Policy

Highlights The October credit and housing market data present a gloomy picture for Chinese domestic demand. Trade remains buoyant, but exports are set to decline materially over the coming months. Many investors are focused too much on external demand and not enough on Chinese domestic demand. China's old economy has been deteriorating for two years, and it is unlikely that exchange rate depreciation alone will reverse this trend. A review of the drivers of credit growth during China's last mini-cycle upswing underscore that the country's monetary transmission mechanism is impaired. This suggests that investors are exposed to fiscal and regulatory policy inertia, as well as time lags once policymakers decide to aggressively stimulate. Chinese stocks may present an excellent buying opportunity over the coming year, but that point has not yet been reached. Stay neutral for now. Feature China's October trade data (released earlier this month) was a frustrating one for investors, as it revealed that market participants will have to wait even further for clarity on the magnitude and duration of the upcoming shock to exports. The strong October trade data has even led to some market participants questioning whether export growth will decelerate at all, a view that we strongly disagree with. It is true that there is no direct reason to expect that the impact of U.S. import tariffs will affect China's non-U.S. exports. But Chart 1 shows that Chinese exports to the U.S. are currently running above the pace that would be predicted by the overall trend in U.S. non-oil imports, a circumstance that is highly unlikely to continue in the face of mutual tariff imposition. Negative export "alpha" would imply a growth rate materially below the dotted line in Chart 1. As such, even though Chinese exports to the U.S. account for only 20% of total exports, the impact of an eventual "reversion to fundamentals" is likely to substantially effect the overall trend in Chinese export growth. Chart 1Export Frontrunning To The U.S. Continues Given the integrated nature of global trade, persistently strong export growth is also very likely supporting imports. Chart 2 shows that import growth has been closely correlated with domestic industrial activity since 2010, but is now running approximately 10-12 % above would normally be expected. This implies that China's overall trade momentum will weaken considerably over the coming months, which is likely to reverberate through key trade linkages in emerging markets and commodity-producing developed markets. Chart 2Current Import Growth Appears Unsustainable October's credit data was also highly significant, as it validated the view that we espoused in our recent report.1 We noted in response to the September credit release that a surge in the 3-month rate of change of adjusted total social financing (TSF) was driven by front-loaded fiscal spending that would not last. Chart 3 shows that special local government bond issuance in October fell by 650 bn RMB relative to the prior month, suggesting that (net) new fiscal stimulus will be required in order for local government bond issuance to materially boost overall credit growth. Chart 3September Was Not The Start Of A New Trend In LG Bond Issuance Finally last week's housing data release highlighted that residential sales and construction momentum is faltering (Chart 4), which was likely triggered in part by prior reductions in the PBOC's pledged supplementary lending (PSL) program. We noted in a September Special Report that the pullback in the PSL would negatively impact the housing market on a cyclical basis,2 and October's data certainly supports this view. Chart 4The Housing Market Slowed In October Don't Pin Any Hopes On A Trade "Ceasefire" Against this gloomy economic backdrop market participants have actually been incrementally positive about China over the past few weeks, in anticipation of a possible détente with the U.S. Last week's flurry of optimism about an apparently meaningful resumption in trade talks were somewhat diminished by comments from President Xi and Vice President Pence at the APEC summit over the weekend, but our geopolitical strategists believe that the odds of a short-term "tariff ceasefire" occurring at the G20 summit later this month are genuinely non-trivial (possibly as high as 30-40%). We define a "ceasefire" in this case as a commitment to refrain from any further protectionist action during a renewed period of negotiations, not an immediate and substantive deal that ends the trade war. We agree that any positive actions on the trade front are likely to lead to a short-term boost to Chinese stock prices (and global risk assets more generally). But the key question for investors is whether this will lead to a durable rally lasting several months. In our opinion, three factors argue against this view: A ceasefire probably will not lead to an agreement: There is no indication that either the U.S. or China has changed their positions concerning the dispute, with China reportedly having simply restated their previous offer in advance of the G20 summit. On the U.S. side, attempts to restart negotiations may reflect the desire to give China "one last chance" before moving to impose tariffs on all Chinese imports, which the administration may be planning as a rhetorical counter to any domestic pushback from rising consumer goods prices (the "Walmart effect"). A ceasefire will not roll back tariffs already in place: It is unlikely that the U.S. would impose tariffs on all remaining imports from China (the "third round") while negotiations are taking place. But a near-term shock to Chinese exports is still likely, because the existing tariffs on the first and second round would not be rolled back until a deal is successfully negotiated. It is even possible (albeit unlikely) that the administration will move ahead with the planned increase in the second round tariff to 25% at the end of the year despite the presence of negotiations. A ceasefire alone will not reverse the ongoing slowdown in Chinese domestic demand: The trade war between the U.S. and China is occurring against a backdrop of weaker Chinese domestic demand, a point that we have highlighted numerous times over the past year. As shown in Chart 2 above, the growth momentum of China's old economy peaked well before the trade war began, and a temporary "stay of execution" on the trade front is unlikely to change the downtrend in domestic activity. This last point is important, as it appears that many global investors are focused almost exclusively on China's negative external demand outlook and not nearly enough on weak domestic demand. Chart 5 vividly illustrates this point, by contrasting our new Market-Based China Growth Indicator with our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang Index. Our market-based China Growth Indicator is very similar to the highly informative China Play Index created by BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service to hedge against a possible countertrend correction in the U.S. dollar,3 but it is somewhat broader, has four asset class subcomponents, and has been built on a deviation from trend basis (see Box 1 for a description). Chart 5The Market Has Lagged The Macro Data Over The Past Three Years Box 1 Introducing The BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator Chart A1 presents the BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator, along with its four asset class subcomponents: currencies, commodities, equities, and rates/fixed-income. The purpose of the indicator is to act as a broad proxy of investor expectations for Chinese growth, and to illustrate which asset classes are providing the strongest/weakest growth signals. Chart A1Investors Are Incrementally Positive, But Rates Caution Against Over Optimism Table A1 presents a list of the series included in each of the asset class subcomponents, all of which were tested to ensure that they were coincident or lead the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index. The indicator is made up of an equally-weighted average of the four asset class subcomponents, and each series is equally-weighted within its respective subcomponent (meaning that the 17 series do not have equal weights in the overall indicator). Table A1Components Of The BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator Chart A1 highlights that the commodity and equity subcomponents are currently providing the most positive signals, whereas the currency component is in line with the overall indicator. The rates component, which provided the earliest warning sign this cycle that Chinese growth was likely to decelerate, remains the weakest element of the indicator and has not been rising over the past few weeks (in contrast to the other components). The chart shows that price signals from China-related assets generally followed or even anticipated our LKI leading indicator prior to 2015, but that the reverse has been true over the past three years. The gap between the two indicators became extreme earlier in the year, and only closed once investors began to react to the emergence of the trade war. But the key point from the chart is that trade is not China's only problem, as our LKI leading indicator shows that Chinese monetary conditions, money, and credit growth have been deteriorating for the better part of the past two years. Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String? One bullish China narrative that currently prevails in the marketplace is that the odds of "big bang" stimulus rise materially in lockstep with any further deterioration in the macro data. Most recently, several China analysts have speculated that the PBOC will soon cut its benchmark policy rate, which would be an unmistakable sign that the monetary policy dial has been turned towards "maximum reflation". Ultimately, we agree with the view that investors hold a put option issued by the Chinese government, but we have strenuously argued that the strike price is considerably lower than many think. On top of this, investors face another risk, namely a circumstance where the exercise price of the China put is even lower than the government intends it to be. This situation could arise if the PBOC decides to fire its bazooka, but the resulting decline in interest rates does not materially boost credit growth. Such a scenario prevailed in the U.S. several years following the global financial crisis, when many investors characterized the Fed's efforts to boost (or at least stabilize) credit growth as "pushing on a string". Chart 6 illustrates that this actually occurred in China during its last mini-cycle upswing, raising the odds of a repeat incident that results in a meaningful lag between the approval of big bang stimulus and its reflationary effect on financial markets. The chart shows the annual change in total social financing as a share of 4-quarter trailing GDP, including and excluding local government bond issuance (both measures exclude equity financing). Chart 6No Major Acceleration In "Standard" Credit Growth In 2015-2016... While adjusted TSF excluding local government bonds technically accelerated as a share of GDP from 2015 to late last year, the rise was tepid at best (in contrast to the 2012/2013 episode). It is clear from the chart that most of the acceleration in overall credit during the 2015/2016 period came from a surge in local government bond issuance, not from "standard" credit. This is an important observation, given that interest rates declined significantly over the period (Chart 7). Chart 7...Despite A Substantial Easing In Monetary Policy From a theoretical perspective, an atypical divergence between interest rates and credit growth can occur either because of abnormal loan demand or loan supply. Chart 8 suggests that it was the latter in China in 2015/2016: loan demand reportedly rose for small/micro, medium, and large enterprises (particularly among small/micro), but the trend in loan approval barely budged (unlike in 2011/2012 when it rebounded sharply). In short, Chart 8 provides support for the view that Chinese banks did not meaningfully ease lending standards during the 2015/2016 episode, despite a substantial easing in monetary policy and (ultimately) a substantial improvement in economic conditions. Chart 8Loan Demand Responded To Lower Rates, But Lending Standards Did Not Chart 9 highlights that this almost certainly occurred because of a sharp deterioration in reported bank asset quality that began in 2014. The chart shows that both the non-performing loan and special mention loan ratios rose significantly during this period, the sum of which has only modestly declined. We highlighted the potential for NPL recognition to weigh on credit growth in our two-part joint Special Report with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service,4 as long as the ongoing financial regulatory crackdown is even half-heartedly implemented. While Chart 8 shows that loan approval modestly ticked higher in Q3, it provides no evidence of stealth easing in financial regulation. Chart 9Banks Did Not Rush To Lend Because Of Deep Concerns Over Asset Quality The key conclusion for investors from these observations is as follows: while China can certainly decide to stimulate aggressively in response to too-weak economic conditions, an impaired monetary transmission mechanism implies that there may be a lag, possibly a substantial one, between the decision to stimulate and its reflationary impact on financial markets. This is of crucial importance to investors aiming to maximize risk-adjusted returns over a 6-12 month time horizon, and weighs heavily on our recommendations. Investment Strategy Recommendations Chart 10 shows our Li Keqiang leading indicator within its component range, a chart that remains at the core of our efforts to predict China's business cycle. The indicator has been built in such a way that a decision of policymakers to push for more local government bond issuance (like in 2015/2016), or an improvement