecoms equipment maker, second-biggest smartphone maker, and one of China’s high-tech champions. So far the controversial arrest – which prompted Beijing to make representations to the U.S. ambassador – has not derailed the trade truce. China’s Commerce Ministry has announced that tariffs will be eased and imports of American goods will increase. The CNY-USD has climbed upwards despite a rocky global backdrop in financial markets (Chart 1). Chart 1Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Nevertheless, Meng’s arrest calls attention to our chief reason for skepticism about the ability of the U.S. and China to conclude a substantive trade deal. In essence, “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance. Trade War? Tech War! The historian Paul Kennedy, in his bestselling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, argued that the history of competition between nations is determined by economic and technologically advanced industrial production.1 Eighteenth-century Britain defeated France; Ulysses S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee; and the U.S., the allies, and Russia defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This thesis helps to explain why China’s recent technological acceleration has provoked a more aggressive reaction from the U.S. than its general economic rise over the past four decades. For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart 2). If it comes to match the U.S.’s ratio then it will overwhelm it in real R&D investment, at least in dollar value. And R&D is just one of many factors showing that China is eroding the U.S.’s global dominance. Chart 2The U.S. Has Some Competition In September, an inter-agency U.S. government task force initiated by President Trump’s Executive Order 13806 sought to assess the strength of the U.S. defense industrial base and resilience of its supply chains.2 The conclusion was that the U.S.’s military-industrial base is suffering from a series of macro headwinds that need to be addressed urgently. The report cited key domestic issues, such as the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 3). It argued that the country is rapidly losing the ability to source its defense needs from home, develop human capital for future needs, and surge capabilities in a national emergency. Chart 3Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base However, foreign competition, specifically “Chinese economic aggression,” also holds a central place in the report. The obvious risk is U.S. overreliance on singular Chinese sources for critical inputs, as highlighted during the 2010 rare earth embargo, when Beijing halted exports of these metals to Japan during a flare-up of their maritime-territorial dispute in the East China Sea (Chart 4). Chart 4China’s Rare Earth Supply Chain Leverage The authors’ point is not simply that China’s near-monopoly of rare earths remains a threat to the U.S. supply chain, but that Beijing’s willingness to leverage its advantageous position in the supply chain to coerce its neighbors could be used in other areas. After all, Washington’s reliance on China is rapidly extending to industrial goods that are critical for U.S. defense supply chains, such as munitions for missiles. But Washington’s greatest fear is China’s move into higher-end manufacturing and information technology – and hence the flare-up in tensions over ZTE and Huawei this year. Bottom Line: Technological sophistication and economic output determine which nations rise and which fall over the course of history. While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Semiconductors: The Next Battlefront While the U.S. lacks a national industrial policy, Beijing has made a concerted effort to promote indigenous production and innovation. The obvious example is Beijing’s state-backed ascent to the top of the global solar panel market. More broadly, China’s export growth has been fastest in the categories of goods where the U.S. has the greatest competitive advantage (Chart 5). Again, the U.S. concern is not market share in itself, but China’s ability to compete as an economically advanced “great power.” Chart 5China’s Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share Semiconductors are rapidly becoming the next major battleground, as China is trying to build its domestic industry and the U.S. is considering a new slate of export controls that could constrict the flow of computer chips to China.3 Semiconductors are critical as the building blocks of the next generation of technologies. The semiconductor content of the world’s electronic systems is ever rising. Breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT) promise to create a huge boost in demand for chips in the coming decades. China’s predicament is that the U.S. and its allies control 95% of the global semiconductor market (Chart 6), and yet China is the world’s largest importer, making up about a third of all imports, and its largest consumer (Chart 7). This is a dangerous vulnerability that China has been working to mitigate. Back in 2014 Beijing launched a $100-$150 billion semiconductor development program and has more or less stuck with it. The Made in China 2025 program projects that China will produce 70% of its demand for integrated circuits by 2030 (Chart 8). Chart 6China’s Chip Makers Are Still Small FryChart 7China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand While China-domiciled chip companies have a long way to go, they are rising rapidly, and China has already become a big player in global semiconductor equipment manufacturing (18% market share to the U.S.’s 11%). Chart 8Made In China 2025 Targets The problem for the U.S. is that semiconductors are one area where China runs a large trade deficit. Indeed, the U.S.’s share of China’s market is somewhat larger than the U.S. share of the global market, suggesting that the U.S. has not yet gotten shut out of the market (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Chips Still Have An Edge In China Moreover, 60% of U.S. semi imports from China and 70% of exports are with “related parties,” i.e. U.S. corporate subsidiaries operating in China. The U.S.’s highly competitive semiconductor industry is the most exposed to the imposition of tariffs (Chart 10). This may explain why so many exemptions were granted to the U.S. Trade Representative’s third tariff schedule: out of $37 billion in semi-related Chinese imports to face tariffs, $22.9 billion were given waivers.4 Chart 10Tariffs Are Harmful To U.S. Chip Makers The Barack Obama administration, initially faced with China’s disruptive entrance into this sector, determined that the U.S.’s best response would be to “win the race by running faster.” A council on science and technology warned that the U.S. would have to make extensive investments in STEM education, job retraining, manufacturing upgrades, research and development, international collaboration, and export promotion in order to stay ahead.5 However, these initiatives proved to be either too rhetorical (due to policy priorities and gridlock in Washington) or too slow-in-coming to make a difference in light of China’s rapid state-directed investments under the Xi Jinping administration. The Trump administration has obviously taken a more punitive approach. Trump originally focused on China’s alleged currency manipulation and criticized its large trade surpluses with the United States, but his focus has evolved since taking office. Under the influence of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer – who is now heading up the 90-day talks – Trump’s complaints have given way to a Section 301 investigation into forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and indigenous innovation. This investigation eventually provided the justification for imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports. Over this time period, it has become clear that there is considerable consensus across the U.S. government, on both sides of the aisle, to take a more aggressive approach with China that includes tariffs, sanctions, foreign investment reviews, and potentially new export controls. Significantly, the high-tech conflict has escalated separately from the trade war: it operates on a different timeline and according to a different set of interests. For example: The ZTE affair: The Commerce Department’s denial order against telecoms equipment maker ZTE came on April 15, even as the U.S. and China were trying (ultimately failing) to negotiate a trade deal to head off the Section 301 tariffs. CFIUS reforms: The U.S. Congress proceeded throughout the summer on its efforts to modernize the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, culminating in the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The Treasury Department released its implementing rules for the law in October, which will take effect even as trade negotiations get underway. The secretive body’s major actions have always been to block deals with China or related to China (Table 1). Table 1U.S. Foreign Investment Reviews Usually Hit China Chipmaker sanctions: The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit despite the November diplomatic “thaw” between the two countries in preparation for the G20 summit.6 This action occurred even as top American and Chinese diplomats and generals engaged in talks intended to simmer down strategic tensions in the South China Sea and elsewhere. New export controls: Despite the 90-day trade talks scheduled through March 1, the U.S. government is currently holding public hearings on whether to expand U.S. export controls to cover a range of emerging technologies. These hearings, to conclude on December 19, are being held pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act signed into law in August along with the CFIUS reform. Most recently, the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, falls into this trend – casting doubt on the viability of the tariff ceasefire and forthcoming trade talks. The incident highlights how the pace, scale, and momentum of the tech conflict are substantial and will be difficult to reverse. Furthermore, the U.S. is building alliances with like-minded Western countries in order to encourage a unified embargo of Huawei, ZTE, and potentially other Chinese tech companies. In particular the U.S. and its allies are trying to block Chinese companies out of their upcoming 5G networks. The U.S. banned Huawei back in 2012, but it fears that allied countries – particularly those that host U.S. military bases – will have their commercial networks compromised by Huawei.7 5G will enable superfast connections that form the basis of the Internet of Things. If Huawei is embedded in 5G networks, it could theoretically gain unprecedented penetration into Western society and industry. Since China’s Communist Party has prioritized the “fusion” of civilian capabilities with military,8 and since the country’s security forces and cyber regulators are authorized to have access to Chinese companies’ critical infrastructures and data at will, American government departments have been soliciting allied embassies not to adopt Huawei as a supplier despite its competitive pricing and customizability. Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have effectively banned Huawei from 5G for their own reasons; the U.K. and others are considering doing the same. The expansion of this coalition creates a difficult backdrop for negotiating a final trade deal by March 1. And yet the G20 ceasefire clearly improved the odds of such a deal. So what will break first, the tech war or the trade ceasefire? Bottom Line: The tech war is intensifying even as the trade war takes a pause. The large-scale U.S. mobilization of a coalition of states opposed to China’s growing presence is a bad sign for the 90-day talks, though so far they are intact. What A Deal Might Look Like To get a sense of whether the tech war will upend the trade talks, or vice versa, we need to consider what a final trade deal that includes the U.S.’s technological demands would look like. It is significant that on November 20, the eve of the G20 summit, U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer released a report updating the findings of his Section 301 investigation.9 Lighthizer’s position matters because he is leading the 90-day talks and a critical swing player within the administration.3 Lighthizer’s report is essentially the guideline for the U.S. position in the 90-day talks. It makes the following key claims: China has not altered its abusive and discriminatory trade practices since the Section 301 investigation was concluded. These practices include grave accusations of cyber-theft and industrial espionage. The report also argues that China’s state-driven campaign to acquire tech through mergers and acquisitions is ongoing, despite the drop in Chinese mergers and acquisitions in the United States over 2017-18 (Chart 11). The reason, the USTR alleges, is that China tightened controls on investment in real estate and other non-strategic sectors (essentially capital flight from China), whereas Chinese investment to acquire sensitive technology in Silicon Valley is still intense and is being carried out increasingly through venture capital deals (Chart 12). Chart 11M&A No Longer China’s Best Way To Get Tech...Chart 12...Now Venture Capital Deals Offer A Better Way China’s concessions so far are “incremental” and in some cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program, as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies, but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 13). Other concessions, such as on foreign investment equity caps, are similarly unsatisfactory thus far, according to the USTR. For instance, China’s pledge gradually to allow foreigners to operate wholly owned foreign ventures in the auto sector is said to arrive too late to benefit foreign car manufacturers, who have already spent decades building relationships under required joint ventures. Chart 13The Opposite Of U.S.-China Compromise Trade partners share the U.S.’s concerns and are taking actions to address the same problems. In addition to the aforementioned actions on the 5G, the EU is developing foreign investment review procedures for the first time. Foreign industry groups share the U.S. business lobby’s fear of China’s forced tech transfers. Ultimately, Lighthizer’s report shows both that a trade deal is possible and that it will be extremely difficult to achieve: Possible, because while the report touches on deep structural factors underlying China’s practices, it emphasizes technical issues. Since these issues can often be adjusted by degree, there is ostensibly room to bargain. Difficult, because the main takeaway of the report is that the U.S. is giving China an ultimatum to stop cyber theft and industrial espionage. At minimum, the U.S. will demand assurances that China’s military, intelligence, and cyber agencies will rein in their hacking, spying, and tech acquisition campaigns. Other disputes are more susceptible to tradeoffs, but it will be hard for the U.S. to compromise on a list of grievances that so plainly enumerates national security violations. Can China really compromise on aspects of its Made in China 2025 industrial plan? Possibly. What China cannot compromise on is technological advancement in general, since its future economic sustainability and prosperity depend on it. So China may not accept getting shut out of investment opportunities in Silicon Valley. But if the 2025 plan provokes foreign sanctions, then it interferes with China’s technological advance, and hence can be compromised in order to achieve China’s true end. It makes sense for China and the U.S. to focus on the above tech issues – that is, for the “structural” part of the trade talks – as opposed to any macroeconomic structural demands that are more difficult to pull off at a time when China’s credit cycle is exceedingly weak and the economy is slowing. For instance, on China’s currency, while the U.S. will have to have some kind of agreement, and China has already shown it will allow some appreciation to appease the U.S., China is highly unlikely to agree to a dramatic, Plaza Accord-style currency appreciation. Therefore the negotiators will have to accept a nominal agreement on currency practices, perhaps as an addendum as was done with the U.S.-Korea trade renegotiation. As for other strategic tensions, China is continuing to support the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts with North Korea. Therefore the U.S. is unlikely to get much traction on its demand that China remove missiles from the South China Sea. But unlike cyber theft and corporate hacking, the South China Sea could conceivably be set aside for the purposes of a short-term trade deal and left for later rounds of negotiations, much as Trump’s border wall with Mexico was set aside during the NAFTA renegotiation. Bottom Line: The U.S. is demanding that China (1) rein in its hacking and spying (2) shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors (3) adjust its Made in China targets to allow for more foreign competition (4) lower foreign investment equity restrictions. Our sense, from looking at these demands, is that a trade deal is possible. But given the underlying strategic rivalry, and the intensity of the tech conflict, we think it is more likely that the tech war will ultimately derail the trade talks than vice versa. China’s Reform And Opening Up Turns 40 Finally, a word about China’s reforms, which are no longer discussed much by investors, given that many of the ambitious pro-market reforms outlined at the 2013 Third Plenum flopped. This month marks the 40th anniversary of China’s “Reform and Opening Up” policies under Deng Xiaoping. The original Third Plenum, the third meeting of the 11th Central Committee at which Deng launched his sweeping policy changes, occurred on December 18-22, 1978. In the coming days, General Secretary Xi Jinping will commemorate the anniversary with a speech. Various party media outlets have been celebrating reform and opening up over the past few months. We have no interest in adding to the hype. But we do wish to highlight the interesting overlap in the deadline for the trade talks, March 1, with the annual meeting of China’s legislature, when new policy initiatives are rolled out. To conclude a substantive trade deal, China needs to make at least a few structural concessions. And to satisfy the Trump administration, these concessions will have to be implemented, not merely promised, since the administration has argued consistently that past dialogues have gone on forever without tangible results. The surest way to achieve such a compromise would be to strike a trade deal and then begin implementation at the appropriate time in China’s own political calendar, which would be the March NPC session – right after the 90-day negotiation period ends. What kind of structural changes might China make? Of the four points outlined above, the one that is likely to get the most traction is lifting foreign venture equity caps (Table 2). This would be substantive because it would remove an outstanding structural barrier to foreign market access – China’s prohibitive FDI environment – while depriving China of a means of pressuring firms into conducting technology transfers. It would also have the added benefit of attracting investment that could push up the renminbi. Table 2China’s Foreign Investment Equity Caps In this context, we will watch very carefully both for progress in the 90-day talks and for any new and concrete proposals within President Xi’s upcoming economic statements. This includes the annual Central Economic Work Conference as well as the 40th anniversary of the historic Third Plenum. Bottom Line: The basis for a substantial U.S.-China trade deal would be Chinese structural changes to grant the U.S. (and others) greater market access for investment and a safer operating environment for foreign intellectual property. While we remain pessimistic, the reform agenda is important to watch. Investment Conclusions We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China is not likely forthcoming – at least not in the 90-day timeframe. The difficulty of working out a deal with the tech issues above should support this baseline view. Nevertheless, given that there is a possible path forward, and given that Chinese tech stocks are heavily oversold, is now a good time for investors to buy? Our view is no, on a cyclical 6-12 month horizon. Relative to the MSCI China investable index, tech stocks are not so badly beaten down as they first appear (Chart 14). The incredible earnings performance of this sector over the past five years has rolled over lately, as reflected in trailing earnings-per-share. This is true relative to U.S. tech stocks and the global equity market as well (Chart 15). Chart 14China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market Chart 15Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Since this is a decline in trailing earnings, it does not stem from the trade war, but rather from internal factors like consumer sentiment and retail sales (given the large weights of consumer-related firms like Alibaba and Tencent in this sector). Relative to global tech stocks, Chinese tech has definitely become less expensive after the recent selloff. But they are still not cheap (Chart 16). Given the headwinds outlined above – the fact that the tech war is more likely to derail the trade talks than the trade talks are likely to resolve the tech war – we think it is too early to bottom-feed. Chart 16Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap In short, U.S.-China tensions are rising when looked at from the perspective of, first, China’s aggressive state-backed industrial programs and technological acquisition and, second, the U.S.’s emerging technological protectionism and alliance formation. Two long-term implications can be drawn: First, many of the United States’ complaints stem not only from China taking advantage of its economic openness, but also from the U.S.’s low-regulation environment and opposition to state-driven industrial policy. The U.S. will not have much luck demanding that China stop pouring billions of dollars of government funds into its nascent industries; it will deprive its own emerging sectors of funds if it prevents Chinese investment into Silicon Valley. In other words, the U.S. will have to become less open and more heavily regulated. The CFIUS reforms and the proposed export controls highlight this trend. In addition, any escalation of tensions will likely result in Chinese reprisals against U.S. companies. The U.S. tech sector is the marginal loser (Table 3). Table 3S&P Tech Companies With Large China Exposure Second, while it is often believed that China is playing “the long game,” the government’s technological acquisition policies suggest a very short-term modus operandi. The allegations of widespread and flagrant use of tech company employees by intelligence agencies, and gross cyber intrusions, if true, imply that China is making a mad dash for technology even at the risk of alienating its trading partners and driving them into a coalition against it. Since no government can overlook the national security implications of such practices, China will continue to suffer from foreign sanctions and embargoes, until it convinces foreign competitors it has changed its ways. As a result, China’s tech and industrial sectors are the marginal losers. The big picture is that the U.S. is setting up a “firewall” of rules and regulations to protect its knowledge and innovation, and China is frantically “downloading” as much data as possible before the firewall is fully operational. This dynamic will be difficult to reverse given that the overall context is one of rising suspicion and strategic distrust.