in the efficacy of China's monetary transmission mechanism, are likely to be captured by one or more of its components. Chart 10Only A Narrow Pickup In Our LKI Leading Indicator As we noted in our November 7 Weekly Report,5 the rise in the indicator has been driven by its two monetary conditions components, which have in turn mostly been driven by the substantial weakness in the RMB over the past four months. Given that the ultimate impact of the U.S. tariffs on Chinese exports remains obscured by trade frontrunning, it is unclear if China's exchange rate depreciation will be sufficiently reflationary even to counter the upcoming export shock, let alone reverse the ongoing domestic demand slowdown. As a result, investors should be closely watching for signs of a pickup in money & credit growth, which for now remain absent. Put differently, macrofundamental support for the equity market is lacking. Despite this, Chart 11 highlights that both Chinese A-shares and the investable market are deeply oversold, which in combination with expectations of further monetary stimulus and the potential for a tariff ceasefire have many investors chafing at the bit to go long either market (or both!) over a 6-12 month time horizon. Chart 11Chinese Stocks Are Quite Oversold... Our advice is simply to wait. A trade ceasefire is unlikely to generate more than a short-term boost to stock prices, and our indicators provide the best bet to monitor whether an impaired banking system is responding to any further easing in monetary policy. Finally, while we agree that stocks have priced in a meaningful decline in earnings, that earnings adjustment process has yet to even begin. Chart 12 illustrates the point where Chinese stocks bottomed in relation to the last major decline in earnings, suggesting that stocks need both a valuation discount and earnings clarity before putting in a durable bottom. The latter is missing and may stay missing for several months, highlighting that an outright long position remains premature. Stay tuned! Chart 12...But We Have Yet To Even Begin The Earnings Adjustment Process Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Is China Making A Policy Mistake?", dated October 31, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Reports "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?", dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus", dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Reports "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8, 2018, and "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Part Two", dated August 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Checking In On The Data", dated November 7, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global Yields: Global bond yields appear to be settling into a new trading range, with the downside limited by tight labor markets but the upside capped by slowing global growth momentum. 2014/15 Redux?: The domestic U.S. economy is much stronger today compared to the 2014/15 period when slowing global growth and a rapidly rising U.S. dollar prompted selloffs in global credit markets and, eventually, a dovish shift by the Fed. U.S. financial conditions need to tighten more before the Fed can signal a pause. New Zealand: The RBNZ will continue to maintain a dovish policy stance over at least the next year, amid softening economic growth and underwhelming domestic inflation. Stay long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus both U.S. Treasuries (hedged into USD) and German sovereign debt (hedged into EUR). Feature Dear Client, There will be no Global Fixed Income Strategy report published next Tuesday, November 27th. Instead, you will be receiving a Special Report this Thursday, November 22nd. The report - authored by BCA's Chief Emerging Markets strategist, Arthur Budaghyan - will discuss the outlook for Emerging Market hard currency debt. Best regards, Rob Robis Chief Strategist On the surface, it appears that uncertainty is increasing in global fixed income markets. Government bond yields have dipped over the past couple of weeks, most notably in the U.S. where the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield is back down to 3.05% as we go to press. Corporate credit spreads have also been drifting wider, especially in the U.S. where there is growing concern that economic momentum has peaked, at least temporarily. The problem for bond markets is that while global growth momentum has clearly slowed, it has not been by enough to alleviate inflation pressures coming from tight labor markets. This story is clearly most visible in the U.S., but also in the majority of major developed market economies. Central bankers are sticking to their guns and focusing on their belief in the Phillips Curve model to forecast inflation. Until there are signs that more turbulent financial markets are feeding into actual weaker economic growth, bond yields will not be able to fall by enough to help bail out flailing equities and corporate credit. There are now 83% of OECD countries with an unemployment rate below the estimated full employment NAIRU. As expected with such a backdrop, our Central Bank Monitors are calling for tighter monetary policy across the developed economies. This is also showing up in an unusual divergence between rising global real bond yields and falling global leading economic indicators (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekYields Are Less Responsive To Slowing Growth By most conventional measures, monetary policy settings are not restrictive across the major economies. Actual policy interest rates remain below conventional measures of equilibrium like a Taylor Rule, while government bond yields - adjusted for inflation expectations - are less than trend real GDP growth (Chart 2). Those gaps are smallest in the U.S., where the Fed has been raising interest rates for the past three years, but remain wide in other countries. Chart 2Global Interest Rates Are Still Below Equilibrium Levels If global growth is merely shifting from above-trend (falling unemployment) to trend (stable unemployment), then central bankers will not be able to move back to a more dovish posture that could trigger a major fall in bond yields. Trading ranges are more likely to result in such an environment, where yields struggle to break higher because of shaky risk assets but cannot break lower because of low unemployment. We are likely in one of those ranges now, measured by a 3-3.25% range on the 10-year U.S. Treasury. Without a friendly boost from falling bond yields, we continue to recommend a cautious stance on global spread product, while maintaining an overall below-benchmark stance on global duration exposure. Will It Be 2014/15 All Over Again? Watch The USD & China Two months ago, we published a comparison of the current macro backdrop to that of the 2014/15 period.1 Back then, the Fed was forced to alter its plans to deliver a series of rate hikes after the end of its quantitative easing program, thanks to a sharply rising U.S. dollar that triggered major financial market selloffs and, eventually, slower U.S. growth. We concluded that such an outcome could occur again in the next few months, but it would take a much larger tightening of financial conditions to get the Fed to stand down this time given tighter U.S. labor markets and stronger U.S. inflation pressures. The way we presented that comparison between today and four years ago was though "cycle-on-cycle" charts, showing financial and economic data today overlapped with data from that 2014/15 period. The two episodes were indexed to the trough in the U.S. dollar in May 2014 and February 2018. This week, we update a few of those charts, but also add a few new indicators to assess if there has been enough financial and economic damage to trigger a shift to a more dovish Fed. U.S. Economy: The domestic U.S. economy appears healthier today versus the 2014/15 period, judging by the more robust readings from the NFIB Small Business Optimism index and the high level of job openings from the JOLTS data (Chart 3). Yet there are similarities seen in the latest decline in the Conference Board survey of U.S. CEO confidence, and the sharp fall in the ISM Manufacturing New Orders index. We suspect that this divergence in business optimism reflects U.S.-China trade tensions, which should have a greater impact on larger corporations that sell globally compared to smaller companies with a more domestic customer base. Chart 3U.S. Growth Today Vs. 2014/15: Stronger Domestic Economy U.S. Inflation: U.S. core CPI inflation is much faster now than at the similar point in the 2014/15 cycle, as is the growth in Average Hourly Earnings (Chart 4). This is due to the much lower unemployment rate today in the U.S., which is putting more upward pressure on domestically-generated prices and wages. Yet while the ISM Prices Paid index is also at a higher level today than 2014/15, the upward momentum has peaked and the latest decline in commodity prices is following an ominously similar path to four years ago (bottom panel). Chart 4U.S. Inflation Today Vs. 2014/15: Faster Core/Wage Inflation Emerging Markets (EM): EM economic growth has been decelerating at a similar pace to 2014/15, with the aggregate EM (ex-China) PMI produced by our EM strategists now sitting right at the boom/bust 50 line (Chart 5). China's economic growth appears to be holding up better today when looking at the more elevated Li Keqiang index. A possible reason for that is the much larger and faster easing of Chinese monetary conditions today compared to 2014/15, thanks to the sharp weakening of the yuan. Chart 5EM Growth Today Vs. 2014/15: China Drag Is Smaller (For Now) Global Financial Markets: Here, the current cycle is sticking very close to the 2014/15 script when looking at the rising U.S. trade-weighted dollar, widening spreads for U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate bonds and EM USD-denominated sovereign debt, and the tightening of U.S. financial conditions (Chart 6). Although it should be noted that the trade-weighted dollar would have to rise another 10% from current levels, and U.S. IG spreads would have to widen another 60bps, to generate similar moves compared to 2014/15. Chart 6Financial Markets Today Vs. 2014/15: Following A Similar Script U.S. Treasury Yields: Nominal U.S. Treasury yields are at much higher levels today than four years ago, an obvious consequence of the Fed's tightening cycle and more elevated U.S. inflation expectations (Chart 7). Yet the amount of tightening discounted over the next 12-months in the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) is similar to 2014/15, as is our estimate of the market-implied level of the terminal real fed funds rate (around 0.5%).2 One major difference: there is a large net short position in the Treasury market today, while positioning was fairly neutral during 2014/15 (bottom panel). Chart 7U.S. Treasuries Today Vs. 2014/15: Higher Yields But Similar Fed Pricing Summing it all up, the broader range of evidence we present here confirms our conclusion from two months ago. There needs to be a much larger tightening of U.S. financial conditions before the Fed can signal a pause on its planned rate hikes, because of a much healthier domestic U.S. economy and a more entrenched acceleration of inflation (especially wage growth). If China's economy can continue to outperform the 2014/15 path - still a big "if" given U.S.-China trade uncertainties and with Chinese policymakers less willing to reflate the domestic credit bubble to boost growth - then the odds of U.S. growth converging down to non-U.S. growth will be reduced. We will continue to monitor these charts and relationships in future Weekly Reports but, for now, we see nothing yet to change our bearish views on U.S. Treasuries and our cautious view on U.S. corporate credit. Bottom Line: The domestic U.S. economy is much stronger today compared to the 2014/15 period when slowing global growth and a rapidly rising U.S. dollar prompted selloffs in global credit markets and, eventually, a dovish shift by the Fed. U.S. financial conditions need to tighten more before the Fed can signal a pause. New Zealand Update: Fade The Recent Bump In Yields We have been structurally positive on New Zealand (NZ) government bonds for some time, dating back to mid-2017. Our view was based on an assessment that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) would be unable to make any upward change in policy rates due to sub-par economic growth and inflation that would struggle to meet the RBNZ's target of 2% (the midpoint of the 1-3% target band). So far, that scenario has fully played out, and NZ government bonds have significantly outperformed their global peers as a result (Chart 8). Chart 8Sticking With Our Successful Long NZ Trades Our preferred trades, which are part of our Tactical Overlay shown on page 14, have been yield spread trades for NZ government bonds versus U.S. and German equivalents.3 Specifically, we have been recommending long positions in 5-year NZ bonds vs. 5-year U.S. Treasuries and 5-year German government debt. The trades have performed well, but have given back some of the gains in recent weeks. This has mostly come via a surge in NZ yields (+29bps higher since the recent low on September 7th) that has driven yield spreads wider versus the U.S. and Germany (+23bps and +34bps, respectively, since September 7th). These increases are likely to prove unsustainable, given the sluggish momentum in NZ growth and inflation. The latest read on year-over-year real GDP growth came in at below-potential pace of 2.8% in the 2nd quarter of 2018. The manufacturing and services purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) have both fallen sharply throughout 2018, although the latest data points suggest some stabilization above the 50 level on the PMIs (Chart 9). Similar trends can be seen in the RBNZ surveys of business confidence and capacity utilization, which both remain near the post-2008 lows but may also be stabilizing. Chart 9Sub-Par Growth In New Zealand In the November Monetary Policy Statement (MPS) that was released after the RBNZ meeting earlier this month, a cautious view on growth was outlined.4 The pickup in Q2 GDP growth was dismissed as driven by temporary factors, and policymakers expressed concern that deteriorating business confidence could be signaling a more prolonged period of slowing domestic demand. The central bank did also highlight growth risks coming from slowing exports if U.S.-China trade tensions intensify. It is difficult to find an obvious trigger for faster NZ growth at the moment. Both consumer spending and residential investment were fueled by rising immigration and population growth from 2013 to 2017, but those trends have since begun to reverse. The RBNZ projects net monthly immigration to NZ to slow to levels last seen in 2014 and in line with the current growth rate of consumer spending around 3% (Chart 10). Business investment growth has already stalled (middle panel), while the RBNZ'S Business Outlook surveys indicate a negative outlook for export growth (bottom panel). Chart 10Where Will NZ Growth Come From? Against this sluggish growth backdrop, the RBNZ must continue to run an accommodative monetary policy to support growth. This can be done given the persistent undershooting of NZ inflation versus the RBNZ target. Headline CPI inflation did accelerate to 1.9% in Q3, but core inflation at 1.2% continued to languish near the bottom end of the RBNZ target range. The gap between the two inflation measures can be attributed to previous increases in global energy prices, which caused a blip up in the tradeables portion of the NZ CPI (Chart 11). Yet the recent decline in oil prices, combined with a bounce in the NZ dollar, suggests that the bump in tradeables inflation is likely to reverse in Q4 (middle panel). Non-tradeables inflation, which is driven by domestic factors such as wage growth, has remained stable at just over 2%, even with the NZ unemployment rate at a 10-year low of 4.5% that is below the OECD's NAIRU estimate. Chart 11Stubbornly Low NZ Inflation With an obvious trigger from higher inflation, the RBNZ will be forced to maintain a highly accommodative policy stance. This is especially true given the RBNZ's mandate, which now includes maximizing sustainable employment alongside keeping inflation between 1-3%. We think that means the RBNZ is more likely to tolerate a move to the upper end of that inflation band if the growth outlook was less certain, as is currently the case. Our RBNZ Monitor sits close to the zero line, indicating no pressure to either hike or cut interest rates. In the November MPS, the RBNZ stuck to its forecast that the Official Cash Rate (OCR) would remain unchanged at 1.75% until mid-2020, consistent with the signal from our RBNZ Monitor. The market is differing on this, with the NZ OIS curve currently discounting almost one full 25bp rate hike by the end of 2019, and a faster pace of hikes after that (Chart 12). Chart 12Market-Priced RBNZ Hikes Will Not Happen We continue to recommending fading any pricing of RBNZ rate hikes over the next 6-12 months. Given our still bearish views on U.S. Treasuries, we are maintaining our recommended long NZ 5-year/short U.S. 5-year position (on a currency-hedged basis into U.S. dollars). We have been running our long NZ/short Germany position on an UN-hedged basis - atypical for the Global Fixed Income Strategy service, where our views are almost always currency-hedged into U.S. dollars - since the trade's inception last year, based on a currency view that was more bearish on the euro than the New Zealand dollar. The NZD/EUR cross instead fell substantially, which more than fully eroded the gains on the bond side of the trade until the recent 7.5% pop in that exchange rate. After that move, the return on our unhedged trade is nearly back to flat. We are using that as an opportunity to switch our NZ/Germany trade to a more typical currency-hedged basis, moving the exposure into euros from New Zealand dollars. Bottom Line: The RBNZ will continue to maintain a dovish policy stance over at least the next year, amid softening economic growth and underwhelming domestic inflation. Stay long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus both U.S. Treasuries (hedged into USD) and German sovereign debt (hedged into EUR). Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "EM Contagion? Or Just QT On The Q.T.?", dated September 11th 2018, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 This is calculated by subtracting the 5-year U.S. CPI swap rate, 5-years forward, from the 5-year U.S. OIS rate, 5-years forward. 3 We freely admit that a position held for over one full year should not be described as "tactical", as the name of our overlay portfolio suggests. Yet we have seen no reason to close these trades early given our market views on NZ. 4 The full Monetary Policy Statement can be found here: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Monetary%20policy%20statements/2018/mpsnov2018.pdf 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 Duration: The Fed will need to see further significant tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions before backing away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. With only 54 bps of rate hikes priced into the curve for the next 12 months, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Credit Spreads: A likely deceleration in U.S. economic growth during the next few quarters is a near-term risk for credit spreads, while waning demand for C&I loans could signal that the market's default outlook is too benign. We see a high risk of spread widening during the next few months, and would advocate only a neutral allocation to spread product on a 6-12 month horizon. TIPS: Breakeven inflation rates remain low because investors are much less fearful of high inflation than in the past. This will change over time as inflation continues to print near the Fed's target and expectations slowly shift to price more two-way risk into the inflation market. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Feature More Pain Required Fed Chairman Jerome Powell spoke at the Dallas Fed last week, amidst some expectation that he might try to assuage financial market concerns about the pace of monetary tightening. Instead, the Chairman struck a balanced tone that the market took as slightly dovish. A rate hike next month remains fully discounted, but investors are now split on whether the Fed will move again in March (Chart 1). The April 2019 fed funds futures contract implies a funds rate of 2.525% by next April, just barely above the lower-end of the 2.5% - 2.75% target band consistent with two more rate hikes. Chart 1Markets Doubt The Gradual Pace Of Hikes Chairman Powell's remarks did not alter our view of the Fed's reaction function, which we expect will result in continued quarterly rate hikes until a preponderance of evidence is consistent with a significant slow-down in U.S. economic activity. As we discussed in last week's report, it is highly likely that the combination of a waning fiscal impulse and a stronger U.S. dollar will cause U.S. growth to slow during the next few quarters.1 What remains uncertain is whether the slow-down will be severe enough for the Fed to pause its +25 bps per quarter tightening cycle. With only 54 bps of rate hikes priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, we do not anticipate a significant move higher in yields during the next few months. We also think credit spreads can widen further in the near-term as growth slows, and we recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon, given the less attractive risk/reward trade-off in corporate credit. Another reason to get defensive on credit spreads before increasing portfolio duration is that further spread widening and tighter financial conditions are likely a necessary pre-condition for the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes. Chairman Powell noted last week that financial conditions are an important input to the Fed's assessment of future economic growth, and also stressed that the Fed takes a broad view of financial conditions - encompassing not just the stock market but also the level of rates, credit spreads and other factors. With that in mind, we observe that there has been very little tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions during the past few months. In fact, the Chicago Fed's National Financial Conditions Index shows that financial conditions remain far more accommodative than when the Fed started hiking rates in December 2015 (Chart 2). Chart 2More Pain Needed For The Fed To Pause We conclude that much more financial market pain will be required before the Fed takes a dovish turn. As such, we are inclined to get more defensive with respect to credit, but to remain bearish on rates for now. Last week's release of the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey provided one more negative datapoint for corporate credit. While banks continue to ease standards on commercial & industrial loans, respondents reported that demand for such loans waned during the past three months (Chart 3). If the demand slow-down continues, then lending standards will eventually start to tighten and we will see more corporate defaults. For now, the slow-down in loan demand is a tentative signal that could be reversed next quarter, but it bears close monitoring as a potential warning that we are moving into the late stages of the credit cycle. Stay tuned. Chart 3Tighter Lending Standards Ahead? Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth will decelerate from a high level during the next few quarters, but the Fed will need to see further significant tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions before backing away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Investors should get more defensive on credit spreads, but maintain below-benchmark duration. Stick With TIPS We have been recommending overweight positions in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for some time, targeting a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. This range is consistent with prior periods when core inflation was well-anchored around the Fed's target.2 This recommendation suffered a set-back last week when long-maturity breakevens finally capitulated to the trend in other financial market indicators that have been pointing to weakness in global demand for several months (Chart 4). In fact, for most of this year falling commodity prices and a strengthening dollar have been signaling that global demand is on the decline. But until last week, TIPS breakevens had mostly bucked the trend. Chart 4Held Down By Global Demand The reason is that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain under the influence of two competing forces. Signals of waning global demand on the one hand, and rapidly rising U.S. inflation on the other. Last December, the 12-month rate of change in core PCE inflation stood at 1.64%. As of September it stands at 1.97%, within a hair of the Fed's 2% target. Likewise, year-over-year core CPI inflation has increased from 1.76% as of last December to 2.15% as of October. Survey measures of realized and expected price changes have similarly strengthened (Chart 5). Chart 5Pulled Up By U.S. Inflation The combination of strong U.S. inflation and waning global growth has left long-dated breakevens relatively trendless for most of the year. And although we think year-over-year U.S. core inflation will flatten-off during the next few months (see Box), we would remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month investment horizon. BOX Core Inflation: Grappling With Base Effects Year-over-year core CPI inflation was 2.15% in October, down slightly from 2.17% in September. Meanwhile, our Base Effects Indicator ticked up from 3 to 4 but it remains below the critical 5.5 level (Chart 6). Chart 6Expect Year-Over-Year Core CPI To Flatten-Off In our Weekly Report from September 4, 2018, we showed that when our Base Effects Indicator - an indicator derived from near-term rates of change in core CPI - is below 5.5, 12-month core inflation is much more likely to fall than rise during the next six months. While pipeline inflation measures and the tightness of the labor market both suggest that the uptrend in core inflation will remain intact, we expect that year-over-year core inflation will flatten-off during the next six months, at levels close to the Fed's target. Our view is that as long as inflation remains sufficiently close to the Fed's target, over time, investors will start to price two-way risk back into the inflation market. It simply takes time for expectations to fully adapt to the new economic reality. Expectations Are Slow To Adapt To illustrate why we remain optimistic that TIPS breakevens have further upside, we created what we call our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year breakeven rate (Chart 7). The model combines both forward-looking and backward-looking measures of inflation, and is premised on the idea that investors are slow to fully adapt their expectations to a changing environment. Chart 7Adaptive Expectations Model For example, even though core inflation is now close to the Fed's target on a 12-month rate of change basis, investors remain scarred by the past decade when it was stubbornly low. The long period of low inflation makes it much more difficult for investors to believe that the regime is finally shifting. Our Adaptive Expectations Model includes three variables: The 120-month rate of change in core CPI inflation (annualized) The 12-month rate of change in headline CPI inflation The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (full data set measure) The 120-month rate of change is included to capture the impact from investors' long memories when it comes to inflation. The 12-month rate of change is included to capture the more recent trend in prices and the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge is included to provide a forward-looking measure of inflationary pressures in the economy. Notice in Table 1 that the 120-month rate of change in core CPI carries much greater importance in our model than the other two variables. Table 1Adaptive Expectations Model Regression Output (2003 To Present) Turning back to Chart 7, we see that the current 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is more or less in line with our model's fair value. We also see that two of the model's three variables (12-month headline CPI and the Underlying Inflation Gauge) have returned to pre-crisis levels. It is only the 120-month rate of change in core CPI that is preventing breakevens from reaching our target range. In other words, even though inflation is more or less back to target levels, investors still doubt whether we have transitioned out of the prior low-inflation regime. The Fear Of High Inflation Is Missing Digging further into the data, we see that the real difference between today and the pre-crisis period is that investors are now much less worried about significantly higher inflation. A break-down of individual responses from the Survey of Professional Forecasters shows that, as in 2004, most forecasters think inflation will average between 2.01% and 2.5% during the next 10 years. But today, only 7% of forecasters think inflation will average above 2.51%. In 2004, 32% of forecasters thought inflation would average above 2.51% over the next 10 years (Chart 8). Chart 8High Inflation Is Less Of A Worry This assessment of likely inflation outcomes is backed-up by the economic data. The St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure is a macro model designed to output the probability that inflation falls into different ranges over the next year.3 Here again, we see that the probability of inflation being between 1.5% and 2.5% is similar to its pre-crisis level, but the probability of inflation exceeding 2.5% is much lower (Chart 9). Chart 9Price Pressures Even looking at only the post-crisis period shows that it is the upper-tail of the inflation expectations distribution that is lagging. The Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers has been asking respondents to place probabilities on different long-run inflation outcomes since 2011. Chart 10 shows how the most recent responses - from September - compare to the post-2011 range. It shows that respondents are more certain than at any time since 2011 that inflation will be between 2.01% and 2.5% on average during the next 10 years, but are also more doubtful that inflation will be 2.51% or higher. Chart 10Primary Dealer Inflation Expectations Bottom Line: Even though 12-month inflation has more or less returned to the Fed's target, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below levels that have been historically consistent with that target. Breakevens remain low because investors are much less fearful of elevated inflation (> 2.5%) than in the past. This will change over time as inflation continues to print near the Fed's target and expectations slowly adapt to the new regime. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Sweet Spot On The Yield Curve", dated November 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we arrive at that range please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/introducing-the-st-louis-fed-price-pressures-measure/   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear Client, Barring any major market developments, we will not be sending you a report next week. Instead, I will be working with my colleagues on BCA's Annual Outlook, which will be published on Monday, November 26. The outlook will feature a wide-ranging discussion with Mr. X and his daughter Ms. X on the key themes that we see shaping global markets in 2019. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The stock market correction has further to run. We would turn more bullish if global equities were to drop another 8% from current levels. A mundane economic identity - savings minus investment equals the current account balance - provides deep market insight into the workings of the global economy. The U.S. economy is suffering from a shortage of savings, which will push up interest rates and the value of the dollar. In contrast, China has a surfeit of savings. Rectifying this will require a weaker yuan. The political impasse between the EU and Italy over next year's budget will be resolved. However, the fact that Italy lacks a readily available outlet for its excess private-sector savings could spell doom for the euro area down the road. Feature The Correction Ain't Over Our MacroQuant model continues to signal downside risks for global equities over the coming weeks (Chart 1). The model is flagging a deterioration in a variety of leading economic indicators, both in the U.S. and abroad, which tends to be bearish for stocks (Chart 2). Global financial conditions have also tightened since the summer due to the rise in government bond yields, higher credit spreads, and a firmer dollar. Chart 1MacroQuant* Model Suggests Caution Is Still Warranted Chart 2Global Growth Indicators Are Deteriorating Sentiment remains reasonably upbeat, a bearish contrarian indicator. The November Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey revealed that a net 31% of managers were still overweight global stocks. Past major bottoms in 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2016 all saw equity allocations fall into underweight territory. Strikingly, EM allocations rose in November, with a net 13% of fund managers overweight the asset class. This is in stark contrast to 2015 when a net 30% of fund managers were underweight EM stocks. We do not expect the correction which began in October to morph into a full-fledged bear market. Nevertheless, the near-term path of least resistance for stocks remains to the downside. We would only upgrade global equities to overweight if the MSCI All-Country World index were to fall another 8% from current levels, consistent with a price of $64 on the ACWI ETF. At that level, the forward P/E on the index would be back to 2013 levels (Chart 3). Chart 3A Valuation Reset A Key Macro Identity One of the first identities undergraduate economics students learn is S-I=CA: The difference between what a country saves and invests is equal to its current account balance.1 While it is easy to dismiss this identity as yet another abstract concept that only egghead economists would find interesting, it has real-world implications for investors of all stripes. To see this, it is useful to expand the identity a bit. Total savings is just the sum of private-sector and public-sector savings. Thus, we can write: Private-sector savings = fixed asset investment + government budget deficit + current account balance In other words, the savings that the private sector generates must either be recycled into investment, soaked up by the government through a budget deficit, or exported abroad via a current account surplus. This relationship always holds ex post. But what happens if it does not hold ex ante? Then "something" must adjust to make the relationship hold. In a normal environment, this "something" is interest rates. If there is a shortfall of private-sector savings - that is, if the right-hand side of the equation above exceeds the left-hand side - an increase in rates can restore the identity by encouraging private savings, discouraging investment, and potentially making it more difficult for the government to pursue an expansionary fiscal policy. Higher rates will also produce a stronger currency, leading to a deterioration in the current account balance. The exact opposite will happen if there is an excess of private-sector savings. What happens if there is excessive savings but the central bank cannot lower interest rates either because it lacks monetary independence - i.e., when a country has a currency peg - or because monetary policy is constrained by the zero lower bound on nominal short-term rates? In that case, employment will decline. One cannot save if one does not have a job that generates income. In practice, this can lead to a vicious circle where falling employment causes households to try to save more for precautionary reasons, while discouraging companies from investing in new capacity. The resulting increase in desired savings is likely to lead to further declines in employment. Keynes referred to this outcome as the paradox of thrift: A situation where one person's desire to save more leads to a collective decline in savings because aggregate income shrinks. Let's turn to what all this means for investors today. The U.S.: Trump's Fiscal Policy Is Inconsistent With His Trade Goals The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 5.6% of GDP next year. The results of the midterm elections are unlikely to change this outcome. While the takeover of the House of Representatives by the Democrats will preclude Congress from passing another round of tax cuts, our geopolitical strategists believe that there is a better than 50% chance that a bipartisan deal will be reached to increase infrastructure spending.2 They point out that Nancy Pelosi mentioned infrastructure five times during her election night address, without mentioning impeachment once. Recent data on U.S. capital spending has been on the soft side (Chart 4). Core capital goods orders have decelerated and capex intention surveys have come off their highs. Residential investment has also been weak, as reflected in declining housing starts and building permits. Chart 4Both Residential And Nonresidential Investment Have Softened We would tend to fade the weakness in capital spending (Chart 5). The ISM industrial capacity utilization rate is near cycle highs. Rising wages will incentivize firms to substitute labor with capital, leading to more investment spending. The downside risk to home building is also limited, given that residential investment stands at only 3.9% of GDP, well below the high of 6.7% reached in 2005. If anything, the U.S. is not churning out enough fixed capital, as evidenced by the fact that the average age of the capital stock has risen swiftly over the past decade. As my colleague Doug Peta likes to say, you don't get hurt falling out of a basement window. Chart 5Running Out Of Spare Capacity Meanwhile, the personal savings rate stands at over 6%, significantly higher than what one would expect based on its typical relationship with household net worth (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Household Savings Rate Is High Relative To Wealth The identity described at the outset of this report implies that the trade balance will necessarily deteriorate if the savings rate falls, investment rises, and the budget deficit remains elevated. If President Trump strikes a trade deal with China, he will have no one to blame for a larger U.S. trade deficit. Hence, he has little incentive to make a deal. Protectionism remains popular in the U.S. Midwest, the battleground on which the next presidential election will be fought. Democrat Sherrod Brown won the Ohio Senate race by 6.4% - a state that Trump carried by 8.1% - on a highly protectionist platform. Trump simply cannot afford to go soft on one of his signature issues. China: What To Do With Excess Savings? The slowdown in Chinese growth this year has been concentrated in domestic demand (Chart 7). Exports have held up well. In fact, Chinese exports to the U.S. are up 13% in dollar terms in the first ten months of the year compared with the same period last year. Chart 7China's Domestic Economy Is Weakening Unfortunately, judging from the steep drop in the export component of the Chinese manufacturing PMI, exports are likely to come under increasing pressure over the coming months (Chart 8). This makes it all the more important for the Chinese authorities to prop up domestic growth. Chart 8China's Export Outlook Is Dire China has historically stimulated its economy through debt-financed fixed-investment spending (Chart 9). This made eminent sense when China needed more factories, infrastructure, and modern housing. However, now that China has all this in spades, it is looking for different stimulus options. Chart 9China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Have Gone Hand In Hand Our formula reveals what those other options must be. If China wants to reduce investment spending to a more sustainable level, it must either boost consumption, increase the fiscal deficit, or raise net exports. Given a hostile export backdrop, it is therefore no surprise that the Chinese government has been cutting taxes, increasing social transfer payments, and letting the currency slide. The problem is that none of these other forms of stimulus are beneficial to the rest of the world, and in some cases, they may be quite detrimental. The rest of the world relies on Chinese investment, not Chinese consumption. Raw materials and capital goods comprise 80% of Chinese imports. China represents close to half of the world's demand for aluminum, copper, zinc, nickel, and steel (Chart 10). Whether it be services or manufactured goods, what Chinese households consume is generally produced in China. Chart 10China Is The Predominant Source Of Global Demand For Metals A weaker yuan will make the Chinese economy more competitive, but at the expense of other emerging markets. A weaker yuan will also raise the price of imported goods, leading to a lower volume of imports. The implication is that both the magnitude and composition of China's stimulus may disappoint. This week's much weaker-than-expected credit and money data - new CNY loans clocked in at RMB 697 billion in October, well below consensus expectations of RMB 905 billion - validates this view. Italy: Getting To "Yes" Is The Easy Part The showdown between Italy's populist leaders and the EU continues. The Lega-Five Star coalition government promised big tax cuts and generous increases in social spending. It is loath to backtrack on its campaign pledges