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000 (Random House, 1988). 2      Please see “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of Executive Order 13806, September 2018, available at media.defense.gov. 3      Please see U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Department of Commerce, November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 4      Please see Dan Kim, "Semiconductor Supply Chains and International Trade,” SEMI ITPC, November 5, 2018. 5      Please see President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership In Semiconductors,” Report to the President, January 2017, available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. 6      Please see Department of Justice, “PRC State-Owned Company, Taiwan Company, and Three Individuals Charged With Economic Espionage,” Office of Public Affairs, November 1, 2018, available at www.justice.gov. 7      Please see Stu Woo and Kate O’Keeffe, “Washington Asks Allies To Drop Huawei,” Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2018, available at www.wsj.com. 8      Please see Lorand Laskai, “Civil-Military Fusion and the PLA’s Pursuit of Dominance in Emerging Technologies,” China Brief 18:6, April 9, 2018, available at Jamestown.org. 9      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at ustr.gov.

Feature An infrastructure bill has been the focus of economists and strategists as the next leg in fiscal easing to sustain the economy. On the face of it, such a thesis appears eminently believable. Despite historically low unemployment, 2018 has seen tremendous fiscal easing (Chart 1), both via the tax cuts at the end of 2017 and through the bipartisan spending agreement in early 2018, implying the current administration fears neither inflation nor deficits in its pursuit of economic growth. Further, after the Republicans’ shellacking in the midterm elections, it is also logical to expect the GOP to double down on their Trump card through the 2020 presidential election cycle. Chart 1An Already-Strong Fiscal Thrust As such, much hope has been placed in the passage of an infrastructure bill, which began in late 2016 following the election of the Trump administration and its promise “to invest $550 billion to ensure we can export our goods and move our people faster and safer”. The excitement surrounding infrastructure diminished following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the implied much lower probability of an infrastructure bill in light of the debt implications of the unfunded tax cut. Further, the White House released their infrastructure plan in February, 2018 which sought only $200 billion in funding, but planned to stimulate $1.5 trillion in new investment via the multiplicative effect of public-private partnerships (PPP). However, the midterm elections have made infrastructure a hot topic once again for our clients. Is passage of an infrastructure bill likely? Would such a bill prolong the business cycle? At first glance, the market’s dimmed hopes of an infrastructure bill seem justified, in the context of the already-powerful fiscal thrust. Still, our sister Geopolitical Strategy service believes the odds of passage are above 50%.   BOX 1 Will Trump And The Democrats Pass An Infrastructure Bill? President Donald Trump, laser focused on reelection in 2020, faces a big decision about how to conduct domestic policy in the wake of the midterm election. Will he negotiate and compromise with the opposition in the House, like President Bill Clinton did after 1994? Or will he become mired in disagreements, like President Barack Obama after 2010? Infrastructure spending is one of the few areas where Trump and the Democrats have a clear basis for passing a major piece of legislation. It is much harder for these two to agree on immigration – given Trump’s demand for funding the border wall – or health care – given Trump’s opposition to Obama’s Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). By contrast, Trump campaigned vociferously on the need for more infrastructure and proposed a $1.5 trillion spending plan ($200 billion in federal funds) in February.1 Democrats are fully in support of infrastructure investment. The likeliest next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has been saying “build, build, build” both before and after the midterms, and her lieutenant, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), has recently emphasized his eagerness to work with Trump on this issue. There is no doubt whether the public will approve – infrastructure spending always receives high levels of support, and it is one of the few policy areas unaffected by partisanship and polarization (Chart 2). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Pelosi have begun negotiations and Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), likely the next head of the House Transportation Committee, has already outlined a plan. Chart 2U.S. Public Wants Infrastructure Spending The chief constraint is funding, obviously. Republicans want to use a limited amount of federal seed money in order to spur public-private partnerships but Democrats want direct federal funding sourced through indexing the federal fuel tax to inflation and issuing government bonds. There will have to be a new Democratic-authored bill, which may or may not merge with aspects of Trump’s plan.  How much money are we talking about? Trump’s plan called for $1.5 trillion over 10 years, of which $200 billion would be federal. Hence $20 billion in federal spending per year, but with cuts to existing programs. Some analysts have argued that Trump’s plan would actually have seen a net reduction in federal infrastructure spending over the long run due to its cuts to existing federal programs (which happen to be infrastructure-oriented) in order to offset his proposed spending increases. Democrats will insist on no cuts to existing programs, plus funding for new building.2   The mainstream Democrats are proposing $100 billion in new spending per year for 10 years, but this number includes zero cuts to existing programs. Mainstream Democrats are therefore asking for less in actual new spending than meets the eye, but are unlikely to go for less than Trump’s $20 billion. As a reference, President Obama’s last budget proposal was looking at $32 billion in federal infrastructure increases per year.3 An agreement on $20-$40 billion per year in new spending is not insurmountable given that both sides agree that they could raise the $0.18 per gallon tax on gasoline, which has not been raised since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation. Trump has proposed raising it by $0.25 per gallon, and this is more than other proposals (at $0.15 per gallon) or than merely indexing to inflation. This would raise an estimated $375 billion over 10 years.4 In addition, the Democrats are looking to revise aspects of Trump’s tax cuts to fund infrastructure. While Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin says no one in the administration is considering paring back the recent sharp reductions in the corporate rate, Trump has already signaled willingness to negotiate on the corporate rate to provide for a middle-class tax cut. This suggests that modifications to his 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act are not out of the question as infrastructure funding. Signature pieces of major legislation help presidents get reelected. The tax cuts were a product of traditional conservative policy, with limited popularity, whereas a populist compromise to the tax cuts in order to fund an infrastructure package (as long as it is still a net tax cut from pre-2017) could produce a signature piece of legislation from Trump “the builder” going into 2020. In other words, Trump can refrain from vetoing a federal gasoline tax hike or an adjustment to his own corporate tax cuts in order to pass a popular infrastructure initiative. The Democratic opposition will have written the bill, so both parties would “share the blame.” And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given popular and presidential support, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget spending blowout in early 2018, we think that more than enough Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. The bill will come at a time when other major legislative options are on ice and when both Trump and the Democrats will need at least one achievement to sell to voters in 2020. Might the Democrats sabotage such a bill in order to deny the president any fiscal help ahead of the 2020 election? Possibly. But they would have to pretend to negotiate before pulling out of the deal. It could backfire mightily. Whereas passing a big infrastructure bill would demonstrate their ability to govern and would help them win over voters in the vital Midwestern battleground states, where collapsing bridges and poisonous water systems have made headlines. Bottom Line: There is a greater than 50% chance that a bill will pass. As a baseline estimate, a bill worth $200-$400 billion over ten years is a reasonable estimate for a bill that could pass in late 2019 or (less likely) early 2020. Needless to say, $200-$400 billion over 10 years is a far cry from headline numbers like $1.5 trillion. It is an even farther cry from the progressive Democrats’ “People’s Infrastructure Plan” which calls for $2 trillion over ten years. Net new spending of $20-$40 billion per year is about 10%-20% of existing annual infrastructure spending and only 0.1%-0.20% of American GDP.   