so soon after the election. As long as there is no contagion from Italy to the rest of Europe, the EU has no incentive to back off. While it will never admit it, the EU establishment would love nothing more than to humiliate the Italians in order to dissuade voters across Europe from electing populist politicians. In the end, we expect the Italian government to give in to the EU's demands. Business confidence has plunged (Chart 11). The economy is again teetering on the brink of recession. Italy's banking system would be technically insolvent if the ten-year BTP yield were to rise above 4% based on a mark-to-market accounting of Italian bank holdings of government debt. Chart 11Italy: Is The Economy Heading For Another Dip? A political resolution to the ongoing crisis would provide short-term relief. However, it may not solve Italy's problems - indeed, it could exacerbate them. Italy's working-age population is shrinking (Chart 12). This has made companies reluctant to expand capacity. Meanwhile, households are busily saving for retirement. Their motivation to save more would only be amplified by the cuts to pension benefits that the previous caretaker government promised and that the EU is insisting be implemented. The overall private-sector financial balance - the difference between what the private sector saves and invests - reached a surplus of 5.1% of GDP in 2017 (Chart 13). Chart 12The Italian Workforce Is Shrinking Chart 13Italy: Private Sector Saves Too Much And Spends Too Little Our formula shows that counterbalancing this private-sector surplus will require a persistent government fiscal deficit or current account surplus. Italy's primary budget balance - its overall budget balance excluding interest payments - hit 1.7% of GDP in 2017 (Chart 14). This primary surplus is necessary to cover the 3.6% of GDP in interest payments that the government has to make, a number that will only rise if the ECB raises rates (hence, our high-conviction view that the ECB will have to keep rates low for years to come). Chart 14Italy Needs A Primary Budget Surplus Italy runs a modest current account surplus of 2% of GDP. However, its current account balance would be far smaller, and perhaps even negative, if the economy were operating at full employment since stronger domestic demand would suck in more imports. Italy would love to copy Germany, a country which habitually over-saves but exports its excess savings to the rest of the world through a gargantuan 8% of GDP current account surplus. Alas, achieving a larger current account surplus would require either a currency depreciation or productivity-enhancing structural reforms. The former is impossible as long as Italy is a member of the euro area, while the latter has proven to be wishful thinking for as long as people have talked about it. We do not expect Italy to default on its debt or jettison the euro in the near term. But when the next synchronized global downturn arrives - probably in about two years or so - all hell could break loose. Concluding Thoughts An economy facing a shortfall in savings is one where desired spending exceeds income. When the economy has spare capacity, such a savings shortfall is a good thing; it means more demand, more employment, and ultimately, more income. However, once spare capacity is soaked up, a shortage of savings will lead to higher inflation. The U.S. finds itself in the latter situation today. The output gap is fully closed, but growth remains above trend. As we have discussed in past reports, the Fed is likely to raise rates more than the market expects.3 This will lead to higher Treasury yields and a stronger dollar. With that in mind, we are raising our end-year target on our long DXY trade recommendation from 98 to 100, implying another 3% increase from current levels. In the absence of offsetting Chinese stimulus, a stronger dollar will put further pressure on emerging markets. EM equities will likely bottom in the first half of next year once the dollar peaks and global growth stabilizes. Until then, investors should overweight DM stocks relative to their EM peers. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 National savings, S, is equal to Y-C-G, where Y is national income and C and G are household and government consumption, respectively. Substituting this identity into the standard Y=C+I+G+X-M equation yields S-I=X-M. National income includes net foreign earnings. In this case, the trade balance, X-M, is equal to the current account balance. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The 2020 U.S. Election: A "Way Too Soon" Forecast," dated November 7, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks," dated October 12, 2018; and "The Next U.S. Recession: Waiting For Godot?" dated October 5, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights So What? The Trump administration is focusing on re-election in 2020, which could push the recession call into 2021. Why? The midterms were investment-relevant, just not in the way most of our clients thought. We are downgrading our alarmism on Iran; Trump is aware of his constraints. But investor optimism regarding the trade war may be overdone. China has contained its capital outflows, which suggests Beijing will be comfortable with more CNY/USD downside. A new GPS mega-theme: Bifurcated Capitalism! Watch carefully for any upcoming trade action on semiconductors. Feature There is no better feeling than hearing from our clients that we got a call wrong because we misjudged the constraints of the Trump administration by focusing too much on its preferences. Why? Because it means that clients are keeping us honest by employing our most important method: constraints over preferences. This is one of the takeaways from a quarter filled with meetings with our clients in the Midwest, Toronto, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Frankfurt, Berlin, Auckland, Melbourne, Sydney, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and sunny Marbella, Spain! In this report, we discuss several pieces of insight from our clients. Midterms Are Investment Relevant Generally speaking, few of our clients agreed with our assessment that the midterm elections were not investment-relevant. The further away from the U.S. we traveled, the greater the sense among investors that equity markets influence U.S. politics: both the upcoming takeover of the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party and the odds of trade war intensification. We strongly disagree with this assessment. Both periods of equity market turbulence this year were preceded by a rising U.S. 10-year yield, not any particularly damning trade war chatter (Chart 1). In fact, the intensification of the trade war this summer occurred amidst a fairly buoyant S&P 500! Meanwhile, the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House were priced in well before the October equity decline began. Chart 1Yields, Not Trade, Matter For Stocks Generally speaking, even midterms that produce gridlock have led to a relief rally (Chart 2). This time could be the same, especially because the likely next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has signalled that the main policy goal for 2019 would be infrastructure spending. In her "victory" speech following the election, Pelosi mentioned infrastructure numerous times (impeachment, zero times). Chart 2Stocks Are Indifferent To Midterm Results Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio, likely head of the House of Representatives committee overseeing transportation, has already signalled that he will ask for "real money, real investment."1 DeFazio has previously proposed a $500bn infrastructure plan, backed by issuance of 30-year Treasuries and raising fuel taxes. He has rejected the February 2017 Trump proposal, which largely relied on raising private money for the job. Would President Trump go with such a plan? Maybe. In early 2018, he stunned lawmakers by saying that he supported hiking the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents a gallon (the federal 18.4 cent-a-gallon gasoline tax has not been hiked since 1993). He has since confirmed that "everything is on the table" to achieve an infrastructure deal. Several clients from around the world pointed out that both Democrats and President Trump have an incentive to make a deal. President Trump wants to avoid the deeply negative fiscal thrust awaiting him in 2020 (Chart 3). Given the House takeover by the Democrats, it is tough to imagine that new tax cuts are the means for Trump to avoid the "stimulus cliff." As such, another round of stimulative fiscal spending may be the only way for him to avoid a late-2020 recession (although the latter is currently the BCA House View). Chart 3Can Trump And Pelosi Reverse... Democrats, on the other hand, have an incentive to ditch "Resistance" and embrace policy-making. Yes, hastening the recession in 2020 would be the Machiavellian play, but President Trump would be able to blame Democrats for the downturn - since they will necessarily have had to participate in planning an infrastructure bill only to sink it. They also learned the lesson from the January 2018 government shutdown, which backfired at the polls and forced Senate Democrats to come to an agreement quickly on a two-year stimulative budget deal. What about the GOP fiscal conservatives? They don't necessarily need to come on board. The House is held by Democrats. And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given that infrastructure is popular, that the president will be pushing it, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget bill in January, we think that even more Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. Another big takeaway from the midterms is that the GOP suffered deep losses in the Midwest. President Trump's party lost ten out of twelve races in the region (Table 1). The two most representative contests were the loss of Republican Wisconsin Governor and one-time rising presidential star Scott Walker, and the victory of the left-wing and über-protectionist Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Senator Brown won his contest comfortably by 6.4% in a state that Trump carried by 8.13%. The appeal of Brown to the very blue-collar voters that Trump himself won is obvious. On trade, there is no daylight between the left-wing Brown and President Trump. Meanwhile, Walker, an establishment Republican who built his reputation on busting public-sector unions, could not replicate Trump's success in Wisconsin. Several of our clients suggested that the GOP performance in the Midwest was poor because of the aggressive trade rhetoric. But that makes little sense. Republicans did not run Trump-style populists in the Midwest, to their obvious detriment. Democrats have always claimed to be for "fair trade" rather than "free trade." And we know, empirically, that Trump saw a key swing of turnout in 2016 in these states, largely thanks to his protectionist rhetoric (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Owes The Midwest The Presidency President Trump cannot take Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin lightly. His performance in 2016 was extraordinary, but also tight. The Democrats will win these states if Trump does not grow voter turnout and support, according to demographic projections - and they lost them by less than a percentage point of white voters (Map 1). As such, we think that Democrats will talk tough on trade and try to reclaim their union and blue-collar voters, while President Trump has to double down on an aggressive trade posture towards China. Map 1Can 'White Hype' Work In 2020? Trump's Margins Are Small The midterms are investment relevant after all, but not in the way some might think. The Democratic takeover of the House, and the resultant gridlock, will potentially avert the "stimulus cliff" in 2020. This ought to support short-term inflation expectations and thus allow the Fed to stay-the-course. For markets, this could be unsettling given the correlation between yields and downturns in 2018. For the dollar, this should be supportive. The odds of an infrastructure deal are good, above 50%, with the key risk being a Democratic House focused on impeaching Trump. Such a bill would augur even higher levels of fiscal spending through 2020, possibly prolonging the business cycle, and setting up an even wider budget deficit when the next recession hits (Chart 5). Chart 5Pro-Cyclical Policy Has To Continue Meanwhile, the shellacking in the Midwest ought to embolden the president to go even harder against China on trade. Rather than the upcoming Xi-Trump meeting in Buenos Aires, the key bellwether of this thesis is whether Trump signals afterwards that he will implement the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 (and whether he announces a third round of tariffs). Bottom Line: Go long building products and construction material stocks. Stay short China-exposed S&P 500 companies. The 10-year yield may end the year even closer to 3.5% when the market realizes that the odds of an infrastructure deal are higher than previously thought. The political path of least resistance in the U.S. continues to point towards greater profligacy. Trump Is Aware Of His Constraints In The Middle East Throughout 2018, we have flagged U.S.-Iran tensions as the risk for 2019. In early October, we went long Brent / short S&P 500 as a hedge against this risk, a trade that we closed for a 6% gain last week. During our meetings with clients this quarter, however, several astute observers pointed out that in our own analyses we have stressed the geopolitical and political constraints to President Trump. First, we have argued that the original 2015 nuclear deal signed by President Obama had a deep geopolitical logic, allowing the U.S. to pivot to Asia and stare down China by geopolitically deleveraging the U.S. from the Middle East. If President Trump undermined the détente with Iran, he would be opening up a two-front conflict with both China and Iran, diluting his administration's focus and capabilities. Second, we noted that a rise in oil prices could precipitate an early recession and push up gasoline prices in 2019, a probable death knell for any president's re-election prospects. Our clients were right to ask: Why would President Trump face down these constraints, given the high cost that he would incur? We did not have a very good answer to this question. It is difficult to understand President Trump's preferences for raising tensions against Iran beyond the fact that he promised to do so in his campaign, appears to want to undermine all of President Obama's policies, and turned to Iran hawks to head his foreign policy. Are these preferences worth the risk of a recession in 2019? Or worth the risk of triggering yet another military conflict in the Middle East over a country that only 7% of Americans consider is the 'greatest enemy' (Chart 6)? Chart 6Americans Don't Perceive Iran As 'The Greatest Enemy' Given that the administration has offered exemptions to the oil embargo to eight key importers, it now appears that President Trump is well aware of his geopolitical and domestic constraints. The combined imports of Iranian oil by these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d. While we do not have the detail of the volumes that will be allowed under the waivers, it is likely that these Iranian sales will recover some of the ~1mm b/d of exports lost already (Chart 7). Chart 7Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days What does this mean for investors? On one hand, it means that the risk of oil prices spiking north of $100 per barrel have substantively decreased. On the other hand, however, it also means that the Trump administration agrees with BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view that oil markets remain tight and that OPEC 2.0's spare capacity may be a constraint to future production increases. Bottom Line: The risks of an oil-price-shock-induced 2019 recession have fallen. However, oil prices may yet surge in 2019 to the $85-95 level (Brent) on the back of supply risks in Venezuela and Iran, especially if Saudi Arabia and Russia prove unable to expand production much beyond their current levels. Most of our clients in the Middle East shared the skepticism of our commodity strategists that Saudi Arabia would be able to increase production much higher than current levels in 2019. However, the view was not unanimous. Risks Of Saudi Arabia Going Rogue Have Declined Clients in the Middle East were convinced that the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi would have no impact on Saudi oil production decisions. However, the insight from the region is that the incident has probably ended the "blank cheque" that the Trump administration initially gave Riyadh on foreign policy. For global investors, this may not have a major impact. But it may have been at least part of the administration's reasoning behind giving embargo exemptions to such a large number of economies. The incident has likely forced Saudi Arabia to adjust its calculus on three issues: Qatar: The Saudi-Qatari split never made much sense in the first place. It was initially endorsed by President Trump, who may not have understood the strategic value of Qatar to the United States. Defense Secretary James Mattis almost immediately responded by reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the Persian Gulf country which hosts one of the most strategic U.S. air bases in the world. Yemen: The U.S. has now openly called on Saudi Arabia to end its military operations in Yemen. We would expect Riyadh to acquiesce to the request. Iran: With the U.S. giving major importers of Iranian oil exemptions, the message is twofold. First, the U.S. cares about its domestic economic stability. Second, the U.S. does not care about Saudi domestic economic stability. Our commodity strategists believe that Saudi fiscal breakeven oil price is around $85. As such, the U.S. decision to slow-roll the sanctions against Iran will be received with chagrin in Riyadh, especially as the latter will now have to shoulder both lower oil prices and the American request for higher output. Could Saudi Arabia break with the U.S.? Not a chance. The U.S. is the Saudis' security guarantor. As such, it is up to Saudi Arabia to acquiesce to American foreign policy goals, not the other way around. While we think that President Trump ultimately succumbed to geopolitical and political constraints when he decided to take the "phoney war" approach to Iran, he may have been nudged in that direction by Khashoggi's tragic murder. Bottom Line: A major risk for investors in 2019 was that the Trump administration would treat Saudi preferences for a major confrontation with Iran as its own interests. Such a strategy would have destabilized the global oil markets and potentially have unwound the 2015 U.S.-Iran détente that has allowed the U.S. to focus on China. However, the death of Khashoggi has marginally hurt President Trump domestically - given that it makes him look soft on Saudi Arabia, an unpopular stance in the U.S. Moreover, the administration has come to grips with the risks of a dire oil shock should Iran retaliate. The shift in U.S. policy vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia will therefore refocus the Trump administration on its own priorities, not that of its ally in the Middle East. Trade War Is All About CNY/USD In The Short Term... Clients in Australia and New Zealand are the most sophisticated Western investors when it comes to China. The level of macro understanding of the Chinese economy and the markets in these two countries is unparalleled (outside of China itself, of course). We therefore always appreciate the insights we pick up from our clients Down Under. And they are convinced that the massive capital outflow from China has clearly ceased. The flow of Chinese capital into Auckland, Melbourne, and Sydney real estate has definitely slowed, and anecdotal evidence appears to be showing up in the price data (Chart 8). Separately, this intel has been confirmed by clients from British Columbia and California. Chart 8Pacific Rim Home Prices Rolling Over The reality is that China has successfully closed its capital account. How else can we explain that a 4.7% CNY/USD depreciation in 2015 precipitated a $483 billion outflow of forex reserves, whereas a 10.1% depreciation this year has not had a major impact (Chart 9)? Chart 9On Balance, China Is Experiencing Modest Outflows To be fair, forex reserves declined by $34bn in October, but that is still a far cry from the panic in 2015. Our other indicators suggest that the impact on capital seepage is muted this time around, largely due to the official crackdown on various forms of capital outflows: Quarterly data (Chart 10) reflecting the change in foreign exchange reserves minus the sum of the current account balance and FDI, indicate that while net inflows have remained negative, they are still a far cry from 2015 levels. Chart 10Far Cry From 2016 Crisis Import data (Chart 11) no longer show the massive deviation between Chinese national statistics and IMF figures. Imports from Hong Kong (Chart 12), specifically, are now down to normal levels, with the fake invoicing problem having quieted down for now. Chart 11No More Confusion Regarding Imports Chart 12Fake Invoicing Has Been Curbed Growth rate of foreign reserves (Chart 13) is not clearly contracting yet, and has been positive this year. Chart 13Severe FX Reserve Drawdown Has Ended Chinese foreign borrowing (Chart 14) is down from stratospheric levels, which limits the volume of potential outflows. Chart 14China's Foreign Lending Has Eased And the orgy of M&A and investment deals in the U.S. (Chart 15) has ended. Chart 15M&A Deals Have Eased Bottom Line: Anecdotal and official data suggest that capital outflows are in check despite their recent uptick. This could embolden Chinese leaders to continue using CNY/USD depreciation as their primary weapon against President Trump's tariffs, especially if the global backdrop is not collapsing. An increase of the 10% tariff rate to 25% on January 1 could, therefore, precipitate further weakness in the CNY/USD. The announcement of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of Chinese imports could do the same. This would be negative for global risk assets, particularly EM equities and currencies. ... In the Long Term, Bifurcated Capitalism Our annual pilgrimage to Oceania included our traditional meeting with The Smartest Man In Oceania The Bloke From Down Under.2 He shares our belief that the long-term result of the broader Sino-American geopolitical conflict will be a form of Bifurcated Capitalism. His exact words were that "countries may soon have to choose between being in the Amazon or Alibaba camp," a great real-world implication of our mega-theme. Australian and New Zealand clients are particularly sensitive to the idea that the world may soon be split into spheres of influence because both countries are so high-beta to China, while obviously retaining their membership card in the West. Our suspicion is that both will be fine as they export mainly a high-grade and diversified range of commodities to China. Short of war, it is unlikely that the U.S. will one day demand that New Zealand stop its dairy exports to China, or that Australia stop iron ore and LNG exports. Countries exporting semiconductors to China, on the other hand, could face a choice between enforcing a future embargo or incurring the wrath of their closest military ally. The Bloke From Down Under has pointed out that, given China's dependency on semiconductor technology, a U.S. embargo of this critical tech could be comparable to the U.S. oil embargo against Japan that precipitated the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor. Chart 16China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand The global semiconductor market reached $354 billion in 2016, with China accounting for 60% of total consumption (Chart 16). Despite the country's insatiable appetite for semiconductors, no Chinese firm is among the world's top 20 makers. This is why Beijing's "Made in China 2025" plan has focused so much on semiconductor capability (Chart 17). The goal is for China to become self-sufficient in semiconductors, gaining 35% share of the global design market. Chart 17China's High-Tech Protectionism A key feature of Bifurcated Capitalism will be impairment of investment in high-tech that has dual-use applications in military. Semiconductors obviously make that list. Another key feature would be investment restrictions in such high-tech sectors, particularly the kind of investments and M&A deals that China has been looking for in the U.S. this decade. Further, clients in California are very concerned about the U.S.'s proposed export controls, which would cut off access to China and wreak havoc on the industry. The Trump administration has already signalled that it will restrict Chinese inbound investment. Congress passed, with a large bipartisan majority, an expanded review system, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The law has expanded the purview of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive interagency panel nominally under control of the Treasury Department that can block inbound investment on national security grounds. CFIUS, at its core, has always been an entity focused on China. While the Treasury Department initially signalled it would take as much as 18 months to adopt the new FIRRMA rules, Secretary Mnuchin has accelerated the process. The procedure now will expand review from only large-stake takeovers to joint ventures and smaller investments by foreigners, particularly in technology deemed critical for national security reasons. This oversight began on November 10 and will allow CFIUS to block foreigners from taking a stake in a business making sensitive technology even if it gives the foreign investors merely a board seat. Countries of "special concern" will inherently receive heightened scrutiny, and a country's history of compliance with U.S. law, as well as cybersecurity and American citizens' privacy, will be considerations. A new interagency process led by the Commerce Department will focus on refurbishing export controls so as to protect "emerging and foundational technologies." Such impediments to capital flows are likely to become endemic and expand beyond the U.S. We may be seeing the first steps in the Bifurcated Capitalism concept that one day comes to dominate the global economy. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for Chinese market participants. At the very least, companies whose revenue growth is currently slated to come from expansion in overseas markets may see those expectations falter. At its most pessimistic, however, Bifurcated Capitalism may precipitate geopolitical conflict if it denies China or the U.S. critical technology or commodities. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see David Shepardson, "Democrats to push for big infrastructure bill with 'real money' in 2019," Reuters, dated November 7, 2018, available at reuters.com. 2 At the time of publication, the said investor was unable to secure the permission of his wife for the "The Smartest Man" moniker. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Falling Oil Prices & Bond Yields: Murky trends in global growth data, at a time of tight labor markets and gently rising inflation, are preventing a full recovery of risk assets after the October correction. A new concern is the falling price of oil, although this looks more corrective than a true change in trend. For now, maintain a cautious stance within global fixed income portfolios - neutral on corporate credit, below-benchmark on duration exposure. ECB Corporate Bond Purchases: The ECB is set to end the new buying phase of its Asset Purchase Program next month. This suggests that the best days in this cycle for European corporate credit are behind us, as the ECB will not treat its corporate bond purchases any differently than its government bond purchases. Both are going to stop. Remain underweight euro area corporate debt, both investment grade & high-yield. Feature Are Falling Oil Prices Telling Us Something About Global Growth? Thus far in November, global financial markets have reversed some of the steep losses incurred during the "Red October" correction. This has occurred for U.S. equities (the S&P 500 fell -8% last month but has risen +4% so far this month), U.S. corporate bonds (high-yield spreads widened +71bps last month and have tightened -19bps this month) and emerging market hard currency debt (USD-denominated sovereign spreads widened +27bps last month and have tightened -9bps this month). One market that has not rebounded, however, is oil. The benchmark Brent oil price fell -11% in October, but has fallen another -7% in November. This has been enough to nearly wipe out the entire +20% run-up seen in August and September. Global government bond yields have been very sensitive to swings in oil markets in recent years. Such a large decline in the oil price as has been seen of late would typically result in sharp drop in government bond yields, driven by falling inflation expectations. That correlation has been holding up in the major economies outside the U.S., where nominal yields and inflation expectations are lower than the levels seen before the October peak in oil prices. Nominal U.S. Treasury yields, by contrast, remain resilient, despite the fall in TIPS breakevens (Chart of the Week). This is because real Treasury yields have been climbing higher as investors acquiesce to the steady hawkish message from the Fed by making upward revisions to the expected path of U.S. policy rates. Chart of the WeekShifting Correlations The biggest impediment holding back a full recovery of the October losses for global risk assets is uncertainty over the global growth outlook. While the U.S. economy continues to churn along at an above-trend pace, there are signs that tighter monetary policy is starting to have an impact. Both housing and capital spending have cooled, although not yet by enough to pose a terminal threat to the current long business cycle expansion. The outlook for growth outside the U.S. is far more muddled, adding to investor confusion. China has seen a clear growth deceleration throughout 2018, but the recent reads from imports and the Li Keqiang index suggest that growth may be stabilizing or even modestly re-accelerating (Chart 2). Our China strategists are not convinced that this is anything more than a ramping up of imports and production in advance of the full imposition of U.S. trade tariffs, especially with Chinese policymakers reluctant to deploy significant fiscal or monetary stimulus to boost growth. Chart 2Mixed Messages On Growth A similar mixed read is evident in overall global trade data. World import growth has also slowed throughout 2018, but has shown some stabilization of late (second panel). A similar pattern can be seen in capital goods imports within the major developed economies. Our global leading economic indicator (LEI) continues to contract, but the pace of the decline has been moderating and our global LEI diffusion index - which measures the number of countries with a rising LEI versus those with a falling LEI - may be bottoming out (third panel). There are also large, and growing, divergences within the major developed economies. The manufacturing purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) for the euro area and the U.K. have been falling steadily since the start of the year, but the PMIs have recently ticked up in the U.S. and Japan (Chart 3). A similar pattern can be seen in the OECD LEIs, which have retreated from the latest cyclical peaks by far more in the U.K. (-1.6%) and euro area (-1.2%) than in the U.S. (-0.3%) and Japan (-0.6%). Chart 3Diverging Growth, Diverging Bond Yields With such mixed messages from the macro data, investors understandably lack conviction. The backdrop does not look soft enough yet to threaten global profit growth and justify sharply lower equity prices and wider corporate bond spreads. Yet the growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world are intensifying, creating a backdrop of rising U.S. real interest rates and a stronger U.S. dollar. That combination is typically toxic for emerging markets, but the impact of that would be muted this time if China were to indeed see a genuine growth reacceleration. This macro backdrop lines up with our current major fixed income investment recommendations. We suggest only a neutral allocation to global corporate bonds given the uncertainty over growth, but favoring the U.S. over Europe and emerging markets given the clearer evidence of a strong U.S. economy. At the same time, we continue to recommend below-benchmark overall portfolio duration exposure, but with regional allocations favoring countries where central banks will have difficulty raising interest rates (Japan, Australia, core Europe, the U.K.) versus nations where policymakers are likely to tighten monetary policy (U.S., Canada). However, the latest dip in oil should not be ignored. A more sustained breakdown of oil prices could force us to downgrade corporate bonds and raise duration exposure - if it were a sign that global growth was slowing and inflation expectations had peaked. The current pullback in oil has occurred alongside a decelerating trend in global economic data surprises, after speculators had ramped up long positions in oil and prices were stretched relative to the 200-day moving average (Chart 4). This suggests that the latest move has been corrective, and not a change in trend, although the burden of proof now falls on the evolution of global growth, both in absolute terms and relative to investor expectations. Chart 4Oil Correction Or Growth Scare? Bottom Line: Murky trends in global growth data, at a time of tight labor markets and gently rising inflation, are preventing a full recovery of risk assets after the October correction. A new concern is the falling price of oil, although this looks more corrective than a true change in trend. For now, maintain a cautious stance within global fixed income portfolios - neutral on corporate credit, below-benchmark on duration exposure. European Corporates Are About To Lose A Major Buyer Last week, we published a Special Report discussing the ECB's options at next month's critical monetary policy meeting.1 One of our conclusions was that the central bank will deliver on its commitment to end the new purchases phase of its Asset Purchase Program (APP) at year-end. The bulk of the assets in the APP are government bonds, but the ECB has also been buying corporate debt in the APP since June 2016. The ECB is set to end those purchases at the end of December, to the likely detriment of euro area corporate bond returns. The Corporate Sector Purchase Program (CSPP), as it is formally known, has been a targeted tool used by the ECB to ease financial conditions for euro area companies. This has occurred through three main channels: tighter corporate bond spreads, greater access for companies to issue debt in the corporate primary market, and increased bank lending to non-financial corporations. The CSPP was intended to complement the ECB's other monetary stimulus measures, like negative interest rates and the buying of government debt. The first CSPP purchases were made on June 8, 2016. The euro area corporate bond market responded as expected, with investment grade spreads tightening from 128bps to 86bps by the end of 2017. There were spillovers into high-yield bonds, as well, with spreads falling -129bps over the same period (Chart 5). Since then, however, spreads have steadily widened and European corporates have underperformed their U.S. equivalents. This suggests that some of the relative performance of euro area credit may have simply reflected the relative strength of the euro area economy compared to the U.S. The greater acceleration of euro area growth in 2017 helped euro area corporates outperform U.S. equivalents, while the opposite has held true in 2018. Chart 5ECB Buying Does Not Control European Credit Spreads The CSPP has operated with a defined set of rules governing the purchases. Bank debt was excluded, as were bonds rated below investment grade. Only debt issued by corporations established in the euro area were eligible for the CSPP, although bonds from euro-based companies with parents who were not based in the euro area were also eligible. The latest update on the holdings data from the ECB shows that there are just under 1,200 bonds in the CSPP portfolio. Yet despite the ECB's best efforts to maintain some degree of portfolio diversification, the impact of the CSPP on euro area corporate bond markets was fairly consistent across countries and sectors (Chart 6). Italy is the notable diverging country this year, as the rising risk premiums on all Italian financial assets have pushed corporate bond yields and spreads well above the levels seen in core Europe, even with the ECB owning some Italian names in the CSPP. Chart 6Spread Convergence During CSPP There was also convergence of yields and spreads among credit tiers during the first eighteen months of the CSPP, with valuations on BBB-rated debt falling towards the levels on AA-rated and A-rated bonds (Chart 7). That convergence has gone into reverse in 2018, with BBB-rated spreads widening by +55bps year-to-date (this compares to a smaller +25bps increase in U.S. BBB-rated corporate spreads). A surge in the available supply of BBB-rated euro area bonds is a likely factor in that spread widening, as evidenced by the sharp rise in the market capitalization of the BBB segment of the Bloomberg Barclays euro area corporate bond index (top panel). Chart 7A Worsening Supply/Demand Balance For European BBBs? More broadly, the CSPP has helped the ECB's goal of boosting the ability of European companies to issue debt in primary bond markets. Traditionally, European firms have used bank loans as their main source of borrowed funds, with only the largest firms being able to issue debt in credit markets. That has changed during the CSPP era. According to data from the ECB, gross debt issuance by euro area non-financial companies (NFCs) has risen by €104bn since the start of the CSPP, taking issuance back to levels not seen since 2014 (Chart 8). The bulk of the issuance has been in shorter-maturity bonds, but there has been a notable increase in the issuance of longer-dated debt since the CSPP began. Chart 8Bank Funding Versus Bond Funding The ECB's role as a marginal buyer of bonds in the primary, or newly-issued, market has helped boost that gross issuance figure. The share of bonds that the ECB owns in the CSPP that was issued in the primary market has gone from 6% soon after the CSPP started to the current 18% (Chart 9). The growth in euro area non-financial corporate debt went from 6% to over 10% during the peak of the CSPP buying between mid-2016 and end-2017, but has since decelerated to 7%. At the same time, the annual growth in loans to NFCs, which was essentially zero during the first eighteen months of the CSPP, has accelerated to 2% over the course of 2018. Chart 9More Bank Loans, Less Debt Issuance In other words, euro area companies had been substituting bank financing for bond financing in the CSPP "era", but have since shifted back towards bank loans in 2018. That shift in financing was most notable among CSPP-eligible companies, particularly those smaller firms that had not be able to issue debt in the primary market pre-CSPP, according to an ECB analysis conducted earlier this year.2 From the point of view of the investible euro area corporate bond market, however, even larger companies that have done that shift in bank financing to bond financing have seen no noticeable increase in aggregate corporate leverage. In Chart 10, we show our bottom-up version of our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the euro area. This indicator is designed to measure the aggregate financial health of euro area companies using financial ratios incorporating actual data from individual companies. We separated out the list of companies used in that CHM that are currently held in the CSPP portfolio and created a "CSPP-only" version of the CHM (the blue lines in all panels). All issuers that were eligible for inclusion in the CSPP, but whose bonds were not actually purchased by the ECB, are used to create a "non-CSPP" CHM (the black dotted lines). Chart 10No Fundamental Changes From CSPP As can be seen in the chart, there is no material difference in any of the ratios for bonds within or outside the CSPP. The one notable exception is short-term liquidity, where the ratios were much lower for names purchased by the ECB than for those that were not. This lends credence to the idea that the CSPP most helped firms that were more liquidity-constrained, likely smaller companies. The biggest change in any of the ratios has been in interest coverage, but that has been for both CSPP and non-CSPP issuers, suggesting a common factor outside of ECB buying - zero/negative ECB policy rates, ECB purchases of government bonds that helped reduce all European borrowing rates - has been the main driver of lowering interest costs. Looking ahead, the ECB is likely to stop the net new purchases of its CSPP program when it does the same for the full APP next month. All of which is occurring for the same reason - the euro area economy is deemed by the central bank to no longer need the support of large-scale asset purchases given a full employment labor market and gently rising inflation. As we discussed in our Special Report last week, the ECB has other options available to them if there is a reduction in euro area banks' capacity or willingness to lend, such as introducing a new Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operation (TLTRO). Continuing with unconventional measures involving direct ECB involvement in financial markets, like buying corporate debt, is no longer necessary. Our euro area CHM suggests that there are no major problems with European corporate health that require a wider credit risk premium. We still have our reservations, however, about recommending significant euro area corporate bond exposure while the ECB is set to end its asset purchase program. New buyers will certainly come in to replace the lost demand from the elimination of CSPP purchases, but private investors will likely require higher yields and spreads than the central bank - especially if the current period of slowing euro area growth were to continue. Bottom Line: The ECB is set to end the new buying phase of its Asset Purchase Program next month. This suggests that the best days for European corporate debt for the current cycle are behind us, as the ECB will not treat its corporate bond purchases any different than its government bond purchases. Both are going to stop. Remain underweight euro area corporate debt, both investment grade and high-yield. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Evaluating The ECB's Options In December", dated November 6th 2018, available at gfis.bcareserach.com and fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 The ECB report on its CSPP program was published in the March 2018 edition of the ECB Economic Bulletin, which can be found here. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/html/eb201804.en.html 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 Equities had a wild ride in October, ... : The S&P 500 has bounced smartly off of its October 29th lows, but the decline that preceded the bounce was unusually severe. ... that unsettled a lot of investors, and made us reconsider our constructive take on risk assets: To judge by the November 5th Barron's, and some client conversations, several technically-minded investors are unconvinced by the bounce. Nothing has changed with our equity downgrade checklist, however, ... : The fundamental picture hasn't changed at all - neither corporate revenues nor margins appear to be in any immediate difficulty; though we still expect inflation to surprise to the upside, the latest data will not push the Fed to speed up its gradual rate-hike pace; and the combination of blockbuster third-quarter earnings and October's selloff made valuations more reasonable. ... so we see no reason to downgrade equities now, though we do have the admonition of a Wall Street legend ringing in our ears: If the fundamental backdrop remained unchanged, we would be inclined to upgrade equities if the S&P 500 got back to the 2,600-2,640 range, even though we are operating with a heightened sense of vigilance befitting the lateness of the hour. Feature It has been just four weeks since we rolled out our equity downgrade checklist. We would not ordinarily devote an entire Weekly Report to reviewing all of its components, but the last four weeks have hardly been ordinary. The swiftness of the decline, and the apparent lateness of the cycle, have unsettled investors enough to make several of them reconsider just how long they want to stay at the bull-market party. At times when market action provokes emotional gut checks, it is essential for investors to have a process to fall back on. Process provides a rational, objective haven from noise and emotion, and should help foster better decision-making. Our commitment to process underpins our fondness for checklists. They will never be comprehensive - as usual, we have our minds on other important inputs - but they help to ground our thinking, and we're happy to have them when markets make wild swings. Has The Recession Timetable Speeded Up? We are not interested in recessions for their own sake - we'll let the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee tell us when recessions begin and end, several months after the fact - but they're poison for risk assets. Any asset allocator who can recognize them in a timely fashion has a leg up on outperforming the competition. We therefore have been repeatedly monitoring the individual components of our recession indicator (Table 1). They do not betray any more concern than they did four weeks ago. Table 1Equity Downgrade Checklist The yield curve is clearly flattening, just as one would expect as the Fed gets further into a rate-hiking campaign, but it is still a comfortable distance from inverting (Chart 1). We think yields at the long end have a way to go before they stop rising, so we expect the fed funds rate will have to get well into the 3's before the 3-month bill rate can overtake the 10-year Treasury yield. The Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator is still expanding at a robust clip (Chart 2). Finally, we estimate the fed funds rate is about a year away from exceeding the equilibrium rate, thus signaling that policy has turned restrictive. Chart 1The Yield Curve Is Flattening, But It's Not About To Invert ... Chart 2... And Leading Economic Indicators Are Still Surging The unemployment rate continues to fall. Reversing the trend so that the three-month moving average could back up by the third of a percentage point that has unfailingly accompanied recessions (Chart 3) would require net monthly payroll additions to crater. Assuming annual population growth of 1%, and a constant labor force participation rate, net monthly job gains would have to fall to 100,000 for the three-month moving average to back up to 4% in 2020; if the pace of gains merely held at 120,000, the unemployment recession signal wouldn't be issued until 2021 (Chart 4). We applied the same conditions to the Atlanta Fed's online unemployment calculator to see what it would take for the unemployment rate to cross into the danger zone in 2019 (Table 2). Since the seven-year trend of 200,000 monthly net payroll additions would have to reverse on a dime for unemployment to issue a near-term warning, we do not foresee checking this box anytime soon. Chart 3Investors Should Beware An Uptick In The Unemployment Rate ... Chart 4... But None Is Forthcoming ... Table 2... Unless Hiring Falls Off A Cliff Are Corporate Earnings Coming Under Pressure? As we mentioned last week, we view the labor market as tight and getting tighter. We thereby expect that wages are on their way to rising enough to crimp corporate margins, albeit slowly. The composite employment cost index has been in an uptrend since 2016, but it ticked lower last month, and remains well below its cyclical highs ahead of the last two recessions (Chart 5). Chart 5Snails, Godot, Molasses And Wages October's global upheaval was good for the safe-haven dollar, which surged to a new year-to-date high (Chart 6). The DXY dollar index is now within 3% of the 100 level that would lead us to check the dollar strength box. Even though we're not checking the box yet, the dollar's 10% advance since mid-February will exert a modest drag on S&P 500 earnings for the next few quarters. Triple-B corporate yields have ticked a little higher since we rolled out the checklist, extending their six-year highs (Chart 7), though we still view them as manageable. Chart 6A Gentle Headwind (For Now) Chart 7Higher Yields Aren't Biting Yet A rising savings rate would cancel out some of the top-line benefits from employment gains. It fell pretty sharply in the third quarter, however, amplifying the self-reinforcing effect of new hiring. It's at the bottom of the range that's prevailed since 2014 (Chart 8), but could go still lower if consumption tracks the robust consumer confidence readings, as it consistently has in the past. Chart 8Consumers Are Well-Fortified EM economies have become considerably more indebted since the crisis, as developed-world savings sought an outlet; corporate profits are falling; and a stronger dollar makes it harder for EM borrowers to service their USD-denominated debt. A credit crisis (or multiple credit crises) could slow global activity enough to pressure multinationals' earnings, even if the U.S. economy is mostly insulated from EM wobbles. EM equities have gotten a respite since global equities put in their year-to-date lows, and Chinese stimulus could extend EM economies a lifeline, though BCA expects that Beijing will disappoint investors hoping for a meaningful boost. We remain bearish on emerging markets as a firm, but EM distress is not anywhere near acute enough to justify ticking the box. Is Inflation Starting To Make The Fed Uneasy? There are two channels by which inflation could pose a problem for equities. The first is the Fed: if it is discomfited by what it sees in realized inflation, or perceives that inflation expectations could become unanchored, it is likely to move forcefully to quash upward pressure on prices. A forceful pace is considerably faster than a gradual pace, and would bring forward a monetary policy inflection. If policy flips from accommodative to restrictive sooner than we expect, the window for risk-asset outperformance will shrink. With all of its talk about symmetric inflation targets, the FOMC has made it clear that it will not make any attempt to defend its 2% core PCE inflation target. It is comfortable with an overshoot, and has indeed openly wished for one for much of the post-crisis era. There are limits to its indulgence, however, and we suspect that the Fed would not be comfortable if core PCE inflation were to make a new 20-year high above 2.5%. With that red line far off (Chart 9), inflation is not yet likely to encourage the Fed to quicken the pace at which it removes accommodation. Chart 9Turtles, Sloths And Inflation Inflation expectations aren't yet pressing the Fed to speed things up, either. Long-maturity TIPS break-evens have retreated slightly since mid-October, and have yet to enter the range consistent with the 2% inflation target (Chart 10). The media and the broad mass of investors don't bother with symmetric targets, or implied break-evens; they take their cues from consumer prices. A multiple haircut driven by popular inflation fears is the second channel by which inflation could halt the equity advance, but CPI remains well below the mid-3% levels that would provoke concern (Chart 11). Chart 10Stubbornly Well-Anchored Chart 11No Reason To Trim Multiples Yet So What's To Worry About? Irrational exuberance is always a concern after an extended period of gains, but there's no sign of it in broad market measures right now. Blockbuster earnings gains have pulled the S&P 500's forward P/E multiple back down to the 15s from its January peak above 18. Secondary measures like price-to-sales, price-to-book, and price-to-cash-flow are well below extreme levels in the aggregate. If the S&P 500 is going to get silly, it will have to surge first. That said, the latter stages of bull markets and expansions can be perilous, and we are on high alert. We continue to actively seek out any evidence that challenges our broadly constructive take on risk assets and the U.S. economy. Though we have yet to find anything compelling, an admonition from legendary technical analyst and strategist Bob Farrell has lodged in our mind. Rule number nine of Farrell's ten market rules to remember states, "When all the experts and forecasts agree - something else is going to happen." It's much more fun to bring novel views and analysis to our clients, but we don't get overly concerned about agreeing with investor consensus. It's inevitable that a lot of people will agree in the middle of extended cycles; we simply strive to be among the first to recognize the major macro inflection points and determine the optimal asset-allocation framework to benefit from them. We get a little antsy, though, when everyone knows that something is either certain to happen, or cannot happen by any stretch of the imagination. The near-unanimity with which the investment community believes that a recession cannot begin in 2019 is increasingly eating at us. We have been checking and re-checking the data, and checking and re-checking our colleagues' various models, in search of trouble, but to no avail. Even though recessions begin at economic peaks, and the economy nearly always appears to be in fine fettle when the downturn asserts itself, the sizable fiscal thrust on tap for 2019 seems to obviate the possibility of a contraction. When discussing potential risks in face-to-face meetings with clients this week, we most often cited trade tensions, as any material rollback of globalization would erode corporate profit margins and would strike at global trade, on which much of the rest of world's economies rely. A dramatic worsening of the trade picture is not our base case, but we do expect upside surprises in inflation, and an attendant upside surprise in the terminal fed funds rate. We have been considering that view mainly from the perspective of fixed-income positioning: underweight Treasuries and maintain below-benchmark duration. We also have been assuming that the FOMC would lift the fed funds rate to 3.5% at the end of 2019 via four quarter-point rate hikes, and possibly take it all the way to 4% in the first half of 2020. If it were to speed up its pace, and take the fed funds rate to 3.5% by the middle of next year, and 4% by the end, we believe financial conditions would tighten enough to choke off the expansion. Monetary policy impacts the economy with a lag, so a recession may still not begin until 2020 in that scenario, but we'd bet that an equity bear market would begin in 2019. Investment Implications Balanced investors should maintain at least an equal weight position in equities. Although our checklist is a downgrade checklist, we're alert to opportunities to upgrade as well as downgrade. As we first wrote one week before the October selloff ended, we would look to overweight equities if the S&P 500 were to dip back into the 2,600-2,640 range (Chart 12). If U.S. equities wobble again in line with our Global Investment Strategy team's MacroQuant model's near-term discomfort, investors may get another opportunity before the year is out. Chart 12Only One Chance To Upgrade So Far, But There May Be More Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com