In our examination, we will frequently reference the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the most recent major infrastructure bill aimed at stimulating the economy. This bill cost $787 billion, of which $500 billion was cash outlays (the remainder was tax incentives). However, only $105 billion of the ARRA was targeted at infrastructure spending ($20 billion per year). Still using the 2009 ARRA as an analogy, the midpoint of high and low estimates from the CBO’s post-mortem of the ARRA’s efficacy, the ARRA added 1.1% to real GDP in 2009, followed by 2.4% in 2010. If we assume the goal of this bill is truly to prolong the business cycle to align with the election cycle, it stands to reason that time is of the essence. Further, the PPP requirements to achieve the $1.5 trillion in new investment envisaged by the White House raise a host of issues. Buy-in from private partners, the associated incremental planning and an assumed dearth of shovel-ready PPP-appropriate projects lead us to believe that a Q1 passage of a bill would be necessary for it to achieve its goals. Lastly, when the 2009 ARRA became effective, the unemployment rate was 8.3%. It is 3.7% now (Chart 3). We would anticipate an inflation-fearing Fed to deliver a monetary response to this fiscal slack in the form of interest rate hikes that would at least partially offset the stimulus. With two opposing forces pushing on the economy, it is ambiguous to us whether the stimulus would, in fact, stimulate. Chart 3Historically Low Unemployment What Drives Domestic Infrastructure Stocks Anyway? As equity strategists, our role is to offer clients insights into the best way to play the anticipated fiscal largesse. Accordingly, we have created an index from a range of industrials and materials GICS3&4 indexes that should see a positive reaction to a spur in infrastructure demand; we present the BCA Infrastructure Basket in Chart 4 with details of its constituents included in an appendix following this report. Chart 4BCA's Infrastructure Basket… Much like the initial excitement surrounding the prospect of an infrastructure bill following Trump’s election, our infrastructure basket leapt in November 2016. However the diminishing hopes of a bill, especially of the size discussed on the campaign trail, are reflected in the basket’s mostly steady decline from its late 2016 peak. This decline accelerated following the passage of the tax cuts at the end of 2017. A reasonable assumption would be that the price of our basket of equities would track in line, by and large, with most leading economic indicators as they are broadly a reflection of the industrial economy. Testing this hypothesis over the past 30 years is revealing: we found no material correlation between domestic leading indicators, even capital expenditures and planned capital expenditures that should be significant top line drivers (Chart 5). The upshot is that domestic private sector sentiment is unrelated to infrastructure stock performance. Chart 5...Is Not Correlated With Leading Indicators When plotted against the historic budget deficit and government debt levels, a better picture emerges (Chart 6). Our inference is that public spending and the infrastructure basket tend to move together, which is corroborated by the aforementioned recent moves around rising and falling hopes for a Trump infrastructure bill. Still, this analysis is incomplete as the infrastructure basket and fiscal growth were inversely correlated between 2004 and 2009 before reestablishing a positive relationship and even then the relationship is relatively loose. Chart 6Fiscal Expansion And Infrastructure Stocks Mostly In Sync Accordingly, we widened our analysis to global indicators excluding the U.S., where we found a significantly tighter correlation (Chart 7), though only post-2001. We ascribe the close post-2001 relationship to China’s joining of the WTO and their resulting ascendency in driving equity returns in the emerging market space. Chart 8 confirms our hypothesis; our infrastructure basket and the EM equity index overlap. Chart 7Global Leading Indicators Are Better Chart 8EM And Infrastructure Go Hand In Hand Drilling down on China seems appropriate in this context and further corroborates our assertion that China is increasingly the driver of U.S. domestic infrastructure stock performance. Particularly in the post-GFC era, the slowdown in Chinese capex and money supply growth appear to be the principal drivers of these stocks (second and bottom panels, Chart 9). This message is echoed when we compare the infrastructure basket to the Chinese credit growth impulse and the Keqiang index (Chart 10). Chart 9Chinese Growth Drives Domestic Infrastructure Stocks Chart 10Slowing Growth In China Points To A Down Leg Bottom Line: Domestic private sector sentiment has little impact on the BCA Infrastructure Basket, though U.S. government spending clearly has a significant impact on the performance of the stocks. Still, it appears that Chinese growth is at least as important as domestic government spending to the relative performance of the infrastructure basket. In light of BCA’s view of flat or slowing growth in China, at least for the year ahead, we would wait for a positive catalyst before adding this basket as a holding.  A Value Trap In The Making Investors may correctly point out that our infrastructure basket has already been beaten up and the stage may be set for a relief rally. In fact, the basket has already notched two months of outperformance, lifting it off its decade low relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 11). However, as shown in the middle panel of Chart 12, this rally has come while forward EPS growth estimates have trailed the broad market, meaning that the rally has been exclusively a valuation rerating rather than a fundamental turning point in earnings (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Fairly Valued Over Long Term... Chart 12...And A Value Trap In The Short Term Further, while the bear market for this basket of stocks is set to enter its second year, we would caution that a turning point may be further off in the distance than optimists may hope. Witness the six year period from 1995 to 2001 when the infrastructure basket dramatically underperformed the market (Chart 11). Valuations in the infrastructure basket were only a third of the broad market before a rally occurred, a far cry from where they are now. As well, the relative rally likely had more to do with the souring of the tech sector than a particular affection for infrastructure stocks; it took another five years for the basket to reach its average valuation. We would further note that on a longer-term basis, while still a discount to the broad market, valuations remain roughly in line with their historical average (Chart 11). Bottom Line: History has shown bear markets for infrastructure stocks can be deep and prolonged. Thus while the infrastructure basket is relatively cheap compared to the recent past, looking further back in history tells us that this may not be the case. Accordingly, we think the BCA Infrastructure Basket has all the markings of a value trap. So What Does It All Mean The passage of an infrastructure bill seems likely, though the form it will take remains subject to debate. As well, the timing and efficacy of such a bill may mean that it both undershoots expectations with respect to its size and eventual economic impact. The BCA Infrastructure Basket has tended to trade off of domestic fiscal expansion but EM in general and China in particular appear to have taken over as the core drivers of relative stock performance. While bearishness has reigned in this basket for the past year, we caution that this still looks like the early stages of underperformance. We would wait for a positive catalyst in the EM and/or China before chasing the BCA Infrastructure Basket. Details on the composition of this basket are in an appendix that follows.   Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Footnotes 1      Please see the White House, “Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America,” 2018, available at www.politico.com. 2      Please see Jacob Leibenluft, “Three Key Questions About The Trump Infrastructure Plan,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 30, 2018, available at www.cbpp.org. 3      Please see Senate Democratic Caucus, “Senate Democrats’ Jobs & Infrastructure Plan For America’s Workers,” March 7, 2018, available at www.democrats.senate.gov. 4      Please see Lauren Gardner, Tanya Snyder, and Brianna Gurciullo, “Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say,” Politico, February 14, 2018, available at www.politico.com.

Highlights Our take on the key macro drivers of financial markets hasn’t evolved much since we laid it out this summer, … : Monetary policy is still accommodative; lenders are ready, willing and able; and the expansion remains intact. ... but the inflection points are getting nearer: The good times won’t last forever, though. The Fed is resolutely tightening policy, BBB-heavy investment-grade issuance has the corporate bond market flirting with a plague of fallen angels, and the global economy is slowing. Our strategy remains more cautious than our outlook for now, … : Although we think the equity bull market has another year to run, and the expansion will stretch into 2020, we are only equal-weight equities, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash. … but we’re alert to opportunities to get more aggressive: Investment-grade and high-yield bonds are unlikely to offer an attractive risk-reward profile, but the S&P 500 shouldn’t decline much more if the economy holds up. Feature Mr. and Ms. X’s annual visit is an occasion for every BCA service to look toward the coming year, mindful of how it could improve on the one just past. The theme we settled on in last year’s discussion, Policy and Markets on a Collision Course, began asserting itself in earnest in October, and appears as it will be with us throughout 2019. The Fed is nearing its fourth rate hike this year, on the heels of three in 2017, and markets are warily contemplating the tipping point at which higher interest rates begin to interfere with activity. The yield curve has become a constant worry (Chart 1), with short rates moving in step with the fed funds rate while yields at the long end have been just one-half as sensitive (Chart 2). Chart 1Yield Curve Anxiety Has Exploded ...   Chart 2... As The Curve Has Steadily Flattened Trade tensions are an even thornier policy challenge. After flitting on and off investors’ radar earlier in the year, trade barriers have been a major source of angst in recent months as central banks, investor polls and company managements increasingly cite them among their foremost concerns. Unfortunately, our geopolitical strategists do not expect relief any time soon. They see trade as just one aspect of an extended contest for supremacy between China and the U.S. Late-Cycle Turbulence, our 2019 house theme, pairs nicely with Policy-Market Collision. The gap between our terminal fed funds rate expectation and the money market’s is huge, and leaves ample room for a repricing of the entire yield curve. Trade has been a roller coaster, capable of inducing whiplash in 140 characters or less, and it may already have brought global manufacturing to the brink of a recession. Oil lost 30% in two months at the stroke of a pen; its immediate fate is in the hands of OPEC, but the caprice with which Iranian sanctions may or may not be re-imposed is likely to feed uncertainty. As we advised Mr. and Ms. X a few weeks ago, investors should stay nimble; there is no point to committing to a twelve-month strategy right now.1 The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Our equilibrium fed funds rate model estimates that the equilibrium fed funds rate, the rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity, is currently around 3%. It projects that the equilibrium rate will approach 3¼% by the middle of 2019, and 3⅜% by year end. The implication is that policy is comfortably accommodative now, and will not cross into restrictive territory for another 12 months – assuming that the Fed hikes four times next year, in line with our ambitious expectation. If the Fed steps back from its gradual pace, and only hikes three times in 2019 (as per the dots), or just once (as per the money market), the day when the economy and markets will have to confront tight monetary conditions will be pushed even further into the future. Stretching monetary accommodation until late next year would seem to forestall the arrival of the next recession until at least the first half of 2020. Tight policy is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a recession, as recessions have only occurred when the policy rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium over the six decades covered by our model. A longer stretch of accommodation would also continue to nourish the equity bull market and discourage allocations to Treasuries. Over the last 60 years, the S&P 500 has accrued all of its real returns when policy was easy (Table 1), while Treasuries have wilted, especially in the current phase of the fed funds rate cycle (Table 2). Table 1Equities Flourish When Policy’s Easy ...   Table 2... While Treasuries Stumble The Business Cycle The state of policy is one of the three components in our simple recession indicator. Neither of the other two is sounding the alarm, either. Our preferred 3-month-to-10-year segment of the Treasury yield curve is still comfortably upward sloping, even if it has been steadily flattening and we expect it to invert late next year (Chart 3). Year-over-year growth in leading economic indicators decelerated slightly last month, but remains well above the zero line that has reliably preceded past recessions. Chart 3Flattening, But Not Yet Flat The Credit Cycle Anyone following the credit cycle would do well to start with the axiom that bad loans are made in good times. Its converse is just as true: good loans are made in bad times. Loan officers are every bit as susceptible to the recency bias as other human beings, and they tend to extrapolate from the freshest observations when assessing a borrower’s prospects. When things are good, lenders assume they will continue to be good, and let their guard down by lending to marginal borrowers and/or relaxing the terms on which they will lend. When things are bad, on the other hand, loans have to be underwritten so tightly that they squeak. The upshot is that lending standards and loan performance are tightly bound up with one another. In the near term, standards and performance are joined at the hip; over a five-year period, standards lead performance as a contrary indicator. Defaults almost certainly bottomed for the cycle in 2014, to judge by speculative-grade bonds (Chart 4, top panel), and loans (Chart 4, bottom panel). Standards reliably followed, and the proportion of lenders easing standards for corporate borrowers, as per the Fed’s senior loan officer survey, spiked (Chart 5). Chart 4Weakening, But Not Yet Weak   Chart 5Standards Follow Performance In Real Time ... The 2012 and 2014 peaks in willingness suggest that performance is due to erode (Chart 6). We do not foresee a step-function move higher in defaults, or a sudden collapse in loan availability, but we do expect some fraying at the edges. Given how tight spreads remain, any weakness at the margin could go a long way to wiping out much, if not all, of spread product’s excess return. The bottom line is that the credit cycle is well advanced, and investors should expect borrower performance and lender willingness to weaken from their current levels. Chart 6... And Lead Them Over The Intermediate Term Bonds We have written at length on our bearish view on rates and Treasuries.2 The key pillar supporting our rationale is the gap between our terminal fed funds rate estimate, 3.5-4%, and the market’s view that the Fed will not go beyond 2.75%, if indeed it gets to that level at all (Chart 7). The gap is big enough to drive a truck through, and leaves a lot of room for yields to shift higher all along the curve, even if the Fed were to slow its 25-bps-a-quarter tempo, as the Wall Street Journal suggested it might in a report last Thursday. We continue to believe that inflation is the inevitable outcome once surging aggregate demand collides with limited spare capacity, and that the Fed will be forced to push the fed funds rate to 3.5% and beyond. Chart 7Something's Gotta Give Our view that the credit cycle has already passed its peak drives our view on spread product. Though we remain constructive on the economy and the outlook for corporate earnings, we are not enamored of the risk-reward offered by corporate bonds. Although high-yield spreads blew out by nearly 125 bps from early October to late November, high yield still does not look cheap (Chart 8, bottom panel). The same holds for investment-grade spreads, which remain near the bottom of their long-term range despite widening by over 50 bps (Chart 8, top panel). Chart 8Spreads Are Still Tight Bottom Line: We recommend that investors underweight fixed income within balanced portfolios, while underweighting Treasuries and maintaining below-benchmark duration. We recommend benchmark holdings in spread product, but we expect to downgrade it to underweight before the end of the first half. Equities With monetary policy still accommodative, and the expansion still intact, the cyclical backdrop is equity-friendly. If we’re correct that policy won’t turn restrictive for another twelve months or so, the bull market should have about another year to go. We downgraded equities to equal weight as a firm in mid-June nonetheless, on signs of global deceleration and the potentially malign effects of tariffs and other impediments to global trade. U.S. Investment Strategy fully supported that decision, but we are alert to opportunities to upgrade equities to overweight within U.S. portfolios if prices decline enough to make the prospect of a new cycle high attractive on a risk-reward basis. The risk-reward requirement implies that the fall in price would have to occur without a material weakening of the fundamental backdrop. For now, we think the fundamental supports remain stable, as per the equity downgrade checklist we constructed to keep tabs on them. The checklist monitors recession indicators, none of which betray any concern now; factors that may weigh on corporate earnings; inflation measures, because higher inflation could motivate the Fed to hike more quickly than planned, with adverse consequences for the bull market; and signs of overexuberance (Table 3). Table 3Equity Downgrade Checklist The earnings-pressure section focuses on the key factors that might signal margin contraction – wage growth, dollar strength and rising bond yields – but none of them look especially problematic now. While we think compensation gains will eventually push the Fed to go beyond its own terminal rate estimates, they have not yet picked up enough to cause concern. The dollar has paused in its advance, mostly marking time since the end of October. Only BBB corporate yields have gotten closer to checking the box (Chart 9). BCA’s preferred margin proxies remain in good shape, on balance (Chart 10), and our EPS profit model is calling for robust profit growth across all of next year (Chart 11). Chart 9Higher Rates Will Exert Some Margin Pressure   Chart 10In The Absence Of Margin Pressures, ...   Chart 11... 2019 Earnings Could Hold Up Nicely Oil’s plunge has pulled both headline CPI and longer-run inflation expectations lower. Although we think that the inflation respite is merely a head fake, and that oil will soon regain its footing (please see below), the run of harmless inflation data has the potential to soothe some market concerns about the Fed. If the Fed itself takes the data at face value, it may signal that the current 25-bps-a-quarter gradual pace could be slowed. As for exuberance, the de-rating the S&P 500 has endured since its forward multiple peaked at 18.5 in January suggests that it’s not a problem. We are not living through anything remotely resembling an equity mania. Bottom Line: BCA’s mid-June downgrade of global equities from overweight to equal-weight was timely. We remain equal-weight in balanced U.S. portfolios, but are more likely to upgrade U.S. equities than downgrade them, given the supportive cyclical backdrop. Oil We devoted our report two weeks ago to the oil outlook and its implications for the economy. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service’s bullish 2019 view has not changed: it still sees a market in a tight supply/demand balance with high potential for supply disruptions and a smaller-than-usual inventory reserve to make up the slack. The unexpected release of over a million barrels a day of Iranian output has played havoc with oil prices, but does not provoke the growth concerns that declining demand would. Provided OPEC is able to agree on production cuts, and abide by them going forward, our strategists see Brent and WTI averaging $82 and $76/barrel across 2019. The Dollar We remain bullish on the dollar, though it will find the going rougher than it did in 2018. Traders have built up sizable net long positions, so it will take more for the greenback to extend its advance than it did to begin it. Ultimately, we think desynchronization between the U.S. and the rest of the major DM economies will keep the dollar moving higher. If the U.S. does not continue to outgrow the currency-major economies by a healthy margin, and/or the Fed does not respond to that growth by hiking rates to prevent overheating, the dollar’s advance may be nearly played out. Putting It All Together Three major assumptions underpin our views: The U.S. economy is at risk of overheating in its second year of markedly above-trend growth fueled by fiscal stimulus, and the Fed will respond to that risk by decisively raising rates. There will be a noticeable global slowdown, but it will not go far enough to turn into a recession. The U.S. will remain mostly immune to the global slump. We will be positioned well if all of these assumptions are validated by events, though timing is always uncertain. Financial-market volatility often increases late in the cycle, and we expect the backdrop to remain fluid. We are trying to maintain a fluid mindset in kind, monitoring the incoming data to make sure our cyclical assessments still apply, while remaining alert to opportunities created by significant price swings. Although we are neither traders nor tacticians, we want to retain some flexibility, and are trying to resist mentally locking in our positioning for the entire year. We are particularly focused on the monetary policy backdrop and the transition from accommodative to restrictive policy, which has historically been critically important for asset allocation. Our main goal is to anticipate the approach of inflection points in the key cycles – business, credit and monetary – as adeptly as we can. We are also resolved to look through the noise of one-off price swings and the blather that has already been clogging the airwaves. We seek to help our clients formulate a strategy for navigating the turbulence without being swept up in it. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the December 2018 Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2019: Late-Cycle Turbulence,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy, “The Rates Outlook,” the September 17, 2018; U.S. Investment Strategy, “What Would It Take To Change Our Bearish Rates View?” and the November 5, 2018; U.S. Investment Strategy, “Checking In On Our Rates View,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The dollar will continue to rally despite the trade truce agreed upon last weekend between U.S. President Donald Trump and China President Xi Jinping. Not only is this truce far from a permanent deal, but global growth continues to slow. Moreover, if the truce were to generate a genuine improvement in global growth conditions, this would likely result in a much more hawkish Federal Reserve than the market is currently pricing in. This would lead to a further deterioration in global liquidity conditions, causing additional growth problems for the world. Buy EUR/CHF, as the Swiss National Bank will soon have to intervene in the market. Sell AUD/NOK, as oil should outperform metals and the Norges Bank is better placed to tighten policy than the Reserve Bank of Australia. Feature Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping have agreed to freeze additional new tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. for three months. This means that as of January 1, 2019, U.S. tariffs on US$200 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S. will remain at 10%, and will not jump to 25%. Meanwhile, China has agreed to immediately resume its imports of soybeans and LNG from the U.S. Moreover, China has also agreed to begin talks to open up Chinese markets to U.S. exports as well as to address U.S. worries regarding intellectual property theft. The world has let out a collective sigh of relief. A potent narrative exists that fears of a trade war have been the root cause of the slowdown in global growth witnessed this year. Consequently, since the dollar performs well when global industrial activity slows, this also means that ending the trade war could be key to abort the dollar’s bull market. We are doubtful this narrative will pan out, and we do not think that the Buenos Aires truce will lead to the end of the dollar rally. This also means that the G-20 armistice is also unlikely to reverse the underperformance of commodity and Scandinavian currencies. First, this truce does not mark the end of the trade war. It is only an agreement to delay the implementation of U.S. tariffs. Come March, the Trump administration may well sing a very different tune. The U.S. domestic political climate has not changed one iota, and protectionism, particularly when directed at China, still wins votes (Chart I-1). Meanwhile, the concessions China is willing to give are long-term in nature; however, Trump wants visible wins well ahead of the 2020 elections. This mismatch creates a real danger that the White House imposes new tariffs again beyond the three-month armistice agreed at the G-20. The news yesterday afternoon that the CFO of Huawei was indicted in Vancouver already casts doubts on the deal. Chart I-1Americans Will Remain Tough On China Second, the dollar has been strong, and risk assets have been weak for more reasons than the trade war alone. As shown by the slowdown in Japanese or Taiwanese exports, as well as by the contraction in German foreign orders and in the CRB Raw Industrial Index’s inflation, global trade and global growth are slowing (Chart I-2). This development is likely to last until mid-2019, as our global leading economic indicator continues to fall. This deterioration in the global LEI does not look set to stop soon, as normally any improvement in the global LEI is first telegraphed by a stabilization in the Global LEI Diffusion Index – an indicator that is still falling (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Global Growth Continues To Slow Chart I-3No Bottom In Sight For The Global LEI China is not yet coming to the rescue either. The slowdown in Chinese economic activity continues, and in fact, the paucity of a rebound in Chinese credit growth despite injections of liquidity by Beijing suggests that a bottom is not yet in sight (Chart I-4). Hopes that were raised by increased bond issuance from local governments have also been dashed as this proved to be a very temporary phenomenon (Chart I-5). What is more worrisome is that so far Chinese exports have held their ground; however, the decline in the new export orders of the Chinese PMI suggests that this support to growth is likely to taper sharply in the coming months (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Credit Growth Decelerating Despite Stimulus   Chart I-5Chinese Infrastructure Push Looks Transitory   Chart I-6Chinese Exports: The Last Shoe To Drop Finally, despite the cloudy outlook for global growth that built up this year, U.S. yields had risen 80 basis points by November 8, adding stress to economies already negatively impacted by weakening manufacturing activity. This increase in global borrowing costs has worsened the already noticeable decline in U.S.-dollar based liquidity (Chart I-7). This decline in liquidity has been a great source of concern as EM economies, the source of marginal growth in the global economy, have large dollar-denominated debt loads, and thus need abundant dollar liquidity in order to support their economies (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Slowing Dollar Liquidity Explains Weak Global Growth... Chart I-8...Because There Is A Lot Of Dollar Debt Where Growth Is Generated This last point is especially unlikely to change in response to the Buenos Aires truce. Since November, 10-year U.S. yields have fallen around 25 basis points, and now fed funds rate futures are only pricing in 45 basis points of rate hikes over the coming two years, including the December hike. If business sentiment improves because of a trade truce, and consequently U.S. capex proves more resilient than anticipated by market participants, the Federal Reserve will increase rates by much more than what is currently priced into the futures curve (Chart I-9). Chart I-9U.S. Rates Have Plenty Of Upside, Even More So If The Trade Truce Becomes A Peace Treaty This will lift yields, resuscitating one of the first reasons why markets have been weak this fall. This risk is even greater than the market appreciates. After Fed Chair Jerome Powell gave what was perceived as a dovish speech last week, markets were further emboldened to bet on a Fed pause. However, Fed Vice-Chairman Richard Clarida and New York Fed President John Williams have both argued since that the U.S. economy will continue to run above trend and warrants further gradual increases in interest rates. A truce in Buenos Aires may only provide them with more ammunition to implement those hikes. Global liquidity conditions are unlikely to improve significantly anytime soon. Moreover, the truce could also change the calculus in Beijing. Much of the stimulus implemented since last summer in China has been to limit the negative impact of a trade war. However, if a trade war is not in the cards, Beijing has fewer reasons to abandon its deleveraging campaign. It thus raises the possibility that with a risk to China evaporating, the Xi Jinping administration would instead not do anything to limit the slowdown in credit. This implies that Chinese capex would stay weak and that China’s intake of raw materials and machinery would not pick up. This means that the euro area and countries like Australia will continue to lag behind the U.S.  Ultimately, the market speaks louder than anything else. The incapacity for risk assets to catch a bid in the wake of what was good news is disconcerting. It suggests that the combined assault of slowing global growth and a tightening Fed remains the main problem for global financial markets. Hence, in this kind of deflationary environment, the dollar reign supreme – even if U.S. growth were to slow (Chart I-10). Chart I-10A Strong Dollar Is Not A Function Of Strong U.S. Growth Bottom Line: A trade truce in Buenos Aires could have aborted the bull market in the dollar. So far, it has not, and we do not think it will be able to end the dollar’s rally. First, this truce remains flimsy, and does not guarantee an end of the trade war between China and the U.S. Second, global growth continues to exhibit downside. Finally, the Fed is unlikely to change its course and pause its hiking campaign. In fact, if a trade truce is so good for trade, it will give more reasons for the Fed to hike and may even incentivize Chinese authorities to abandon their efforts to cushion the Chinese economy against slowing global trade. Stay long the dollar and keep a defensive exposure in the FX market, one that favors the yen and the greenback at the expense of Scandinavian and commodity currencies. Buy EUR/CHF Despite our view that global growth is set to slow, we are inclined to buy EUR/CHF this week. We expect the Swiss National Bank to stop sitting on its hands as a stronger CHF is becoming too painful. First, as we highlighted last week, aggregate Swiss economic activity is slowing sharply.1 What is more concerning is that consumer spending is also suffering, as shown by the contraction in real retail sales (Chart I-11). This implies that despite record-low interest rates, Swiss households are feeling the pinch of the tightening in Swiss monetary conditions created by the stronger CHF. Chart I-11Swiss Households Are Feeling The Pinch Second, the franc remains a problem for Swiss competitiveness. As Chart I-12 shows, Swiss labor costs are completely out of line with its competitors. This phenomenon worsened significantly after 2008 due to the Franc’s strength vis-à-vis the euro. Despite the weakness in the franc from mid-January 2015 to April 2018, Swiss unit labor costs remain uncompetitive. This means that going forward, either the SNB will have to tolerate a further contraction in wages, something unpalatable as Swiss households have a debt load equal to 212% of disposable income, or the franc will have to fall. Chart I-12The CHF Makes Switzerland Uncompetitive Third, the franc’s recent strength is only accentuating the deflationary impact of softer global growth on the local economy. As Chart I-13 illustrates, the recent strengthening in the trade-weighted CHF portends to a potentially painful contraction in import prices, while core inflation is already well off the SNB’s 2% objective. Moreover, as the second panel of Chart I-13 shows, our CPI model suggests that Swiss inflation is about to fall into negative territory again. This would imply that not only will the Swiss economy suffer from the recent strengthening in the franc, but also that Swiss real interest rates are about to increase by 100 basis points, the last thing a slowing economy needs. Chart I-13Swiss Deflation Will Return This economic backdrop suggests to us that after 16 months where the SNB played nearly no active role in managing the CHF exchange rate, the Swiss central bank is about to come back to the market in order to limit the downside in EUR/CHF. This makes buying this cross attractive, as it offers a favorable asymmetric payoff. EUR/CHF generates a small positive carry, has limited downside and offers ample upside if the SNB intervenes – all while offering low volatility. Meanwhile, if global growth picks up, EUR/CHF should also rebound. In fact, the pro-cyclical behavior of EUR/CHF, as well as its asymmetric payoff, increases the attractiveness of this trade within our broadly defensive portfolio stance: It hedges us against being wrong on the global growth outlook and the importance of the trade truce. Furthermore, any resolution to Italy’s battle with Brussels will also boost this cross. Bottom Line: EUR/CHF normally depreciates when global growth slows. While this pattern materialized in 2018, we anticipate EUR/CHF to stabilize and potentially rally, even if global growth slows. The strong CHF is now causing serious pain to the Swiss economy, and the SNB will have to prevent any deepening of the malaise. The SNB is thus set to begin intervening in the market. Additionally, if we are wrong and global growth does not slow further, being long EUR/CHF provides a hedge to our defensive market stance. AUD/NOK To Be Knocked Down An attractive opportunity to sell AUD/NOK has emerged. First, on the back of the weakness in oil prices relative to metals prices, AUD/NOK has caught a furious bid in recent weeks (Chart I-14). However, we expect the underperformance of oil relative to metals to peter off. The main factor that has weighed on petroleum prices is that Saudi Arabia has kept extracting oil at full speed, expecting a shortage of oil in global markets once U.S. sanctions on Iran kicked in. Chart I-14AUD/NOK Strength: A Reflection Of Weak Crude Prices However, with President Trump greatly softening his stance and allowing exemptions for some countries to import Iranian oil, the crude market instead has experienced a mini unforeseen oil glut. OPEC 2.0, just agreed to essentially remedy this problem by limiting their oil output. This should boost oil prices. Meanwhile, slowing global growth centered on slowing Chinese capex will have a much deeper impact on industrial metals prices than on oil. This represents a negative terms-of-trade shock for Australia vis-à-vis Norway. Second, domestic economic conditions also favor betting on a weaker AUD/NOK. Australian nominal GDP growth often weakens when compared to Norway’s ahead of periods of depreciation in AUD/NOK. Today, Australia’s nominal GDP growth is sagging relative to Norway’s, and the contraction in Australia’s LEI relative to Norway suggests that this trend will deepen (Chart I-15). A rebound in oil prices relative to metals prices will only reinforce this process. Chart I-15Domestic Economic Conditions Point To A Lower AUD/NOK Third, AUD/NOK seems expensive relative to the anticipated path of policy of the Reserve Bank of Australia relative the Norges Bank (Chart I-16). Moreover, the Norwegian central bank has begun lifting rates, and since real interest rates in Norway are still negative, it will continue to tighten policy next year. Meanwhile, the RBA remains reticent to increase interest rates as Australian inflation and wage growth are still tepid. The recent deceleration in Australian GDP growth as well as budding problems in the Aussie real estate market will only further cajole the RBA in its reluctance to lift the cash rate higher. Hence, the real interest rate differentials will continue to point toward a lower AUD/NOK. Chart I-16AUD/NOK At A Premium To Expected Rates Fourth, AUD/NOK is once again very expensive, trading at a 12% premium to it purchasing power parity equilibrium (Chart I-17). It only traded for an extended period of time at a richer premium when Brent was free-falling to US$25/bbl. Since we anticipate oil to rebound, such a premium in AUD/NOK is unwarranted. Chart I-17AUD/NOK Is Pricey Finally, all our technical indicators show that AUD/NOK is massively overbought (Chart I-18). The study on momentum we conducted last year showed that out of 45 G-10 FX pairs tested, after AUD/SEK, AUD/NOK was the second worst one to implement momentum-continuation trades.2 As a result, we would anticipate that the recent period of overbought conditions will lead to a period of oversold conditions. Chart I-18The Mean-Reverting AUD/NOK Is Overbought Bottom Line: Selling AUD/NOK today makes sense. BCA anticipates oil prices to rebound relative to metals prices, the Australian economy is slowing relative to Norway’s, monetary policy is moving in a NOK-friendly fashion, AUD/NOK is expensive, and the cross is well-placed to experience a large episode of momentum reversal.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com  Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market”, dated November 30, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 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 Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: The price component of the ISM manufacturing survey underperformed expectations, coming in at 60.7. This measure also declines sharply from the previous month. However, the headline ISM Manufacturing survey surprised to the upside, coming in at 59.3. Total vehicle sales also outperformed expectations, coming in at 17.50 million. The DXY U.S. dollar Index was flat for the past two weeks. We continue to be bullish on the U.S. dollar. The current environment of falling global growth and falling inflation has historically been very positive for this currency. Moreover, the fed will likely hike more than anticipated by the market, providing another tailwind for the dollar until at least the first quarter of 2019. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in Europe has been mixed: Retail sales growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.7%. Moreover, core inflation also surprised to the downside, coming in at 1%. However, market services and composite PMI surprised positively, coming in at 53.4 and 52.7 respectively. EUR/USD has been flat for the past two weeks. We are bearish on the euro, given that we expect Chinese tightening to continue to weigh on global growth. Furthermore, recent disappointment in euro area inflation confirms our view that it will be very difficult for the ECB to tighten policy. This means that rate differentials will continue to move against EUR/USD. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Evaluating The ECB’s Options In December - November 6, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: The Nikkei manufacturing PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 52.2. Moreover, housing starts yearly growth came in line with expectations, at 0.3%. However, Markit Services PMI came in at 52.3, decreasing from last month’s number. USD/JPY has decreased by -0.4% these past two weeks. We are positive on the yen for the first quarter of 2019. The current risk off environment should be positive for safe havens like the yen. We are particularly negative on EUR/JPY, as this cross is very well correlated with bond yields, which should keep decreasing as markets continue to sell off. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan? - October 5, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Nationwide housing prices yearly growth came in at 1.9%, outperforming expectations. Moreover, Markit manufacturing PMI as well as construction PMI both surprised positively, coming in at 53.1 and 53.4 respectively. However, Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 50.4. GBP/USD has decreased by 0.7% these past two weeks. The pound continues to be a complex currency to forecast. While the pound is cheap and makes for a potentially attractive long-term buy, current political risk continue to make a shorter-term position very risky. Report Links: Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia has been negative: Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.8%. Moreover, building permits month-on-month growth also surprised negatively, coming in at -1.5%. Finally, construction done also surprised to the downside, coming in at -2.8%. AUD/USD has decreased by -0.5% these past two weeks. We believe that the AUD is the currency with the most potential downside in the G10. After all, the Australian economy is the economy in the G10 most leveraged to the Chinese industrial cycle, due to Australia’s high reliance on industrial metal exports. This means that the continued tightening by Chinese authorities should be most toxic for this currency. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: Building permits month on month growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.5%. However, retail sales as well as retail sales ex-autos both declines from the previous quarter, coming in at 0% and 0.4%. NZD/USD has increased by 1% these past two weeks. After being bullish in the NZD for a couple of months, we have recently turned bearish, as we believe that this currency is very likely to suffer in the current environment of declining inflation and global growth. With that said, we remain bullish on the NZD relative to the AUD, given that the kiwi economy is less exposed to the Chinese industrial cycle than Australia. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been positive: Retail sales month on month growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.2%. Moreover, headline inflation also surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.4%. Finally, the BOC core inflation measure increased from last month’s number, coming in at 1.6%. USD/CAD has risen by 1.7% these past two weeks. A lot of this weakness was caused by the dovish communication of the Bank of Canada following their announcement to keep rates on hold at 1.75%. This change in stance is likely a response to the collapse in oil prices in the past months. With that in mind, we are inclined to believe that the CAD might be reaching oversold levels, as oil is likely to stabilize and the economy continue to show signs of strength. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been negative: Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.4%. Moreover, the KOF leading indicator also surprised to the downside, coming in at 99.1. Finally, headline inflation also surprised negatively, coming in at 0.9%. EUR/CHF has decreased by 0.5% these past two weeks. Our bullish view on EUR/CHF is a high conviction view for the first part of 2019. This is because the recent strength in the franc is choking out any inflationary pressures in the Swiss economy. Thus, we are reaching the threshold at which the SNB is very likely to intervene in the currency market to prevent the franc’s strength from derailing the path toward the inflation target. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been negative: Retail sales growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.2%. Moreover, registered unemployment also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.3%. Finally, the credit indicator came in line with expectations at 5.7%. USD/NOK has been flat these past two weeks. We are shorting AUD/NOK this week, as a way to take advantage of stabilizing oil prices and a continued growth slowdown in China. Moreover, AUD/NOK is expensive in PPP terms, and is technically overbought. Finally, this currency shows one the most mean reverting tendencies in the G10, which means that the recent surge in this cross is likely to reverse. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden has been negative: Consumer confidence underperformed expectations, coming in at 97.5. Moreover, retail sales growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.1%. Finally, gross domestic product yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 1.6%. USD/SEK has fallen by roughly 1% these past two weeks. On a short-term basis, we are negative on the krona, given that this currency is very sensitive to global growth dynamics, which means that the continued tightening by both Chinese authorities and the Fed will create a headwind for any SEK rally. That being said, on a longer-term basis we are more positive on the krona, as the Riksbank continues to be too dovish given the current inflationary backdrop. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Deep-seated economic and political forces will undermine the trade truce between China and the United States. U.S. economic momentum is strong enough to allow the Fed to deliver more rate hikes next year than what the market is discounting. Global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year as China picks up the pace of stimulus and the dollar peaks. Until then, a cautious stance towards global equities and other risk assets is warranted. Global bond yields will fall further in the near term, but will rise by a faster-than-expected pace over a horizon of 6-to-18 months. Feature Trade War Roller Coaster Investors breathed a short-lived sigh of relief following the G20 summit in Buenos Aires this past weekend. During the course of a two-and-a-half hour dinner on the sidelines of the summit, President Donald Trump agreed to postpone raising tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese imports by two months to March 1st. For his part, President Xi Jinping pledged to engage in substantive talks to open up the Chinese economy to U.S. imports, while addressing U.S. concerns about forced technology transfers and IP theft. In one of the more ironic moments in history, China also agreed to restrict opioid exports to the West. Unfortunately, the euphoria did not last very long. By Tuesday, President Trump was back to his old self, calling himself “Tariff Man” and ominously warning that “We are going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all – at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States.” News reports indicated that the Chinese were “puzzled and irritated” by Trump’s change in tone. The mood brightened on Wednesday. Trump sounded more conciliatory, perhaps reflecting China’s decision to immediately resume importing soybeans and liquefied natural gas from the United States. By Wednesday night, however, global equities were in turmoil again due to revelations that a high-ranking Chinese tech executive had been arrested in Canada at the behest of the U.S. government on suspicion of violating sanctions against Iran. U.S. stocks recouped some of their losses Thursday afternoon, but the S&P 500 still finished down fractionally for the day. Political Stumbling Blocks To A Trade Deal At times like this, it is crucial to focus on the big picture, which is that major hurdles remain to consummating a trade deal that satisfies both sides. As our geopolitical strategists have argued, the trade war is just as much a tech war.1 China wants access to western technology, but the West, fearful of China’s ascent, is reluctant to provide it. The fact that China has had a history of appropriating western technology without due compensation only makes things worse. It is notable that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.2 Domestic U.S. politics will also undermine prospects for a lasting trade war ceasefire. Protectionism against China remains popular in the U.S., especially in the Midwestern swing states. If Trump agrees on a permanent deal to end the trade war, who will he blame if the trade deficit continues to widen? This is not just idle speculation. Trump’s trade goals are inconsistent with his fiscal policy. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a wider trade deficit. This does not mean that Chinese stocks cannot rally for a few weeks. The MSCI China investable index is in oversold territory, trading at less than 11-times forward earnings, compared to 14-times at the start of the year (Chart 1). Given that China represents nearly one-third of EM stock market capitalization, any sentiment-driven rally that pushes up Chinese stocks is likely to give a solid lift to the aggregate EM equity index (Chart 2). However, for EM equities to put in a durable bottom, two things need to happen: Chinese growth needs to stabilize and the dollar needs to peak. We do not see either happening until the middle of next year. Chart 1Chinese Stocks Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 2China Is Large Enough To Give EM A Lift Waiting For A Bottom In Chinese Growth The slowdown in Chinese growth this year has been concentrated in domestic demand rather than in trade. Chinese exports to the U.S. have actually increased by 13% in the first ten months of the year compared to the same period last year. A lull in the trade war, a weaker yuan, and lower energy input costs are all beneficial to Chinese exporters. However, the collapse in the new export order component of the Chinese manufacturing PMI suggests that these positive developments will not be enough to prevent exports from decelerating sharply in the first half of 2019 (Chart 3). Chart 3China: An Ominous Sign For Exports If Chinese growth is to rebound, domestic demand will need to reaccelerate. While the Chinese government has loosened fiscal and monetary policy at the margin, this has not been sufficient to revive animal spirits. Growth continues to sag, as measured by a variety of activity measures (Chart 4). After a brief rebound, credit growth relapsed in October, pushing the year-over-year change to a multi-year low (Chart 5). Chart 4Still Waiting For Growth To Stabilize Chart 5The Chinese Credit Spigot Has Not Been Opened Looking out, there is a risk that undue optimism over the resolution of the trade war will prompt the government to redouble its efforts on its reform agenda. This agenda has been focused on reducing debt-financed investment spending – exactly the sort of expenditure commodity producers and capital goods exporters around the world rely on. Ultimately, China will be forced to pick up the pace of stimulus, as it becomes increasingly clear that the economy needs it. However, this is likely to be a story only for the second or third quarter of 2019, suggesting Chinese growth may continue to disappoint until then. No Help From The Fed The equity sell-off on Tuesday was exacerbated by comments by New York Fed President John Williams who noted that the Fed should continue raising rates “over the next year or so.”3 Williams is regarded as one of the thought-leaders at the Federal Reserve. He is also generally seen as a centrist on monetary policy. As such, his words often echo the views of the majority of FOMC members.  Williams said that the U.S. economy was “on a very strong path with a lot of momentum.” We tend to agree with this assessment. Despite weakness in a few areas such as housing, the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. The Atlanta Fed’s GDP tracker is pointing to growth of 2.7% in the fourth quarter. Personal consumption is set to rise by 3.4%, one full percentage point above the average during the recovery. The manufacturing sector remains robust. The ISM manufacturing index rose to 59.3 in November from 57.7 the prior month. The all-important new orders component jumped 4.7 points to a three-month high of 62.1. The non-manufacturing ISM index also surprised on the upside. Strong wage growth, lower gasoline prices, and a declining savings rate will boost consumer spending next year. High levels of capacity utilization, easing lending standards, and rising labor costs will also support business investment. Residential investment should stabilize as well, given the recent decline in bond yields (Chart 6). We see the fed funds rate rising by 125 basis points through to end-2019. This stands in sharp contrast to current market pricing, which foresees only 40 basis points of hikes during this period (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Residential Investment Should Stabilize Chart 7The Market Is Ignoring The Fed Dots Don’t Fear A Flatter Yield Curve… Yet The flattening of the yield curve would seem like a major rebuke to our positive U.S. economic outlook. The 10-year/2-year Treasury spread has declined to 14 basis points. The 5-year/2-year spread has fallen into negative territory, marking the first notable inversion of any part of the Treasury curve.  How worried should we be? Some concern is clearly warranted. Policymakers have been too quick to downplay the signal from the yield curve in the past. In 2006, they blamed the “global savings glut” for dragging down long-term yields. In 2000, they argued that the U.S. federal government’s budget surplus was reducing the supply of long-term bonds. In both cases, the bond market turned out to be seeing something more ominous than they were. Nevertheless, one should keep two points in mind. First, part of the recent decline in long-term bond yields reflects a fall in inflation expectations stemming from lower oil prices (Chart 8). As we discussed last week, lower oil prices should give consumers more spending power without hurting energy capex to the degree that they did in 2015.4 Chart 8Oil Price Decline Is Dragging Down Inflation Expectations Second, the term premium – the extra compensation that investors demand for buying long-term bonds compared to rolling over short-term bills – is currently negative (Chart 9). This partly stems from the fact that investors see long-term Treasurys as a good hedge against recession risk (i.e., bond prices tend to go up when the economy weakens). Chart 9The U.S. Term Premium Is Negative Partly Because Bonds Are A Good Hedge Against A Weaker Economy Quantitative easing has also driven down the term premium. While this effect has diminished as the Fed’s balance sheet has shrunk, estimates by the New York Fed indicate that the 10-year yield is still 65 points lower than it would have been in the absence of asset purchases.5 If the term premium were 84 basis points – the average between 2004 and 2007 – the 10-year/3-month slope would be 195 basis points. Empirically, the 10-year/3-month slope is the best recession predictor of any yield curve measure. It still stands at 50 basis points. If long-term yields stay put and the Fed raises rates once per quarter, this part of the yield curve will not invert until the second half of next year. It usually takes about 12-to-18 months for an inversion in the 10-year/3-month slope to culminate in a recession (Chart 10). In the last downturn, the slope fell into negative territory in February 2006, 22 months before the start of the recession. This suggests that the next recession will not occur until late 2020 at the earliest. Chart 10The U.S. Yield Curve: An Admirable Track Record In Forecasting Recessions Investment Conclusions The signal for global equities from our tactical MacroQuant model has improved since early October, mainly because the sell-off has gone a long way towards discounting some of the negative macro developments that have occurred. Nevertheless, the model continues to signal downside risks for global stocks stretching into early 2019 (Chart 11). Chart 11The MacroQuant Equity Score Has Improved, But Is Still In Bearish Territory The model utilizes a “what you see is what you get” approach, meaning that it only relies on observable data rather than estimates of unobservable variables like the neutral rate of interest. Right now, global growth is decelerating and financial conditions have tightened, which has caused the model to turn bearish on the near-term outlook for stocks. If we are correct that China will be forced to step up the pace of stimulus; that worries over Italian debt will fade, at least temporarily, with an agreement over next year’s budget; and that U.S. growth will remain buoyant even in the face of higher rates (implying that the neutral rate is higher than widely believed), then global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year. The dollar tends to weaken whenever global growth accelerates, which should provide a further reflationary impulse to the world economy (Chart 12). Chart 12Accelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bearish For The Dollar Equity bull markets typically end about six months before the onset of a recession (Table 1). If the next global recession does not occur for at least another two years, this will provide enough time for a blow-off rally in stocks starting in mid-2019. Hence, investors should stay tactically cautious towards global equities over a 3-month horizon, but be prepared to turn cyclically opportunistic over a 6-to-18 month horizon. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Over the past few months, we have argued that bond yields will temporarily decline due to slower global growth amid widespread bearish bond sentiment. This has indeed happened. Yields are likely to remain under downward pressure into early 2019, but should then begin to stabilize and move higher, ultimately rising much more than expected as global inflation accelerates. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift?” dated December 3, 2018; and “Trump’s Demands On China,” dated April 4, 2018. 2      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 3      Jonathan Spicer, “Fed's Williams says rate hikes 'over next year or so' still make sense,” Reuters, December 4, 2019. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018. 5      Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, “The Effect of the Federal Reserve’s Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates,” FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades