Policy

Highlights Duration: Our Fed Policy Loop provides a framework for understanding last week's equity market correction and its implications for future Fed policy. So far, the equity sell-off is not severe enough to deter the Fed. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Credit: With the Fed lifting rates and the market still not priced for the likely pace of hikes, it is highly likely that we will witness further periods where corporate spreads and Treasury yields rise in unison. We recommend steps investors can take to insulate their portfolios from this risk. Inflation: The macroeconomic environment remains highly inflationary. The unemployment rate is very low and wage growth is rising. However, recent trends suggest that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will stay close to its current level, near the Fed's target, for the next six months. This will not alter the Fed's "gradual" +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Feature Chart 1The Second Rate Shock Of 2018 Last week's equity market rout was the second time this year that stocks reacted negatively to a sharp rise in bond yields (Chart 1). As was the case in February, our Fed Policy Loop remains the appropriate framework for understanding the relationship between bond yields and the stock market (Chart 2).1 It can be explained as follows: Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop Step 1: The perception of easy Fed policy fuels strong performance in the stock market. Rising stock prices and "easing financial conditions" cause economic growth to strengthen and sow the seeds of inflation. Step 2: Equity investors catch a whiff of inflation and start to price-in a more restrictive monetary environment. This leads to a stock market correction. Step 3: Falling stock prices and "tightening financial conditions" cause the Fed to downgrade its economic outlook and adopt a more dovish policy stance. Return To Step 1. The Equity Correction For Bond Investors At this juncture, the important question for bond investors is whether financial conditions have tightened enough to prompt a slower pace of rate hikes from the Fed. If so, then it might be appropriate to buy the dip in the bond market. We think such a move would be premature, for two reasons. First, the increase in bond yields that spooked the equity market was concentrated at the long-end of the curve and was fueled by Fed Chairman Powell's comment that the funds rate is "a long way from neutral." A steeper yield curve offsets some of the financial conditions tightening caused by falling stock prices (Chart 3). This is because it signals that monetary policy is becoming more accommodative - the fed funds rate is further below neutral than previously thought. This intuition is confirmed by the bounce in gold, a move that often coincides with an upward rerating of the neutral fed funds rate.2 Chart 3Steeper Curve Will Reassure The Fed Second, the amount of financial market pain that the Fed can tolerate depends on the economic environment. Our Fed Monitor is an indicator that is designed to signal whether the Fed should be hiking or cutting interest rates (Chart 4). It consists of 44 variables that can be grouped into three categories: Chart 4The BCA Fed Monitor Economic growth indicators (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation indicators (Chart 4, panel 4). Financial conditions indicators (Chart 4, bottom panel). The overall Fed Monitor is currently deep in positive territory, signaling that rate hikes are appropriate. This is true despite the fact that the financial conditions component of the monitor has been falling (tightening) since the beginning of the year. Last week's equity market drop will not be reflected in the indicator until the end of the month, so further downside in the financial conditions component is forthcoming. But so far, tighter financial conditions have barely made a dent in the overall Fed Monitor because they have been offset by rising economic growth and stronger inflation. The conclusion is that the Fed is able to tolerate more market pain when growth is strong and inflation is high. Viewed through this lens, it is clear that a lot more market pain is required before the Fed backs away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. In fact, the Fed likely views some tightening of financial conditions as desirable, as long as the tightening doesn't severely impede the economic outlook. Just last week New York Fed President John Williams said: Normalization of the monetary policy, I think, has the added benefit of reducing somewhat, on the margin, some of the risk of imbalances in financial markets.3 While a few weeks ago, Fed Governor Lael Brainard noted: The past few times unemployment fell to levels as low as those projected over the next year, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation.4 In other words, the Fed is increasingly cognizant of the fact that higher interest rates might be necessary to prevent excessive risk-taking in financial markets, even if inflation stays well contained near target. Unless financial conditions tighten so much that they cause the reading from our Fed Monitor to hook down, the Fed will be inclined to view the market correction as healthy. It is also important to note that while a large increase in long-maturity Treasury yields prompted last week's stock market action, the short-end of the yield curve didn't move much at all. In fact, overnight index swap forwards show that the market is just barely priced for three rate hikes during the next 12 months. According to our golden rule of bond investing, if you expect the Fed to lift rates by more than what is priced in for the next 12 months, you should keep portfolio duration low.5 Bottom Line: Last week's equity market sell-off is not enough to prompt the Fed to back away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. On The Correlation Between Yields And Spreads It wasn't just the stock market that struggled to digest higher Treasury yields last week. Corporate bond spreads also widened, particularly in the high-yield credit tiers (Chart 5). As with equities, this is the second time in 2018 that credit spreads widened sharply alongside higher Treasury yields. Chart 5Credit Also Struggling With Higher Rates Credit spreads and Treasury yields tend to be negatively correlated, a feature that benefits bond investors by reducing the volatility in corporate bond yields and total returns. But, as evidenced by last week's price moves, the correlation does occasionally turn positive. This is particularly damaging during sell-offs when both the rate and spread components of corporate bond yields rise. Chart 6 shows the frequency of negative and positive yield/spread correlations since 1994, using 3-month investment horizons. It shows that yields and spreads were negatively correlated in 64% of 3-month periods. Yields fell alongside tighter spreads in 23% of cases, while yields and spreads rose together only 13% of the time. Chart 6The Correlation Between Yields And Spreads Is Typically Negative Since those periods when both yields and spreads rise in unison are particularly damaging for bond investors, it is worth exploring them in more detail. Table 1 lists all 13 quarters since 1994 when junk spreads and duration-matched Treasury yields rose together. Using the logic of our Fed Policy Loop, we also identify three risk factors that might be associated with those periods. The main idea being that yields and spreads are likely to rise together in periods when the market starts to price-in much more restrictive monetary policy, and an earlier end to the economic recovery. The three risk factors we identify are: Table 1Periods When Both Treasury Yields And Junk Spreads Rose Since 1994 Whether the Fed raised interest rates during the investment horizon. Whether our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter increased during the investment horizon, meaning that the market priced-in a more aggressive near-term rate hike path. Whether the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose during the investment horizon. Higher long-dated inflation expectations could cause the Fed to respond with a more restrictive monetary policy. The single most important risk factor is whether the Fed raised rates during the investment horizon. Nine of the 13 episodes coincided with a Fed rate hike, and three of the four episodes that didn't coincide with a rate hike occurred between Q2 2013 and Q4 2015. The fed funds rate was pinned at zero during that period, but the Fed was starting to turn hawkish by backing away from QE and preparing for liftoff. This leaves the second quarter of 2007 as the only true outlier. The Fed did not lift rates during this period, but it is clear that markets were spooked by overly restrictive Fed policy all the same. The 2/10 Treasury slope was only 7 bps at the start of the quarter, signaling that monetary policy was already quite restrictive. Meanwhile, long-dated inflation expectations rose during the quarter and the market went from discounting 60 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months to only 17 bps. An inflationary shock when monetary policy is already restrictive is an environment where yields and spreads are very likely to rise at the same time. An upward move in our 12-month discounter is also associated with periods of rising yields and spreads in 9 out of 13 cases. This risk factor didn't work in Q4 2005 or Q2 2006, but once again it is quite clear that markets were spooked by overly restrictive monetary policy in those periods. The yield curve was inverted in both of those quarters, and the Fed lifted rates despite an inverted yield curve. That combination sends a clear signal to markets that the Fed is trying to choke off the recovery. The 12-month discounter also failed to send the correct signal in Q3 1999 and Q2 2000. In those cases the culprit appears to be a large jump in long-dated inflation expectations while the Fed was in the midst of a rate hike cycle. Since rate hikes should dampen inflation, rising inflation expectations suggest that rate hikes might need to speed up. Thinking about the current environment, we are very much in the danger zone where yields and spreads could rise at the same time. The Fed is in the midst of a rate hike cycle and the market is still not priced for quarterly rate hikes to continue for the next 12 months. Finally, long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates are almost back to the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with "well-anchored" inflation expectations (Chart 7). The higher long-dated breakevens get, the more likely it is that the Fed will respond forcefully to further increases. Chart 7Almost Re-Anchored With all three of our risk factors present, it is highly likely that we will see more episodes where credit spreads widen and Treasury yields rise. The risk will only dissipate once the full extent of the Fed's rate hike cycle is reflected in the Treasury curve, but we are not there yet. While this is not a great environment for bond investors, there are steps investors can take to limit the damage from periods of rising spreads and yields. First, investors should maintain portfolio duration at below-benchmark. Second, while it is too early in the cycle to completely abandon credit, a more defensive posture is advisable. We recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product, focused on the higher-quality credit tiers.6 To the extent possible, investors should also seek to focus their spread exposure at the long-end of the maturity spectrum, while also limiting overall portfolio duration by favoring the short-end of the Treasury curve.7 Inflation Uptrend On Hold Lost in the shuffle amidst last week's market turmoil, the consumer price index (CPI) for September was released and it delivered a soft month-over-month print for the second month in a row. The top panel of Chart 8 shows that the year-over-year trend in core CPI rose rapidly earlier in the year, but now appears to be leveling off. We do not envision a meaningful deceleration in core CPI, but it seems likely that the year-over-year rate of change will stay near current levels for the next six months. Chart 8Core Inflation & Pipeline Pressures Our Pipeline Inflation Indicator remains consistent with rising inflationary pressures in the economy, but it has softened of late. This is mostly due to weaker commodity prices (Chart 8, bottom panel). Further, our Base Effects Indicator - based on rates of change in the core CPI that have already been realized - is now consistent with a lower year-over-year core CPI growth rate six months from now (Chart 9).8 Chart 9Expect Year-Over-Year Core CPI To Flatten-Off, Or Even Decline Looking at the main components of core CPI, the last two monthly prints have been dragged down by the core goods component, with most of the weakness in apparel and used vehicles (Chart 10). This could reverse in the near-term as core goods prices catch up with import prices, which have been rising for some time. However, non-oil import prices have decelerated recently, on the back of a stronger dollar. In other words, any near-term increase in core goods inflation will probably not last very long. Chart 10Core CPI Components The core services excluding shelter component continues to have the most potential upside, since it is highly geared to rising wage growth. Shelter inflation, the largest component of core CPI, has been flat for some time and our models suggest this will continue to be the case for the next six months. Bottom Line: The macroeconomic environment remains highly inflationary. The unemployment rate is very low and wage growth is rising. However, recent trends suggest that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will stay close to its current level, near the Fed's target, for the next six months. This will not alter the Fed's "gradual" +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?" dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/williams-says-fed-rate-hikes-helping-curb-financial-risk-taking 4https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20180912a.htm 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty," dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync," dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Powell Doctrine Emerges," dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Rising U.S. bond yields will continue to put downward pressure on global stocks in the near term, but will not trigger an equity bear market until rates reach restrictive territory. We are still at least 12 months away from that point. The blowout in Italian bond yields has further to go, which will also weigh on global risk assets. Nevertheless, we would buy BTPs for a tactical trade if the 10-year yield rose above 4%, because at that level EU policymakers will call out the fire engines. We downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral in June, while maintaining our bias for DM stocks over EM stocks. Barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish again if global stocks were to fall by 8% from current levels. Remain cyclically underweight interest rate duration. We would move to neutral on duration if the U.S. 10-year yield were to rise to 3.7%. We are still bullish on the dollar, but would shift to neutral if the DXY rose above 100. Feature Bond Yields: Up, Up, And Away Global risk assets remained on the back foot this week. The MSCI All-Country World stock market index has now fallen by 6.3% in dollar terms since last Wednesday. Even the mighty S&P 500 has finally buckled under the pressure. The vulnerability of U.S. stocks had been accumulating beneath the surface for some time, as evidenced by the fact that the advance-decline line has been deteriorating since the late summer. The small cap Russell 2000 is down 11.3% from its August 31st highs (Charts 1A& 1B). Chart 1ABreadth Deteriorated In The Lead-Up To The Correction Chart 1BStocks Under Pressure Bond yields usually fall when equities swoon. This time around, it is the increase in bond yields itself that has undermined stocks. In the U.S., yields have risen in response to better-than-expected growth, a wider budget deficit, rising oil prices, and an increasingly hawkish Fed. In Italy, worries about debt sustainability have been the primary driver of rising yields. Neither factor spells doom for global risk assets. However, a period of indigestion is likely over the coming weeks, which could see global equities go down before they go up again. The U.S. Economy: Too Much Winning? We have argued for much of this year that investors were underappreciating the extent to which the Federal Reserve can raise rates without choking off growth. The past few weeks have seen a growing recognition among investors that the Fed may be behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. This has led to a steepening in the expected path of U.S. short-term rates, which, together with an increase in the term premium, have pushed up yields at the longer-dated maturities. Both better economic data and Fedspeak contributed to the bond sell-off. On the data front, the non-manufacturing ISM index clocked in at 61.6. The all-important employment component of the index hit a record high. Confirming the encouraging labor market signal from the ISM, the unemployment rate fell to a 48-year low of 3.68% in September. While average hourly earnings ticked down to 2.75% on a year-over-year basis, this was entirely due to base effects. On a month-over-month basis, average hourly earnings have risen by 0.3% for three straight months. If this trend continues, the year-over-year rate will rise to 3.2% by the end of this year. Tellingly, recent wage growth has been concentrated among workers at the bottom of the income distribution (Chart 2). This is important because not only do the wages of low-income workers correlate better with labor market slack than those of high-income workers, but low-income workers are also more likely to spend the bulk of their paychecks. Chart 2Wage Growth Has Accelerated At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Higher wage growth will boost consumer spending. Indeed, it is probable that consumption will rise more than income, given that the personal savings rate has plenty of scope to fall from the current elevated level of 6.6%. Rising wages will incentivize companies to invest more in labor-saving technologies, translating into an increase in capital spending.1 Add in ongoing fiscal stimulus, and we have a recipe for an overheated economy. Starstruck No More As of today, the market has priced in one Fed rate hike in December but only two rate hikes in 2019 (Chart 3). Investors expect no rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. That still seems implausible to us, which suggests that the bond sell-off has further to go. Chart 3The Market Still Thinks The Fed Can't Raise Rates Above 3% In contrast to the past, the Fed no longer seems interested in talking down rate expectations. Speaking with Judy Woodruff at The Atlantic Festival, Chairman Powell stated the Fed "may go past neutral, but we are a long way from neutral at this point, probably."2 Even uber-dove Chicago Fed President Charles Evans appears to have jettisoned his worries about deflation, noting in a speech last Wednesday that "I am more comfortable with the inflation outlook today than I have been for the past several years."3 The Fed has also increasingly downplayed the importance of estimates of the neutral rate of interest, the concept on which the long-term "dots" in the Summary of Economic Projections are based. The Fed's new mantra is that economic data, rather than some theoretical model, should guide monetary policy. Ironically, it was New York Fed President John Williams, who developed one of the most widely used models of r-star, the eponymously named Holston-Laubach-Williams model, that best articulated the Fed's position. At a speech last Monday, Williams argued that the neutral rate of interest, or r-star, has "gotten too much attention in commentary about Fed policy." He went on to say that "Back when interest rates were well below neutral, r-star appropriately acted as a pole star for navigation. But, as we have gotten closer to the range of estimates of neutral, what appeared to be a bright point of light is really a fuzzy blur, reflecting the inherent uncertainty in measuring r-star."4 Trump And Bonds President Trump was quick to blame the Fed for this week's stock market sell-off. Within the span of 24 hours, he used the words "crazy," "loco," "ridiculous," "too cute," "too aggressive," and "big mistake" to describe recent Fed policy. We doubt Trump's rhetoric will have any immediate effect on Fed decision-making. But even if it did sway the Fed to slow the pace of rate hikes, the result will be higher bond yields, not lower yields. This is simply because any further delays in raising rates will lead to even more overheating, and ultimately, higher inflation and the need for higher rates down the road. Bond Sell-Off Will Produce A Correction In Stocks, Not A Bear Market At the height of this week's bond sell-off, the 10-year Treasury yield breached its 200-month moving average for the first time since ... October 1987 (Chart 4). While that sounds pretty ominous, keep in mind that the 10-year yield had reached almost 10% on the eve of the 1987 stock market crash, or about 6% in real terms. Chart 4Two Lines Meet After Three Decades As my colleague, Doug Peta, discussed two weeks ago, it is the level of interest rates that tends to matter more for stocks rather than the change in rates.5 Specifically, equity returns tend to be lowest at times when monetary policy is already in restrictive territory (Chart 5 and Tables 1 and 2). That was the case in 1987. It is not the case today. Chart 5The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 1Tight Policy Is Hazardous To Stocks' Health... Table 2...Especially In Real Terms The fact that stocks do worse in environments where monetary policy is tight makes perfect sense. A restrictive monetary policy is usually a prelude to a recession. As Chart 6 illustrates, bear markets and recessions almost always coincide, with the latter usually leading the former by about six-to-twelve months. None of our favorite leading recession indicators are flashing red now (Chart 7). Even the yield curve has steepened in recent weeks. Chart 6Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Still, higher long-term bond yields do reduce the long-term attractiveness of stocks compared with bonds. The S&P 500 earnings yield has risen modestly since 2016 due to the fact that earnings have grown somewhat more quickly than equity prices. However, the U.S. real 10-year yield has surged by almost 120 basis points over this period. On balance, this has caused the equity risk premium to decline (Chart 8).6 In order to bring the equity risk premium back down to mid-2016 levels, the S&P 500 would need to fall by about 15% from today's levels. We do not expect stocks to fall by that much, partly because the economic environment is more robust than back then, but a further drop of 5%-to-10% from current levels is certainly plausible. Chart 7A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent Chart 8Stocks Versus Bonds Italy: Heading For A Debt Crisis? The rise in Treasury yields has reduced the attractiveness of other global government bond markets, causing them to sell off in sympathy. Notably, German bund yields have increased by 33 basis points since their May lows (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Bond Yields Moving Higher Rising German bund yields are bad news for Italy. All things equal, a higher "risk free" bund yield implies a higher Italian bond yield. To make matters worse, as Italian borrowing costs have risen, the perceived likelihood that Italy will be unable to repay its debt has increased. This has caused the spread between German bunds and Italian BTPs to widen, thereby magnifying the effect on Italian bond yields from the increase in risk-free yields. All this has happened at the worst possible moment. Italy's populist government and the European Commission are locked in a battle of wills over next year's budget. The Italian government is targeting a fiscal deficit of 2.4% of GDP for 2019, compared with a deficit of 0.8% that the outgoing caretaker government had proposed in May. Strictly speaking, the new deficit target is still consistent with the 3% limit under the Maastricht Treaty. Nevertheless, it is still causing consternation in Brussels. There are at least three reasons for this: While the government's program has a lot of specifics about how it will increase the deficit - more public investment; a universal minimum income scheme; the ability to retire earlier than under current law; corporate tax cuts; no VAT hike in 2019, etc. - it does not specify which items in the budget will be cut. The program also provides few details on revenue measures, other than proposing a one-off tax amnesty, which will arguably reduce tax receipts over the long haul. The proposed budget assumes real GDP growth of 1.5% in 2019. This is higher than the May projection of 1.4%, and well above the IMF's most recent projection of 1%. The government's real GDP projections for 2020-21 are also about 0.7 percentage points above the IMF's estimates. While Italy's proposed fiscal deficit is below the Maastricht Treaty limit, its current debt-to-GDP ratio of 132% is well above the ceiling of 60% (Chart 10). This implies that Italy should be aiming for a smaller deficit target than what it is currently proposing. Chart 10Italy's Public Debt Mountain We expect the Italian government to ultimately acquiesce to the EU's demands, but not before the bond vigilantes have pushed them into a corner. For their part, the EU establishment would love nothing more than to embarrass the Five Star-Lega coalition in order to send a message to voters across Europe about the dangers of voting for populist parties. This means that the Italian 10-year yield may need to break above 4% - the level at which Italian banks would likely be technically insolvent based on the market value of their BTP holdings - before a compromise is reached. We would put on a tactical trade to buy 10-year BTPs at that level, but not before then. Investment Conclusions Goldilocks will survive, but the next couple of months will be challenging. Our soon-to-be-launched MacroQuant model is signaling a bearish outlook for stocks over the next 30 days (Chart 11). On the bond side, the model currently pegs the fair value for the U.S. 10-year yield at 3.7% (Chart 12). Bond sentiment is quite bearish at the moment, which makes a brief countertrend bond rally quite likely. However, the cyclical trend in yields remains to the upside. Chart 11MacroQuant* Recommends That Caution Is Warranted Towards Equities Chart 12MacroQuant Sees 10-Year Treasury Yields Still Below Fair Value We stated last week that investors should consider scaling back risk if they are currently overweight risk assets. We continue to favor this more cautious stance. For the first time in over a decade, short-term U.S. rates are above the dividend yield on the S&P 500 (Chart 13). Holding a bit more cash is finally an attractive option, at least for U.S.-based investors. Chart 13Cash Anyone? If the sell-off in global equities continues, it will present a buying opportunity, given that the next major global economic downturn is probably at least another two years away. Barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish on stocks again if the MSCI All-Country World Index were to fall by 12% 10% 8% from current levels.7 We would recommend that investors move from an underweight to a neutral interest rate duration position in global bond portfolios if the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield rose to 3.7%. We are still bullish on the dollar, but would shift to neutral if the DXY rose above 100. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that additional investment spending will raise aggregate supply, but normally it takes a while for that to happen. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see "WATCH: Powell says Fed is focused on 'controlling the controllable,' not politics," PBS News Hour, October 3, 2018; and Jeff Cox, "Powell says we're 'a long way' from neutral on interest rates, indicating more hike are coming," CNBC, October 3, 2018. 3 Charles Evans, "Monetary Policy 2.0?" OMFIF City Lecture on the U.S. Economic Outlook, London, England, October 3, 2018. 4 John C. Williams, "Remarks at the 42nd Annual Central Banking Seminar," Bank for International Settlements, October 1, 2018. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "When Will Higher Rates Hurt Stocks?" dated September 24, 2018; and Special Report, "Revisiting The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated September 3, 2018. 6 For this exercise, we define the equity risk premium as the difference between the S&P 500 earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year bond yield (using CPI swaps as our measure of expected inflation). 7 The perils of writing a report during a week when markets are moving fast. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights So What? More downside to CNY/USD ahead. Why? The trade war is spilling into political and military arenas, making it harder to de-escalate and negotiate a trade deal. Official U.S. and Chinese rhetoric is increasingly antagonistic, reflecting once-in-a-generation policy shifts toward a new Cold War. Tensions will not subside after the U.S. midterm election - neither the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement nor any quick deals with Japan and the EU will speed up U.S.-China negotiations. Feature Clients know that BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been alarmist on U.S.-China relations since we started as a service in 2012.1 This structural view is based on the long-term decline of U.S. power relative to China and the emergence of global multipolarity.2 However, the rise of General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2012 and President Donald Trump in 2016 have reinforced our view that "Sino-American conflict is more likely than you think."3 This includes military as well as economic conflict. Setting aside the risk of war, a geopolitical "incident" of some kind is becoming increasingly likely. As the two sides engage in brinkmanship, the probability of a miscalculation or provocation rises, and the probability of a grand new compromise falls. For investors, the takeaway is supportive of Geopolitical Strategy's current stance: long U.S. dollar, long U.S. stocks relative to DM, and long DM stocks relative to EM. We expect CNY/USD to fall further as markets question the ability to discount trade uncertainties via tariff rates alone (Chart 1). We continue to recommend a "safe haven" hedge of Swiss bonds and gold. Chart 1CNY/USD Has More Downside The risk is that China could respond to U.S. pressure by stimulating its economy aggressively. So far, the "China Play Index," devised by our Foreign Exchange Strategy, does not signal reflation. Nor do Chinese domestic infrastructure stocks relative to global, which our China Investment Strategy watches closely (Chart 2). Chart 2Small Stimulus Thus Far Trade Tensions Are Spilling Over A corollary of our view that U.S.-China tensions are secular and strategic in nature - i.e., not limited to the U.S. trade deficit - is the view that trade tensions will spill over into strategic areas, exacerbating those tensions and generating negative outcomes for investors exposed to the U.S.-China economic partnership.4 This strategic spillover is now taking shape. Since President Trump went forward with the second round of tariffs - 10% on $200 billion worth of imports, to ratchet up to 25% on January 1, 2019 - a series of negative events have taken place in U.S.-China relations (Table 1), culminating in the USS Decatur incident on September 30. Table 1Trade War Spills Into Strategic Areas The Decatur, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, was conducting operations in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea when it sailed within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson Reefs, which China claims as sovereign islands. At around 8:30am that Sunday morning, a Luyang-class destroyer from China's People's Liberation Army Navy "approached within 45 yards of Decatur's bow, after which Decatur maneuvered to prevent a collision," according to the U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman. This was not an unprecedented incident in itself, but it came very close to a collision that could easily have resulted in a shipwreck, a full-blown U.S.-China crisis, and a global risk-off event in financial markets. The Decatur sailed close to the Chinese-claimed reefs because it was conducting a "Freedom of Navigation Operation" (FONOP) to assert the international right of free passage. A major point of contention between China and the U.S. (and between China and most of its neighbors and the western world) is that China claims outright sovereignty over about 80% of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands. In July 2016, the International Court of Arbitration ruled that none of the contested rocks and reefs in the sea qualify as islands and hence that they are not entitled to 12 nautical miles of "territorial" sea. China rejects this ruling and asserts sovereignty over the maritime features and much of the sea itself.5 In Diagram 1 we illustrate how a FONOP works based on a similar operation last year. The U.S. has conducted these operations for decades, but in late 2015 it began a series of FONOPs focusing on countering China's excessive claims in the South China Sea.6 This was also a way of opposing China's construction, reclamation, and "militarization" of the reefs under its possession. Diagram 1What Is A 'Freedom Of Navigation Operation'? It is not remotely a surprise that this year's trade tensions came close to exploding in the South China Sea. It is the premier geographic location of U.S.-China strategic friction: a hub for international trade; a vital supply route for all major Asian economies; and the primary focus of China's attempt to rewrite global rules (Diagram 2).7 The Appendix updates our list of clashes in this area. Diagram 2South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout The takeaway is that, far from capitulating to the Trump administration's trade demands, China is taking a more aggressive stance - and it is doing so outside the trade context. The U.S., for its part, has not diminished the significance of this incident, as it has often done on similar occasions.8 Instead, Vice President Mike Pence gave a remarkable speech at the Hudson Institute on October 4 in which he highlighted the Decatur, among a range of other "predatory" Chinese state-backed actions, to make a comprehensive case that China is a geopolitical rival seeking to undermine the United States and specifically the Trump administration.9 Pence's comments reflect a decision to "go public" with a shift in national strategy that has been developing in recent years, beginning - albeit tepidly - even in the Obama administration. A similar shift is underway in China - and has accelerated with the U.S.'s implementation of tariffs. Official Communist Party rhetoric increasingly characterizes the U.S. as an enemy whose real intention is to "contain" China's rise and has recently called for Chinese "self-reliance" in the face of U.S. sanctions.10 The two sides are bracing for conflict and are now seeking to mold public opinion more actively. Bottom Line: Investors should take note: markets were 45 yards away from a significant correction! The U.S.-China trade tensions are spilling outside of economic relations into political and military domains, as we expected. The South China Sea remains a hot zone that could be the setting of a geopolitical incident as tensions mount. What Is A Show Of Force? Notably, the U.S. military is said to be considering a "global show of force" during an unspecified week in November in order to deter China from its current policy trajectory. If this occurs, it will be market-relevant as it will be seen as a provocation by China and other U.S. rivals. A "show of force" is a formal military operation conducted by a nation with the purpose of demonstrating that it has both the will and the ability to use force in defense of its interests. It is fundamentally a political action, even though it utilizes military resources. The declared intention is to demonstrate resolve and prevent or deter an undesirable course of action by a rival state.11 Nevertheless, it is the equivalent of a dog baring its teeth and should not be taken lightly, especially when conducted by one major power against another. The U.S. holds shows of force fairly frequently. Over recent decades it has been the third most common type of operation for U.S. forces.12 However, for most of the past several decades, the U.S. conducted very few operations in the Asia Pacific not pertaining to the Vietnam War, and these were usually of limited length and intensity. They were often shows of force to deter North Korea from various acts of terrorism and sabotage. China was rarely involved - there was, for example, no U.S. deployment during the Tiananmen crisis. Nevertheless there are a few highly relevant precedents: By far the most important exception is the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996. This was a major show of force - and one whose shadow still hangs over the Taiwan Strait. In July 1995, Beijing launched a series of missile tests and military exercises, hoping to discourage pro-independence sentiment and dissuade the Taiwanese people from voting for President Lee Teng-hui - who was rightly suspected of favoring independence - ahead of the 1996 elections. The United States responded on March 1, 1996 by deploying two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Independence, and various warships to the area. The Nimitz even sailed through the strait. Tensions peaked ahead of the Taiwanese election on March 23, 1996 - in which voters went against China's wishes - and the show of force concluded after 48 days on April 17. Of course, tensions simmered for years afterwards. The Taiwan incident was the only operation involving China in the 1990s, and the first to do so since a minor contingency operation upon the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979. It is generally deemed successful in demonstrating U.S. commitment to Taiwan's security - but it also spurred a revolution in Chinese military affairs, such that China is today in a far better position to attack Taiwan than ever before.13 The market effects were pronounced: Chinese and Taiwanese equities sold off. American stocks were unaffected (Chart 3). Chart 3Naval Shows Of Force Can Rattle Markets The second major exception was the Hainan Island Incident, or EP-3 Incident. On April 1, 2001 a Chinese jet struck a U.S. EP-3 ARIES II signals reconnaissance plane in the skies over the South China Sea. The U.S. plane landed on China's island province of Hainan, where its crew was detained and interrogated for 10 days while their aircraft was meticulously disassembled. Ultimately the U.S. issued a half-hearted apology and the crew was released. This was a much smaller show of force than the third Taiwan crisis. The U.S. Navy positioned three destroyers in the area for two days. Chart 4A South China Sea Incident Helped Kill The Bull Market This incident marked the peak of the cycle in U.S. equities ex-tech (Chart 4). In China, both A-shares and H-shares experienced volatility before selling off in subsequent months (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 5Volatility And Selloffs Amid Asian Shows Of Force The Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island incidents occasioned a show of force. On March 26, 2010 a North Korean miniature submarine conducted a surprise torpedo attack against the Cheonan, a South Korean Corvette, sinking it and killing 46 sailors. The U.S. intended to respond by positioning the USS George Washington in the Yellow Sea, but was intimidated from doing so by China's fiercely negative diplomatic reaction. Instead it deployed the carrier to the Sea of Japan. Later that year, however, after North Korea shelled Yeonpyeong Island and killed four South Koreans, the U.S. responded with a beefed up version of regular military drills, including the George Washington, for four days in the Yellow Sea. This incident is significant in showing how aggressively China will oppose demonstrations of American naval power in its near abroad. Unlike in 1996, China is today much better positioned to react to U.S. naval action in its neighborhood. If Beijing was so resistant to a U.S. show of force against North Korea in the wake of a North Korean attack, it will be even more resistant to a U.S. display of might in China's nearby waters aimed at China in response to what China views as a defense of maritime-territorial sovereignty. Chinese A-shares sold off, while H-shares were somewhat more resilient, during this episode (Chart 5, second panel). Fire and Fury: The United States' latest significant show of force occurred in 2017 when the navy positioned three aircraft carrier strike groups in the region to deter North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric against the United States. This action ultimately led to Chinese enforcement of sanctions and North Korean capitulation to U.S. demands. Chinese stocks only briefly sold off during this episode (Chart 5, third panel). However, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield fell during the peak of tensions in the summer. So what about the global show of force that the U.S. is considering in November? Details on the specific operation under consideration are scant because they fall under a "classified proposal," written by members of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command and only partially leaked to the press (apparently to coincide with Vice President Pence's speech).14 The proposal is still being discussed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Community, so nothing is final. From the information that is publicly available, it is highly significant that the proposed show of force is supposed to be "global" in range. It would reportedly involve a "series" of military missions on "several fronts," including the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, an unspecified area near Russia, and the west coast of South America. It would also involve multiple military services - the navy, the air force, the marines, and potentially cyber and space capabilities. While the various missions would reportedly be "concentrated" and "focused," implying that the U.S. wants to manage the escalation of tensions carefully, the locations that have been named are extremely sensitive. A show of force in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea would be provocative enough. A simultaneous show of force against both China and Russia in today's context would be truly extraordinary.15 In short, if the report is accurate, the U.S. is contemplating a rare and provocative display of its global power projection capabilities. Why would the U.S. stage such a grand demonstration merely because of a taunt by a Chinese ship? The Decatur incident is only the proximate cause. Washington is in the midst of attempting a very dangerous "two-front war" against China and Iran, the latter of whom faces oil sanctions from November 4.16 Moreover, this is a "three-front war" if today's historically bad relations with Russia are taken into account. Indeed, the U.S. may well be responding to the joint show of force by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi in their own large-scale military exercises in September, in which Chinese soldiers participated in a Russian drill outside the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for the first time.17 As such, we would not put any stock in the idea that a sudden drop-off in geopolitical tensions, with China or anyone else, will occur after the U.S. midterm election on November 6. Rather, investors should expect an increase in geopolitical risk. There is no combination of midterm election results in which Trump will be forced to pull back on his "Maximum Pressure" doctrine. The proposal is not final, and the idea alone is a low-level threat that could be used in negotiations. But under the circumstances, we think it more likely than not that the U.S. will go forward with it. Ultimately, the U.S. proposal epitomizes our mega-theme of multipolarity. The U.S. is in relative decline and is reasserting itself with a muscular national security policy, particularly against China and Iran but also against Russia. However, its actions are highly unlikely to cause a change in China's behavior now that Beijing has determined that the U.S. is seeking Cold War-style strategic containment. Instead, China will hasten its efforts to become self-reliant and to deter U.S. aggression in its near abroad. Global economic policy uncertainty, and trade policy uncertainty, are likely to increase, not decrease, in such an environment. Saber-rattling and supply-chain risk will weigh on EM Asia in particular. Bottom Line: The U.S. government is contemplating an extraordinary "global show of force" that could involve a series of joint military operations across the globe. The chief focus is China, but the unknown array of operations could also target Russia or Iran. We think such operations are plausible and will increase global economic uncertainty. We would expect them to create volatility in global markets, adding to jitters over China tariffs (supply-chain risks) and Iranian sanctions (oil prices). How Will China Retaliate? China does not have the ability to respond proportionately to the U.S. - it cannot hold a global show of force of its own. Because its own shows of force will appear diminutive next to American fireworks, it may not react immediately. Beijing is more likely to respond by changing its policies to address the underlying increase in antagonism with the United States and improve its national security. We would classify its potential responses into two main groups: the low road and the high road. The low road consists of policies meant to confront the U.S. directly and forcefully. In our view, these policies bring significant costs that will make China reluctant to embrace them fully: Raise the stakes in the South China Sea: China could go for broke and deploy the full range of military assets in the islands that it has repurposed. This would provoke an even larger international naval response from the U.S. and its allies.18 Remove sanctions on North Korea: China could reverse sanctions enforcement on North Korea (Chart 6) and undermine President Trump's signature foreign policy overture. The problem is that China would then provide the U.S. with a pretext for an even greater military presence in Northeast Asia. Chart 6China Could Reverse Sanctions Enforcement Flout sanctions on Iran: China could subsidize Iran (Chart 7) in the hopes of helping to create a huge American distraction comparable to the second Iraq war. But this confrontation would threaten China with an oil shock and economic dislocation, an even greater conflict with the U.S., and the risk of regime change in Iran.19 Chart 7China Could Flout Iran Sanctions Punish U.S. companies: China could raise the pressure on U.S. companies doing business on its territory. The problem is that the U.S. has already demonstrated, through the ZTE affair this year, that it can inflict devastating reprisals against the tech champions on whom China's economic future depends (Chart 8). Chart 8U.S. Could Punish Chinese Tech Firms Thus China is most likely to take the "high road," i.e. seeking alternatives to the United States throughout the rest of the world: Chart 9China's Market Is Its Biggest Advantage Import more goods: China's greatest strength in winning friends is that its domestic demand remains relatively robust (Chart 9). China can substitute away from the U.S. by shifting to other developed markets. Emerging markets are becoming more connected with China and less so with the U.S. (Chart 10). Chart 10China's Trade Ties Grow, Ex-U.S. Maintain outward investment: China's outward investment profile is expanding rapidly (Chart 11), but there is potential for a negative political backlash - as has occurred in Malaysia.20 China will need to focus on improving relations with those countries where it expands investment, including in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).21 Chart 11China's Outward Investment Strategy: Priorities Over The Past Decade Court U.S. regional allies: Relations with South Korea have already improved; Shinzo Abe of Japan is soon to make a rare state visit to China; and trilateral trade talks between these three have revived for the first time since 2015 (Chart 12). Both the Philippines and Thailand currently have governments that are friendly to China. Beijing will need to ensure that its growing trade surpluses do not get out of whack. Chart 12Can China Court U.S. Allies? Sign multilateral trade pacts: China is trying to position itself as a leader of free trade. This is a tough sell, but a successful completion of negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) will generate some momentum. This Asia Pacific trade grouping is far larger in terms of total imports than its more sophisticated rival, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the latter being shorn of U.S. participation (Chart 13). Chart 13RCEP Is Bigger Than CPTPP Play nice in the South China Sea: Now that the U.S. is proposing to push back against Chinese militarization of the islands, it makes sense for China to take a conciliatory approach. It is proposing joint energy exploration with the Philippines and others at least as long as offshore activity is depressed (Chart 14). China might also try to settle a diplomatic "Code of Conduct" for the sea with its neighbors. Chart 14A Reason For China To Play Nice The most important consequence is an alliance with Russia, whether formal or not. The security agenda of these two powers is increasingly aligned with their robust economic partnership (Chart 15).22 The differences and distrust between them cannot override their need to guard themselves against a more assertive United States. Chart 15Embrace Of Dragon And Bear Bottom Line: China's "high road" strategies are its best options when more aggressive options have higher risks of undermining China's own long-term interests. But an alliance with Russia is quickly becoming inevitable. Investment Implications A global show of force targeting China's "core interests" in Taiwan and the South China Sea will make trade negotiations even more difficult. China is not going to offer concessions when facing U.S. military intimidation in addition to tariffs.23 Investors should watch closely for any signs that nationalist protests and boycotts of U.S. goods are developing in China. Such a movement would not be allowed to continue for long without the Communist Party condoning it. A boycott would mark a form of retaliation that is much more impactful than tariffs. A deterioration in cultural ties is also in the cards. The United States is reported to be considering restrictions on Chinese student visas after intelligence assessments of non-traditional technological and intellectual property theft via graduate students in advanced programs such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.24 U.S. markets remain insulated today, as in the last big rupture in U.S.-China relations in 1989, so we continue to expect U.S. equities to outperform Chinese (and global) stocks amid trade tensions and saber-rattling. Chart 16Last U.S.-China Crisis Prompted Stimulus... However, an important takeaway from the 1989 episode is that China stimulated the economy (Chart 16). This time we think stimulus will remain lackluster, reflecting Xi's need to keep overall leverage contained (Chart 17). But conflict escalation with the U.S. is clearly the biggest risk to this view. Chart 17...But Stimulus Muted Thus Far One oft-discussed retaliatory option is that China could sell off its vast $1.17 trillion holdings of U.S. treasuries. Rapidly dumping them is not effective, but slowly tapering is precisely what China has been doing since 2011 (Chart 18). This will accelerate its need to invest in real assets abroad and to purchase alternative reserve currencies, such as the euro, pound, and yen. Chart 18China Weans Itself Off Treasuries Ultimately, the significance of Vice President Pence's speech is that the U.S. now views China as both a great power and a threat to U.S. supremacy. This raises the potential for a large share of the $33 billion in cumulative U.S. direct investment in China since 2006 to become, effectively, stranded capital (Chart 19). If that is indeed the case, it would mean that investors in S&P 500 China-exposed companies would have to take note and re-rate their investments. Companies with significant investment in China may have to make capital investments in alternative supply-chain options, leading to a significant hit to their profit margin. Chart 19Stranded Capital In China? Other countries in Europe and the rest of Asia stand to benefit from the U.S. getting squeezed out of China's market, unless and until the new Cold War forces them to choose sides. Their choice is by no means a foregone conclusion, underscoring that China's policy response will be to seek better bonds with its neighbors and non-U.S. partners. Over the longer term, we think that our mega-theme of multipolarity will produce the bifurcation of capitalism. Within each sphere of influence globalization will continue to operate, but between spheres, or in the border areas, it will become a much less tidy affair. In addition to our recommendations above on page 2, we are reinitiating our short U.S. S&P 500 China-exposed stocks relative to the broad market. These companies have sold off heavily in recent months but the negative backdrop suggests that there is farther to go. Housekeeping On a separate note, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is closing our long U.S. high-tax rate basket relative to S&P 500 trade for a gain of 8.26%. This was a play on the Trump tax cuts that we initiated in April 2017. Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, and "The Looming Conflict In The South China Sea," May 29, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Comparable incidents in December 2013, August 2014, May 2016, December 2016, August 2017, and March 2018 did not receive such a high-level response from U.S. leaders, reflecting both the seriousness of the Decatur incident and the administration's sense of political expediency amidst the trade conflict and midterm election cycle. 9 Pence criticized Chinese President Xi by name for allegedly breaking his word on the militarization of the Spratly Islands. He suggested that China's outward investment should be understood in strategic rather than economic terms, implying that the Belt and Road Initiative is a Soviet-style plan to organize a "bloc" of nations under Chinese hegemony. And he hinted at a new defense of the Monroe Doctrine in his criticism of China's recent assistance to the collapsing socialist regime in Venezuela. Please see the White House, "Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration's Policy Toward China," dated October 4, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 10 The Trump administration's key document is Secretary of Defense James Mattis, "Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America," Department of Defense, 2018, available at dod.defense.gov. For the Xi administration, see Orange Wang and Zhou Xin, "Xi Jinping says trade war pushes China to rely on itself and 'that's not a bad thing,'" South China Morning Post, dated September 26, 2018, available at www.scmp.com; and the Information Office of the State Council, "The Facts and China's Position on China-US Trade Friction," September 2018, available at www.chinadaily.com. 11 For this discussion of shows of force please see W. Eugene Cobble, H. H. Gaffney, and Dmitry Gorenburg, "For the Record: All U.S. Forces' Responses to Situations, 1970-2000 (with additions covering 2000-2003)," Center for Strategic Studies, May 2005, available at www.dtic.mil. 12 See footnote 11 above. 13 Please see William S. Murray, "Asymmetric Options for Taiwan's Defense," Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, June 5, 2014, available at www.uscc.gov. 14 Please see Barbara Starr, "US Navy proposing major show of force to warn China," dated October 4, 2018, available at www.cnn.com. 15 Even the South American location implies that Chinese, Russian, and Iranian influence on that continent is now deemed meaningful enough to require a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine. Over the past decade, the U.S. has tended to regard these activities as limited, but now that may be changing. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "2019: The Geopolitical Recession?" dated October 3, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Russia Holds Massive War Games, As Putin And Xi Tout Ties," Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, September 11, 2018, available at www.rferl.org. 18 Australia, Japan, and the U.K. have already begun enforcing freedom of navigation alongside the U.S. 19 The U.S. could also impose secondary sanctions on China for non-compliance. State-owned energy firm Sinopec, for instance, was said to be reducing imports of crude from Iran by half in the month of September. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that Chinese refiners, like other Asian refiners, are preparing to run more light-sweet crude from the U.S. in the future, which gives a good yield in high-value-added products like gasoline. So far China has not imposed retaliatory tariffs on these imports from the U.S. Please see Chen Aizhu and Florence Tan, "China's Sinopec halves Iran oil loadings under U.S. pressure: sources," Reuters, dated September 28, 2018, available at uk.reuters.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'," dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown?" dated September 13, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, and "The Embrace Of The Dragon And The Bear," dated April 11, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Xi Jinping's refusal to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over the past weekend, and decision to visit North Korea for the first time in his term, underscores this point. 24 Please see Demetri Sevastopulo and Tom Mitchell, "US considered ban on student visas for Chinese nationals," Financial Times, dated October 2, 2018, available at www.ft.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued)

Jair Bolsonaro, an ex-army captain and a right-leaning, law-and-order candidate has won a surprising victory in the first round of the Brazilian presidential election (Chart I-1). Bolsonaro came within striking distance of 50%, but did not cross that threshold, which means that the second round will go ahead on October 28. Given that he only needs another 4% to gain a majority of votes, his victory in the second round is now the most likely outcome by far. Importantly, the results of the congressional election similarly saw a swing to the right in both legislative houses. Chart I-1Bolsonaro Outperformed In The First Round What are the prospects for pro-market structural reforms amid this apparent regime shift in Brazilian politics? How should investors be positioned over the coming months? In the short term, a Bolsonaro presidency will boost business and market sentiment. This is mainly due to the right-leaning balance of parties in Congress and hence Bolsonaro's ability to form a majority coalition. This should lead to an outperformance of Brazilian assets relative to EM on expectations of reforms being passed and implemented. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service recommends upgrading Brazil to an overweight within EM equity, credit, and local fixed-income portfolios. However, in the longer term, we expect that Bolsonaro's presidency will still be constrained on social security reforms. It is still not clear if Brazil's median voter is demanding the kind of policies touted by Bolsonaro's economic advisors. Given Bolsonaro's populism, he may not be willing to expend his political capital on painful and unpopular reforms. In light of this, investors with a 2-5 year horizon should be wary of increasing their absolute exposure to Brazilian assets. Private investors looking for long-term exposure to Brazil should be especially concerned about Bolsonaro's anti-democratic, pro-military inclinations. A New Political Regime... Bolsonaro outperformed expectations in the first round by winning 46% of the popular vote, soundly beating his main rival Fernando Haddad of the left-wing Worker's Party. Polls over the past few weeks had seen him pegged at around 30%. Yet, Sunday night's results showed Bolsonaro beating all pollsters' expectations and nearly gaining the victory in the first round. Table I-1First Round Turnout Was Low In Contrast To Pass Elections Notably, and in contrast to previous elections, overall turnout for the first round was low, standing at just 79% (Table I-1). This played into Bolsonaro's hands. Even though there will be strategic voting in the second round - and our expectation is that most left-leaning voters will switch to Haddad, the remaining left-wing candidate - Haddad's chances look slim. He needs a mass wave of Lula supporters to turn out for the vote. The fact that they did not in the first round bodes ill for him. Thus, Bolsonaro stands at strong odds of becoming Brazil's next president. Attention will turn to the mandate that Bolsonaro will receive over the next four years. In our view, the factors below will be key: Short-term constraints have fallen off: The surprising surge in right-leaning parties at the congressional level suggests that President Bolsonaro will have no immediate legislative constraints to his agenda. He will be free to pursue his policy preferences relatively unimpeded. Chart I-2Chamber Of Deputies Results This is due to both legislative houses shifting towards the right, giving Bolsonaro a mandate to form a majority right-wing government for the first time since 1998 (Chart I-2). So far, 63% of seats in the lower house have gone to center-right and right-wing parties (according to our back-of-the-envelope calculation). If all of these parties joined into a coalition it would represent a historically strong mandate. Markets will surely interpret this as a positive development. However, not all of these parties will necessarily join Bolsonaro. Moreover, reforms requiring a constitutional amendment, such as the all-important reform of Brazil's unsustainable pension system, would require a supermajority of 308 out of 513 seats (60%) in the lower house. Historically, this has proven difficult, and it will be especially tricky for a president with no executive experience, little legislative record, and who denounces the use of pork-barrel spending.1 Otherwise, Congress can ultimately be cajoled into following Bolsonaro. As such, for the first time since Lula's first election (2002 to 2006), the Brazilian president is well-positioned to pursue his agenda. Bolsonaro will likely initiate some easy supply-side policies like cutting corporate taxes and red tape for businesses. Besides, business sentiment could surge due to the emergence of a business-friendly government. Hence, Bolsonaro has some short-term, easy "boosters" before the long-term challenges resurface. Long-term constraints uncertain: Despite the above, the pace of reforms will be slow given that Bolsonaro is, in the end, a populist who will want to maintain power above all. We continue to doubt Bolsonaro's willingness and ability to pursue social security reforms. We suspect that the vast majority of his voters chose to cast their ballot due to his law-and-order agenda that included a focus on battling crime and corruption. His economic advisor, Paulo Guedes, spent more time touting his reformist credentials in foreign financial publications than on the campaign trail. As such, it is difficult to conclude that Bolsonaro actually has a strong mandate for painful pension reforms. Polls ahead of the election suggest that only 4% of the public wants pension reforms (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Chart I-4The J-Curve Of Structural Reform That said, we are open-minded and willing to be proved wrong. If Bolsonaro supports very dramatic reforms in his first 12 months in office, when his political capital is strongest, he could pull through despite the likely opposition from the median voter. As our J-Curve Of Structural Reform suggests, Bolsonaro can survive the "danger zone" if he pushes ahead with painful reforms right away (Chart I-4). He will start with sufficient political capital to do so. For long-term investors, the chief question is this: Is Bolsonaro a Brazilian Ronald Reagan or merely a Brazilian Rodrigo Duterte? Judging from everything he himself - not his advisors - has said in the past and on the campaign trail, we would bet on the latter. ...But The Same Economic Problems Brazil is getting a new government, but the macro economic challenges remain the same. Namely, ballooning public debt, still high interest rates and an unsustainable pension system (Chart I-5). As discussed above, it is not evident that Bolsonaro will strive to enact major cuts in the social security system that would be very unpopular. Apart from pensions and privatization, other choices to tackle the unsustainable public debt dynamics include reducing interest rates and boosting nominal growth (Chart I-6). Bolsonaro's economic team has repeatedly discussed the need to reduce high interest rates. Chart I-5Much Needed Pension Reform! Chart I-6Brazil's Macro Distortions   Chart I-7The Real Is Still At Risk Of Depreciation Rapid and large interest rate cuts by the central bank will help to service the public debt given that 96% of public debt is in local currency. Yet, lower interest rates could put pressure on the currency to depreciate - the interest rate differential between Brazil and the U.S. is at all-time lows (Chart I-7). Meanwhile, a weaker currency is needed to increase nominal growth. Notably, extremely low inflation and weak nominal growth have worsened the nation's public debt dynamics in recent years. Overall, lower policy rates and currency devaluation are required to reflate Brazil out of a public debt trap. If the exchange rate stabilizes in the short run as foreign investors come back to Brazil, the central bank will reduce interest rates considerably. Lower borrowing costs in combination with a sharp rise in business confidence and existing pent-up investment demand will propel capital spending, employment and overall growth. In short, these are necessary conditions for Brazilian markets to outperform their EM peers, i.e., for relative outperformance. As to absolute performance, it also depends on the outlook for global markets. In a complete global risk-off mode (the odds of which are considerable at the moment) - in which EM currencies and risk assets continue rioting and U.S. share prices drop - it will be difficult for Brazilian risk assets to rally meaningfully. That said, they will still outperform their EM peers. In the long run, pursuing policies of lower-than-needed interest rates and, hence, of chronic currency depreciation appears to be more palatable to Bolsonaro's populist credentials than difficult structural reforms. Therefore, investors who look to commit long-term capital to Brazil should mind the exchange rate. Populist policies favoring nominal growth in the long run lead to chronic currency depreciation. Bottom Line: Bolsonaro's election and his initial policies will be cheered by markets and will help Brazilian markets to outperform their EM peers for now. However, Bolsonaro is a populist and in the long term will choose economic policies that favor high nominal growth and, thereby, warrant chronic currency depreciation. Investment Recommendations Chart I-8Overweight Brazilian Assets Relative To EM In terms of market recommendations, we have the following: For EM dedicated portfolios, we recommend upgrading Brazil to overweight within the equity, credit, and local currency bonds universes (Chart I-8). BCA's Emerging Market Strategy service is taking a 14% profit on its structural short BRL versus USD position. Also, we are closing the short BRLMXN and short BRLARS trades with a 12% gain and a 5.7% loss, respectively. We also recommend closing the short Brazilian bank stocks trade initiated on May 16, 2018, as its return is now flat due to the recent rebound over the past few days. Absolute performance of Brazilian risk assets is contingent on global financial markets sentiment and at the moment odds of global risk off are considerable. This could cap the rally in Brazilian risk assets for now. Long-term investors should realize that timing Brazilian markets in general, and the exchange rate in particular, will be critical to protect gains. We believe that the path of least resistance for Bolsonaro and his team will be to depreciate the currency and engender nominal GDP growth in order to inflate away the country's public debt. This is a smart strategy for which they have a political mandate. But it will be a death-knell for foreign investors with major positions in the country.   Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In late 1998, for instance, even President Cardoso's own PSDB party deprived him of the votes needed to seal a painstakingly negotiated deal with the IMF, which led to a loss of confidence among creditors and a sharp devaluation of the real in January 1999.  

Highlights U.S. data keep surging, ... : The September ISM surveys, and the latest employment situation report, demonstrated that the economy has considerable momentum. ... and the Fed has taken note, ... : Chairman Powell and other FOMC speakers reiterated that they see no reason to de-escalate their tightening campaign. ... so we still see rates going higher, ... : Conditions do not justify checking any of the boxes on our checklist of items that might lead us to change our below-benchmark duration view. Only the international-duress box has moved closer to being checked, but nothing short of dire EM conditions will deter the Fed from following its intended path. ... and expect that concerns about the yield curve will abate for a while: The strong data and Powell's comment potentially implying a higher terminal rate promoted a bear steepening all along the yield curve. Feature It is a testament to how smoothly U.S. equities have been rising that Thursday's and Friday's 1% intraday S&P 500 declines inspired CNBC to frame the screen in fire-engine red, accompanied by a Market Sell-Off graphic. We all have to make a living, though, and it's easy to sympathize with a desperate producer. Episode after episode of Goldilocks is hardly must-see TV. Friday's employment situation report provided no relief. September payroll additions fell well short of the consensus estimate, but upward revisions for July and August more than offset the headline disappointment. The three-month moving average of 190,000 net additions is squarely within the tight range that has prevailed for several years. Forward guidance has been leached of any sort of drama as everyone on the Fed is singing from the same sheet - the economy's great; risks are balanced; and we're doing a fantastic job, if we do say so ourselves - and pointing to a continuation of the gradual pace. The market story will become more lively when inflation comes on much more strongly than either markets or the Fed seem to imagine it could, but that is next year's business (at the earliest), and we remain constructive in the meantime. More Strong Data (Yawn) The narrative that fiscal stimulus will keep the economy humming throughout this year and next is old news. Additionally, fiscal stimulus delivers the most bang for the buck when an economy is operating below potential; now that the output gap is closed, the odds are tilted against material positive surprises. Against that backdrop, last week's non-manufacturing ISM survey was startlingly robust. According to the Institute for Supply Management, the 61.6 reading, just off of the series' all-time high, corresponds to 4.6% real GDP growth. The components of the survey were strong across the board (Chart 1), with employment activity making a new all-time high (Chart 1, second panel). The prices-paid and supplier-delivery series, which provide insight into margin pressures, are contrary indicators once they get too strong, but each has yet to break out (Chart 1, bottom two panels). The September manufacturing ISM survey cooled a bit from August, but remains around 60, in the neighborhood of last cycle's high. Taken together, the two ISM surveys indicate that businesses are feeling flush, despite the deceleration in the rest of the developed world (Chart 2). Chart 1Firing On All Cylinders Chart 2American Exceptionalism The September employment report suggests that households should remain optimistic as well. Payroll growth has churned steadily ahead for seven years, and our payrolls model is calling for a pronounced uptick through the first quarter of 2019 (Chart 3). Expressed as a share of the labor force, initial claims continue to melt (Chart 4, top panel), and even after incorporating continuing claims, it looks like there's a job for everyone who wants one (Chart 4, bottom panel). A pessimist would say there's only one way that initial claims can go from here, but as the gaps between the circles and the shading show, there's typically a decent lag between the trough in claims and the onset of a recession. Chart 3The Employment Outlook Is Strong ... Chart 4... Given Initial Claims' Ongoing Collapse The bottom line is that U.S. demand is poised to remain strong. Data from the ISM and NFIB surveys, and the consumer confidence series, indicate that businesses and households are both feeling their oats. Payrolls should keep expanding, and the tight-as-a-drum labor market will keep wages nosing higher. With an elevated savings rate providing ample dry powder for additional consumption (Chart 5), the expansion should sail right through 2019. Chart 5Plenty Of Dry Powder For Consumption "A Long Way From Neutral" Fed officials have kept up an especially busy schedule of appearances since the latest FOMC meeting two weeks ago. Despite the potential for cacophony, the speakers have been singing the same tune. All agree that the economy is strong, and that the Fed has been meeting its dual mandate with unusual aplomb. The victory laps are off-putting socially, but their economic import could be far greater than their social import if they signal some institutional complacency about inflation. Potential future challenges aside, the FOMC is clearly united in its near-term course. Dovish Chicago President Evans, who has publicly agonized in recent years about the dangers of too-low inflation while pleading with his colleagues not to move too fast, has made his peace with the committee's gradual rate-hike pace. In a speech last Wednesday, he stated that, "I am more comfortable with the inflation outlook today than I have been for the past several years." In a subsequent interview with Bloomberg, he said, "Getting policy up to a slightly restrictive setting - 3, 3¼% - would be consistent with the strong economy and good inflation that we are looking at. ... I'm quite comfortable with the expected path." The week before, New York Fed President Williams was effusive in his praise of the economy's health and the Fed's role in sustaining it. "[T]he U.S. economy is doing very well overall. From the perspective of the Fed's dual mandate ..., quite honestly, this is about as good as it gets. ... The Fed has attained its dual-mandate objectives of maximum employment and price stability about as well as it ever has." Williams' speech may have been most interesting in its downplaying of the usefulness of the neutral-rate concept. The co-developer of the preeminent Laubach-Williams neutral-interest-rate model, Williams now says the idea is overblown, having "gotten too much attention in commentary about Fed policy. Back when interest rates were well below neutral, r-star [the estimate of the neutral rate] appropriately acted as a pole star for navigation. But, as we have gotten closer to the range of estimates of neutral, what appeared to be a bright point of light is really a fuzzy blur, reflecting the inherent uncertainty in measuring r-star. More than that, r-star is just one factor affecting our decisions[.]" Williams' pivot would seem to suit Chairman Powell, who has shown little enthusiasm for neutral-rate models. His speech Tuesday on the Phillips curve relationship between inflation and unemployment was mostly anodyne, though he did repeatedly stress the importance of keeping inflation expectations anchored. His interview at a public forum on Wednesday was more revealing. While he continually expressed the view that he thinks the risks to the economy are balanced, he had much more to say about not hiking enough than he did about hiking too much. Now we've come to a situation where unemployment is close to a 20-year low and headed lower, by all accounts, and the really extraordinarily accommodative, low interest rates we needed when the economy was quite weak, we don't need those any more, they're not appropriate any more. We need interest rates to be gradually, very gradually, moving back toward normal, and that's what we've been doing now, for basically three years, and interest rates have just now, in real terms, moved above zero. Interest rates are still accommodative, but we're gradually moving to a place where they will be neutral. Not that they'll be restraining the economy - we may go past neutral, but we're a long way from neutral at this point, probably.1 Our Rates Checklist Treasuries sold off sharply on Wednesday on the non-manufacturing ISM release and reports of Powell's "long way from neutral" remark. The sell-off was in line with the key pillar of our bearish duration view: the Fed will hike more than markets currently expect. Higher bond yields last week suggest the divergence between our view and the markets' view is converging in our favor. Despite the backup in yields, though, market expectations of the terminal rate are still below 3%, indicating that market participants don't expect the 25-bps-a-quarter pace to continue beyond next June. The market still has a ways to go to catch up to our 3.5-4% terminal rate forecast (Chart 6), so we are not yet close to checking the first box of the checklist (Table 1). Chart 6Fighting The Fed Table 1Rates View Checklist From the inflation section of the checklist, inflation break-evens have drifted higher. They are moving in line with our rates view, but not so swiftly that it no longer applies (Chart 7). All of the labor market indicators support the view that rates are going higher. The unemployment rate remains on course to decline, ancillary indicators of the labor market remain quite healthy, and average hourly earnings kept the beat in the September employment release (Chart 8). Chart 7Bonds Have Yet To Adjust ... Chart 8... To Building Inflation Pressures Duress in selected EM economies is the only item that has moved against our rates view since we rolled out the rates checklist last month. It is nowhere near acute enough to show up in the United States, however, so we are still a long way from checking the box. The bottom line is that strength in the U.S. economy should support higher real rates and push up inflation pressures, while the market has yet to revise its terminal-rate estimates upward. The combination supports higher rates three to twelve months down the road, even if lopsided below-benchmark positioning argues for near-term retracement. Investment Implications Expansions do not die of old age, they die because the Fed murders them. While we agree with many bond bulls that the Fed will eventually tighten monetary conditions enough to induce a recession, we do not think it will do so any time soon. BCA's modeled estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate has been creeping higher, in line with a terminal rate somewhere between 3.5 and 4%. Given the median FOMC member terminal-rate projection of 3 3/8%, and Chicago President Evans' view that the terminal rate is somewhere around 3%, the Fed's not prepared to choke off the expansion just yet. Only rising inflation, and/or rising inflation expectations, will push the Fed to tighten policy enough to really squeeze the economy. We expect that inflation pressures will begin to show themselves over the next twelve to eighteen months as capacity bottlenecks emerge, and the Phillips curve relationship finally asserts itself. Treasuries will be an overweight once the Fed intervenes forcefully to counteract those inflation pressures, but they will be an underweight for a while first. In other words, we think long yields have to rise before they can fall. In line with the BCA house view, we remain equal weight equities, underweight fixed income, and overweight cash. We remain somewhat more constructive than our colleagues on risk assets, however, so we tweak the equity recommendation to say that investors should maintain at least an equal-weight position. Bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line, and underweighting equities too soon could prove hazardous to a manager's relative performance. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 October 3rd interview with Judy Woodruff at The Atlantic Festival. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEPcPIYTMY0 Quoted passage runs from 7:26 to 8:06.

Highlights European and Japanese wages have firmed significantly, suggesting upside to inflation in these economies. However, the gain in European wages will soon reverse, as the slowdown in global trade percolates through the European economy. The ECB will not raise rates sooner or faster than currently discounted in markets, and German Bunds remain attractive in currency hedged terms. Japanese wage growth seems more sustainable but Japanese inflation expectations remain anchored to the downside, and Japan will suffer from a fiscal shock when the consumption tax is increased next October. Japan's YCC policy will remain in place for at least another 18 months, and fixed-income investors should continue to overweight JGBs in currency-hedged fixed income portfolios. Feature The pick-up in wage growth this summer in the euro area and Japan has been an interesting development. It raises the risk that inflation in these two economies is about to hit an inflection point. Since growth has returned to these two regions, if inflation were to join the party, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan would finally be able to follow in the Federal Reserve's footsteps and begin increasing rates sooner rather than later. This week we explore whether or not inflationary pressures are building in Europe and Japan, and whether or not the expected policy path of the ECB and the BoJ needs to be re-assessed. While cyclical pressures are growing, clouds above the global economy - the EM space in particular - suggest that the policy path currently anticipated by money markets is just right, and no glaring mis-pricings are evident. Euro Area: A Dawn Is Not A Sunrise The Necessary Condition For Inflation Is Here... There is no denying that we have seen massive improvements in the euro area economy. In fact, we would argue that the euro area has finally hit a stage where the necessary condition for a re-emergence of inflation has been met: Economic slack has vanished. There seems to be little spare capacity in the aggregate euro area economy. Today the OECD measure for the output gap stands at +0.5% of GDP. Additionally, a basic approach comparing the level of industrial production to a simple statistical filter further confirms this assessment, showing that production stands 2% above trend (Chart 1). The capacity utilization measure published by the European Commission goes one step further, showing that utilization is at its highest level since 2008. This represents a very significant change from the days of 2011-2015, when capacity utilization stood below the average that prevailed from the time of the euro's introduction (Chart 2). Chart 1No More Slack In Europe Chart 2Capacity Utilization Is At Previous Cycle Peaks The labor market has been a particular source of concern for euro area watchers. After all, how can an economy generate any domestic inflationary pressures if wages remain depressed? On that front too, there is plenty to rejoice about. The gap between the euro area's unemployment rate and the OECD's estimate of the non-accelerating rate of unemployment (NAIRU) has nearly fully disappeared. Historically, such an occurrence has been associated with a rise in European core inflation (Chart 3). In fact, the ECB's labor underutilization survey is now at its lowest level in 10 years. Moreover, in its various business conditions surveys, the European Commission asks firms whether labor is a factor limiting production. With the exception of Italy, the number of firms reporting that labor shortages are a problem in most of the major economies stands at or near record highs (Chart 4). This confirms the simple impression provided by the gap between the unemployment rate and NAIRU that the labor market is beginning to create generalized inflationary and wage pressures. Chart 3Diminishing Labor Market Slack Leads##br## To Growing Inflationary Pressures Chart 4Labor Shortages In ##br##The Euro Area ...But The Sufficient Conditions Remain Murkier While the tight labor market suggests that wages have cyclical upside, is it even true that higher wages do lead to higher inflation in the euro area? The answer is yes. Chart 5 shows that euro area wages tend to lead core CPI by approximately three quarters, with an explanatory power of nearly 87%. This makes sense. Higher wages increase the cost of production for businesses, which results in cost-push inflation. This is even more true if wages rise in real terms, which boosts household's income and supports consumption. Thus, it is likely that the recent spike in wages will lead to higher core inflation. Despite this positive backdrop, some key cyclical worries remain. First, our CPI diffusion index for the euro area, measuring the breadth of inflation increases within the subcomponents of the CPI, is in free-fall. Historically, this has been a worrying sign for core inflation, and for both nominal and real wages (Chart 6). Chart 5In Europe, Wages ##br##Lead Core CPI Chart 6But CPI Diffusion Index Suggests Real Wages ##br##And Core CPI Could Hit A Speed Bump The bigger risk originates from outside the euro area. We have shown in the past that EM shocks can have a disproportionate impact on European economic activity.1 This link seems to run deeper than we had originally realized. As Chart 7 shows, euro area nominal and real wages tend to follow the trend in European exports to EM and China. The logical conclusion is that export shocks end up affecting the whole economy by depressing profits, capex and the willingness of firms to provide wage increases to their employees. This also ends up reverberating into consumption as both nominal and, more importantly, real wages suffer. Today, weakening exports to EM and China suggest that European wages may soon roll over. This would take the wind out of price inflation as well, since wages lead core CPI by roughly three quarters. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service as well as our Emerging Market Strategy sister publication have already highlighted that EM economies are likely to slow further in the coming quarters as China works to de-lever - a process which has already begun (Chart 8).2 Thus, the negative impact of EM on European growth and wages is likely only to grow over the coming quarters. The euro area leading economic indicator (LEI) has already picked up on these dynamics. The deterioration in the LEI suggests that real wages are likely to soon suffer, which will further dent euro area consumption and weigh on core inflation (Chart 9). Chart 7Exports To EM Are The Culprit##br## Behind This Speed Bump Chart 8Limited Upside Ahead##br## In Chinese Growth Chart 9Euro Area LEI Confirms##br## The Message From Exports Adding up those various message we conclude that while we could soon see some upside in inflation via a pass-through of the recent pick-up in wages, the upside is likely to prove transitory as the euro area economy will soon feel the deflationary impact of the slowdown in EM economic activity. What Will The ECB Do? The ECB will end its asset purchase program at the end of this year. Money markets are currently pricing in a full 25-basis-point hike in interest rates by March 2020. However, various formulations of the Taylor Rule suggest that euro area interest rates should already be higher than they currently are (Chart 10). What are interest rates likely to really do in relation to this date? Despite these hawkish Taylor Rule estimates, we think the ECB is likely to wait and see. As we highlighted above, the slack in the euro area economy is dissipating, and therefore inflationary pressures are bound to build up. However, the slowdown in EM that is reverberating through global trade will weigh on inflation over the coming six months. Additionally, we need to monitor developments in shadow policy rates.3 After the Fed began tapering its asset purchases in 2014, the U.S. shadow rate increased by roughly 300 basis points. While the actual fed funds rate was not raised until the end of 2015, the implied tightening from the rise in the shadow rate was enough to cause both U.S. and non-U.S. growth to slow sharply in 2015. Since bottoming in November 2016, the ECB's shadow rate has increased by 450 basis points. Even if European monetary conditions remain accommodative, this is a large and sudden shock to absorb - one that goes a long way in explaining the sudden contraction in the euro area credit impulse (Chart 11). Chart 10Does Europe Really Need Higher Rates? Chart 11Large Tightening In Euro Area Shadow Rate Ultimately, while the reduction in the euro area economic slack is real, the aforementioned dynamics are worrisome. Hence, we do not think that the ECB will want to prematurely kill off the recovery. Memories of the policy mistake of 2010, when the ECB raised rates in a too-weak economy, are still very much alive on the ECB's Governing Council. This means that a small first hike of less than 25 basis points in late 2019 or early 2020 seems appropriate, as there should be more convincing evidence by then that the economy can tolerate higher interest rates. Hence, there does not seem to currently be any mis-pricing in the European interest rate curve since investors are correctly pricing in a full 25-basis points of hikes from the ECB by March 2020. Investment Implications We continue to recommend U.S. investors hold European bonds while hedging the currency exposure back into U.S. dollar. A hedged 10-year Bund currently yields 3.66%, compared to 3.2% for a 10-year Treasury note. The picture above does not suggest that Bund yields will have enough upside to generate the capital losses needed to offset this yield pick-up, especially as Treasury prices suffer greater potential downside. This also means that once hedging costs are taken into account, European fixed-income investors are better off staying at home than playing in the U.S. government bond market. The impact for EUR/USD is more complex. The U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is currently pricing in roughly three rate hikes by the Fed over the next 12 months. BCA think that there could be even more U.S. rate hikes as the Fed continues to follow a 25 basis-points-per-quarter pace. Thus, we do not see the spread between U.S. and euro area interest rates narrowing in a more bullish direction for the euro Moreover, currencies trade on more than just interest rate differentials. The dollar has historically responded favorably to slowing EM growth. Moreover, as we highlighted three weeks ago, since the U.S. balance of payments is currently in surplus, this means that the U.S. is sucking in liquidity from the rest of the world.4 This is another way of saying that the world is buying more dollars than the U.S. is supplying. As a result, the dollar could continue to experience upside versus the euro over this period from factors beyond simple rate differentials. Bottom Line: The euro area economic slack has greatly dissipated and the medium term outlook for inflation is improving. Moreover, the recent pick-up in euro area wages suggest that core CPI could also pick up in the coming months. However, this increase in inflation is likely to prove temporary. Before inflation can increase durably, Europe will first have to digest the deflationary impact of slowing EM economies and global trade. This means that the ECB is likely to proceed with policy normalization very cautiously. The current pricing of 25 basis points of hikes by March 2020 is sensible. Hence, investors should continue to overweight Bunds hedged back into dollars in global fixed income portfolios. Moreover, EUR/USD could experience additional weaknesses on a 12-month basis. Japan: Fragile Progress, But Not Enough This past June, Japanese wage growth hit rates not seen in 21 years. This is enough to begin wondering if Japan is finally escaping its two-decades-long deflationary trap. After all, as Chart 12 shows, Japanese wages are a slow but nonetheless leading indicator of core inflation. Giving even more comfort to forecasts of higher Japanese inflation is the fact that, after falling continuously from the bubble peak in the early 1990s until Q1 2017, Japanese land prices have been slowly but surely increasing. Inflationary pressures in Japan are building up because the economy is at full employment. According to the BoJ, the output gap stands at +1.9% and has been positive for two years. The unemployment rate is at a stunningly low level of 2.4%, and the active job opening-to-applicant ratio stands at a four-decade high. The implications of this backdrop are evident. Chart 13 shows the demand/supply condition component of the Tankan survey of Japanese businesses, both in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors. It has historically been a good explanatory variable for wage developments in Japan, and currently points to additional strength. Chart 12Rising Japanese Wages Should Boost Core Inflation Chart 13Capacity Pressures Are Lifting Japanese Wages Despite these positive developments, there remain some nagging worries. For one, the pick-up in wages seems strange in an economy where total hours worked are not rising (Chart 14). Moreover, Japanese households are currently increasing their savings ratio, which means that while they might be earning more, they are keeping this money in their bank accounts rather than spending it (Chart 14, bottom panel). As a result, there has been a limited pass-through of the recent wage acceleration into higher consumption. Additionally, like in Europe, the Japanese economy is at risk from foreign shocks. While the domestic economy seems robust, foreign machinery orders have been weakening. Industrial production has followed this path, decelerating sharply (Chart 15). Historically, Japanese inflation is very sensitive to the level of broader economic activity, so this weakening trend in industrial activity points to limited upside for overall inflation. Chart 14Weird Dynamics In Japan Chart 15Japan: The Domestic Front Is Healthy, The Foreign One Is Not The biggest problem faced by the BoJ, however, remains the weakness in inflation expectations. In the eyes of the Japanese central bank, the reason why Japanese realized inflation and wage growth have remained tepid is because decades of low inflation have created embedded expectations among the Japanese to not expect rising prices. Today, Japanese inflation expectations are once again weakening, a common occurrence when global growth slows (Chart 16). Additionally, Japan could hit a fiscal cliff of sorts next year. In October 2019, the consumption tax will increase from 8% to 10%. The last such increase - a three-percentage point hike in 2014 - caused a major slowdown in economic activity that had a deep deflationary impact. While the increase this time around is smaller and the Japanese economy is stronger than in 2014-2015, it remains to be seen how the country handles the shock of a fiscal tightening via a higher sales tax, especially if exports to EM remain on their downward path. The BoJ is likely to be very cognizant of this risk. Currently, the low level of inflation means that the real BoJ policy rate is in line with that of the U.S., a much stronger economy (Chart 17, top panel). Since Japan still faces a fiscal cliff next year and inflation expectations have not yet been unmoored to the upside, the current increase in wages is not enough to push the BoJ to abandon its Yield Curve Control (YCC) policy. What about QQE? The low shadow rate means that the BoJ does not need to buy assets anymore (Chart 17, bottom panel). Yet, the problem for Japan is that QQE possesses a strong signaling component. Ending this program is likely to cause markets to price in the end of YCC, which would drive nominal rates higher and thus result in both higher real rates and a significant tightening in monetary policy. As a result, we expect QQE to remain in place so that YCC will stay credible. However, the program is likely to have a slower pace of buying than before and will be too small to fully absorb the new issuances of JGBs by the MoF (Chart 18). Chart 16The BoJ's ##br##Number 1 Problem Chart 17The Signaling Effect Of QQE Is##br## Still Needed Because Of YCC... Chart 18...But QQE Doesn't Need To Be ##br##Quite As Large Anymore In terms of signposts that would signal to us to begin betting on an end to YCC, we continue to target three things that must ALL happen in unison, highlighted by BCA's Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist, Rob Robis, in February:5 USD/JPY rises at least to the 115-120 range; Japanese core CPI and nominal wage inflation both rise above 1.5%; 10-year JGB yields reaching an overvalued extreme, based on a model that includes potential GDP, BoJ purchases and the level of 10-year Treasury yields. So far, none of these conditions has been met. In fact, the slowdown in global trade and EM activity could even threaten the current improvement witnessed in wages. As a result, we expect all three of these developments to only happen in 2020, leaving Japanese yields with very limited upside. Investment Implications Japanese fixed-income investors continue to be subsidized to remain at home and avoid U.S. Treasuries. Because short rates in Japan are so low, the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries hedged into yen yield is 0.05%, less than the 0.16% yield on 10-year JGBs. At the same time, U.S. fixed income investors are incentivized to buy JGBs and hedge the currency exposure into dollars. Additionally, with the BoJ unlikely to abandon its YCC program for potentially two more years, JGBs with up to 10-year maturities are unlikely to suffer capital losses. Largely for this reason, BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy's recommended model bond portfolio, maintains a large overweight position in JGBs, but only for maturities less than 10 years as the BoJ's YCC program is not focused on yields beyond the 10-year point. Regarding the yen, the outlooks is treacherous. On one hand, a strong USD implies a weaker yen. So do higher 10-year Treasury yields, especially if JGB yields possess little upside. On the other hand, weakness in the EM space tends to result in a stronger yen as carry trades get unwound. Due to these bifurcated risks, we do not recommend buying the yen against the dollar. However, we think that at current levels the yen remains an attractive play against the euro and against the Australian dollar, especially on a six- to nine-month basis. Bottom Line: Japanese wages have enjoyed significant upside, but Japanese inflation expectations remain moribund. Moreover, Japan is likely to experience a negative fiscal shock next year as the consumption tax will once again be increased. These two risks, in addition with slowing global growth, mean that the BoJ is unlikely to abandon YCC until well into 2020. As a result, investors should continue to overweight JGBs with maturities of less than 10-years hedged back into U.S. dollars in a global fixed income portfolio. USD/JPY should enjoy further upside on a 12-month basis. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "ECB: All About China", dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Deciphering Global Trade Linkages", dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3 The shadow rate is a measure of the impact of the various unorthodox policy initiatives implemented by central banks in the wake of the great financial crisis. It tries to express the effect of those measures in terms of the implied levels of policy rates that would have needed to prevail for the economy to generate the same performance if asset purchases had not been implemented. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game", dated September 14, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, titled "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target", dated February 13, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Heightening geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China, higher U.S. bond yields, tightening U.S. dollar liquidity and weakening EM/China growth - all combined - constitute a bitter cocktail for EM. Barring a meaningful improvement in Chinese growth, higher U.S. bond yields will be overwhelming for EM financial markets. U.S. banks are not creating new dollars sufficiently. In addition, they are shrinking their claims on EM. The U.S. dollar is primed for another upleg. Downgrade Indian stocks from overweight to underweight within a dedicated EM equity portfolio. Feature As China becomes more assertive and slightly hostile toward the U.S., this will likely mark a paradigm shift in the macro landscape and asset valuations and, hence, could become a grey swan1 event for emerging markets (EM). Investors remain complacent about the ongoing geopolitical confrontation between these two economic giants as well as other headwinds that China and EM are facing. The decision by the Trump administration to raise import tariffs to 25% on $200 billion of China's exports to the U.S. as of January 1, 2019 is an unambiguous signal that U.S. trade confrontation with China is not a pre-mid-term election political plot. Instead, it is the beginning of a long-term geopolitical battle between an existing and rising superpower. Remarkably, the just-concluded trade deal between the U.S., Mexico and Canada (USMCA) includes language that requires signatories to give notice if they plan to negotiate a free trade deal with a "non-market" economy.2 Provided "non-market" country is for now implied to be China, this corroborates that confrontation with the latter is a new long-term strategy for the U.S. In addition, investors should not expect China to be constantly on the defensive. Both the political leadership and people in China have realized that trade is not the only aspect where the U.S. is likely to challenge the Middle Kingdom, and they recognize it will be a long-term battle. Therefore, the communist party and President Xi will counter the U.S. with reasonably tough actions. Quite simply, failure to do so will place the political leadership's credibility in question. President Xi understands this well, and will not allow it to happen. It is hard to forecast the avenues and approaches that Chinese leadership will explore to confront the U.S. Yet the recent navy incident in the South China Sea exemplifies that China will not be silent in this row.3 More generally, EM financial markets are not ready for such negative surprises. For example, there has been little capitulation on the part of asset managers with respect to EM equities. In fact, they have lately been buying EM ETF futures (Chart I-1). Global financial market volatility calculated as an equally weighted average of volatility in U.S. and EM equities, U.S. bonds, various currencies, oil and gold are near its historic lows (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Asset Managers Have Been Buying EM Equity Futures Chart I-2Financial Markets Volatility Is Very Low Remarkably, the U.S. bond market volatility is at an all-time low while bond yields are breaking out (Chart I-3). Odds are the U.S. yields will move up considerably. The basis is that strong growth and rising inflation in the U.S. warrant considerably higher bond yields and more Fed rate hikes than are currently priced in. Barring a meaningful improvement in Chinese growth and global trade, higher U.S. bond yields will be overwhelming for EM financial markets. In particular, higher U.S interest rates could trigger another downleg in the value of Chinese yuan. Chart I-4 illustrates that the China-U.S. interest rate differential has been instrumental to moves in the RMB/USD exchange rate. Chart I-3A Breakout In U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-4China Vs. U.S.: Does Interest Rate ##br##Differential Explain Exchange Rate? Apart from the heightening geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China and higher U.S. bond yields, weakening EM/China growth, tightening global U.S. dollar liquidity and a strong U.S. dollar all combined will constitute a bitter cocktail for EM. We discuss some of these negatives below. All in all, financial markets could be on the cusp of a volatility outbreak, and EM will still be at the epicenter of the storm. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service continues to recommend short positions in EM risk assets and an underweight allocation versus DM. A Dead Cat Bounce... Emerging markets share prices have attempted to stage a rebound lately, but so far it appears to be nothing more than a dead cat bounce. Even thought the aggregate EM equity index managed a 5% bounce in recent weeks, both the EM equally weighted equity and small-cap indexes have failed to rebound at all (Chart I-5, top and middle panels). Similarly, EM bank stocks - which make up 17% of the MSCI market cap and are the key to the benchmark's performance - have not rallied (Chart I-5, bottom panel). This is occurring at a time when the S&P 500 is at all-time highs. These are very unhealthy signs for EM risk assets. ...As China/EM Growth Continues To Downshift The premise behind the lack of meaningful rebound in EM equities in our view is that both global manufacturing and world trade growth continue to downshift (Chart I-6, top panel). The epicenters of the slowdown are China and other emerging economies (Chart I-6, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-5No Confirmation Of EM Rebound Chart I-6EM/China Growth Is Decelerating Importantly, the Markit PMI manufacturing surveys suggest export orders contracted in September in the world's important manufacturing hubs, including China, Japan, Taiwan and Germany. The last time such poor export performance was registered was more than two years ago. The slump in the aggregate EM manufacturing PMI explains not only the EM equity selloff but also EM credit spreads widening and EM currency depreciation since the beginning of this year (Chart I-7). So long as the weakening trend in EM/China and global trade growth persist, EM risk assets and currencies will continue to sell off. Regarding China, growth deceleration was already occurring before the initial import tariffs took hold. Specifically, not only are overseas orders weak, but also domestic orders have rolled over decisively, as indicated by the People's Bank of China's (PBoC) 5000 industrial enterprise survey (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Weakening Growth Explains Selloff In ##br##EM Credit And Currencies Chart I-8China: Domestic And Overseas Orders In the mainland, the boost to infrastructure spending in the coming months will likely be offset by a slump in property construction and other segments of the economy. We discussed this angle in our recent report,4 but in recent days there has been more real estate market tightening. Specifically, the authorities are considering the cancellation of the housing pre-sale system in Guangdong province - a policy that could be applied to other geographies. The motive of this tightening is to curb both the land-buying frenzy and Ponzi financing schemes that many developers are involved in. This fits the policy script of dealing with and purging speculation and excesses early to prevent a bust later. These policy measures will cut off property developers from their primary source of funding - presales - and force them to reduce their construction volumes. As an unintended consequence of this announcement, some developers have already begun cutting house prices to accelerate pre-sales and raise funds. Given already bubbly property valuations and the existence of substantial speculative buying, house price deflation could set off a domino chain effect of lower prices, reduced speculative investment purchases and financial strains on developers, leading them in turn to offer even larger price discounts to generate funds faster, and so on. Forecasting the exact trajectory of a downturn and the speed of its adjustment is impossible. This is why we focus on the presence of major imbalances/excesses and policy tightening that could cause disentangling of these excesses. Given the still-considerable property market excesses5 prevalent in China and the money/credit tightening that has already occurred in the past two years, we reckon the odds of a material property market downtrend are substantial. On the whole, our main theme for China and EM remains that mainland construction activity will continue to downshift, with negative implications for countries that supply construction goods, materials and equipment. U.S. Dollars Shortages? The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and inflationary pressures continue to rise. Barring a deflationary shock from China/EM, the Federal Reserve has little reason to halt its rate hikes or abandon its policy of shrinking its balance sheet. Not only are U.S. interest rates rising, but there are also budding U.S. dollar shortages that will get worse: The U.S. banking system's excess reserves at the Fed are dwindling, as the latter continues to shrink its balance sheet (Chart I-9). U.S. banks' dollar-denominated claims on foreign entities in general and emerging markets in particular are shrinking (Chart I-10). Thus, EM debtors in particular have found themselves short of dollars. Chart I-9The U.S. Dollar Is Primed For Another Upleg Chart I-10U.S. Dollar Shortages In Rest Of World Finally, U.S. banks are not creating enough dollars - their total assets are growing at a paltry rate of 1%, and U.S. broad money (M2) growth is expanding at 4% annually - the slowest pace in the past 14 years excluding the aftermath of the 2008 credit crisis (Chart I-11). Bottom Line: The Fed is shrinking its balance sheet, and high-powered money/liquidity in the banking system is falling. This and other factors are discouraging U.S. banks from creating new U.S. dollars. Along with rising U.S. interest rates, this will propel the greenback higher, which will be detrimental for EM risk assets. Equity Portfolio Rotation Amid High Oil Prices Given the recent breakout in oil prices, we make the following changes to our country equity allocation: Upgrade Russia from neutral to overweight.4 October 2018 Orthodox macro policy and high oil prices will help this bourse to outperform the EM benchmark (Chart I-12, top panel). We have already been overweight Russia within EM local bonds, currency and credit portfolios.6 Chart I-11U.S. Banks Are Not Creating Sufficient Amount Of Dollars Chart I-12Upgrade Russian And Colombian Equities ##br##From Neutral To Overweight Upgrade Colombian equities from neutral to overweight. Like Russia, high oil prices and orthodox macro policies justify an upgrade (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Upgrade Malaysia from underweight to neutral.4 October 2018 High energy prices, hope for structural changes and low inflation do not justify an underweight stance. Still, Malaysia is vulnerable to slowdown in global trade and credit excesses of the past years that have not yet been worked out. This prevents us from upgrading this bourse to overweight. Downgrade Philippines equities from neutral to underweight.4 October 2018 Inflation is breaking out and the central bank is behind the curve.7 Downgrade India from overweight to underweight. More detailed analysis on India starts on the following page. Our equity overweights are Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Brazil, South Africa, India, the Philippines, Indonesia and Peru. The complete list of our equity, fixed-income, credit and currency allocations are always presented at the end of our Weekly Reports, please refer to page 16. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Downgrade Indian Equities 4 October 2018 We are downgrading our allocation to Indian stocks from overweight to underweight within an EM-dedicated equity portfolio (Chart II-1). Rising stress in the country's non-bank finance companies - the recent default of finance company Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited and the fire-sale of Dewan Housing Finance bonds by a mutual fund - has been responsible for escalating financial risks, and will have ramifications for overall macro stability and growth. Stress Among Finance Companies: Liquidity Or Solvency? Finance companies account for about 12% of the MSCI India Stock Index. Further, there are deep interlinkages between them and mutual funds. Chart II-2 shows that mutual funds have exponentially increased their claims on non-bank finance companies by purchasing commercial paper (short-term debt obligations) issued by the latter. Chart II-1Failure To Break Out Is A Bad Omen Chart II-2Mutual Funds' Exposure To Finance Companies Further signs that the non-bank finance sector is having difficulties rolling over or repaying their debt obligations will hurt mutual funds. This might trigger redemptions from the latter by their own investors. Importantly, mutual funds' net purchases of equities as well as bonds has been very strong in recent years, often outpacing that of foreigners (Chart II-3). Given the former's large holdings of various securities, forced selling by mutual funds can often create an air pocket for Indian financial markets: local investors will be selling at a time when foreign investors are not yet ready to buy. Odds are considerable that stress will continue to escalate in the non-bank financial sector. Short-term interest rates and corporate bond yields are rising (Chart II-4). This is occurring at a time when non-bank finance companies are very vulnerable because of their liquidity mismanagement. Chart II-3Indian Mutual Funds Are Large Investors In Stocks And Bonds Chart II-4Rising Borrowing Costs Financial data from six non-bank finance companies included in the MSCI India Equity Index reveals that short-term debt levels for these companies are extremely elevated (Chart II-5, top panel) and their liquidity situation is grim. A measure of liquidity risk, calculated as short-term investments (including cash) minus short-term borrowing, has plummeted and is in deep negative territory (Chart II-5, bottom panel). In short, these finance companies have been borrowing short term and lending long term. Additionally, these entities will soon have to deal with surging non-performing assets (NPAs). Total assets for large finance companies - including the six companies included in the MSCI Equity Index - have grown at an annual average of around 20% since 2010. It is difficult to lend or invest at such a rapid pace while avoiding capital misallocation and the accumulation of bad assets. Crucially, the current level for NPAs for these six finance companies is 2.3% of risk-weighted assets, but could rise much further. Their provisions stand 2.1%, which barely covers existing NPAs. Hence, provisions have to rise multi-fold. For example, if NPAs rise to 12%, that would wipe out 32% of these companies' equity. We assume a recovery ratio of 30% on these bad assets. For comparison, the NPA ratio for overall the banking system has already surged to about 12%. Finally, commercial banks' lending to finance companies has been excessive in recent years (Chart II-6). Commercial banks are already swamped with rising non-performing loans, and any additional stress among finance companies will damage investor sentiment and negatively impact banks' share prices. Chart II-5Finance Companies: Liquidity Strains Are ##br##Rooted In Maturity Mismatches Chart II-6Banks' Exposure To Finance Companies Bottom Line: Odds are that the liquidity stress among finance companies will escalate and turn into a solvency problem. This will harm mutual funds in particular and cause them to liquidate their equity and bond holdings. Indian financial markets will selloff further. Limited Maneuvering Room For Central Bank High crude prices, rising inflation and mounting financial stress are placing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in an extremely precarious position: If the central bank provides sufficient liquidity or reduces interest rates to deal with budding stress in the financial system, the currency will plunge further; If the RBI does not provide sufficient liquidity or hikes rates to put a floor under the rupee, the stress in the financial system will worsen. It seems the central bank is currently biased to providing liquidity to contain financial system stress. In fact, the central bank has already injected bank reserves through the liquidity adjustment facility. In addition, it announced upcoming purchases of government securities in October in the order of Rs. 360 billion and has stressed its willingness to provide more injections if the need arises. This is negative for the currency which will continue to tumble, especially at a time when the U.S. dollar is well-bid worldwide. In turn, continued currency depreciation will make foreign investors net sellers of stocks and bonds. Bottom Line: We recommend investors downgrade India from overweight to underweight. We are also closing our long Indian banks / short Chinese banks at a 2% loss. Concerning equity sectors, we are reiterating our long Indian software companies' stocks / short EM overall equity benchmark. This trade is up 22%, and a cheaper rupee and strong DM growth herald further gains. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 A grey swan is an event that can be anticipated to a certain degree but is considered unlikely to occur and would have a sizable impact on financial markets if it were to occur. 2https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/united-states-mexico# 3https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/china-us-warship-unsafe-encounter/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Desynchronization Compels Currency Adjustments," dated September 20, 2018, a link available on page 16. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?," dated April 6, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, link available on ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The Philippines: Duterte's Money Illusion," dated April 25, 2018, link available on ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Investors who are betting on a quick resolution to the U.S./China trade war following the "new NAFTA" deal and the U.S. midterm elections have likely been taken in by false hope. Stay neutral China relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. The relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been almost entirely determined by their beta characteristic, with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming. Energy stocks have been among the top outperformers within the Chinese equity universe, and several factors support our recommendation that investors initiate an outright long position. While it is likely paused rather than stalled, broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant over the coming 6-12 months. Consequently, we are closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade. Feature September's PMI releases, both official and private, confirm that China's export outlook is deteriorating rapidly. Chart 1 highlights that the Caixin PMI is about to fall below the boom/bust line, and the new export orders component of the official PMI has sunk to a 2 ½ year low. Somewhat oddly, investors do not seem to be responding negatively to the de-facto announcement of a 25% rate on the second round of U.S. import tariffs against China. Chart 2 shows that domestic infrastructure stocks have actually been rising relative to global stocks since mid-September, and our BCA China Play Index appears to have entered a (so far very modest) uptrend. Chart 1The Export Shock Is Coming... Chart 2...But Investors Have Been Incrementally Upbeat One possible explanation for this is that investors are doubling down on the idea that China will have to aggressively stimulate in response to the shock. We have leaned against this narrative, by arguing in past reports that China's policy response to the upcoming export shock is not likely to be heavily credit-based, and that increases in fiscal spending today will involve more "soft infrastructure" than in the past.1 Chart 3 certainly shows no evidence of a spike in broad money or total credit; adjusted total social financing growth barely accelerated in August, against the backdrop of promises to front-run planned fiscal spending over the coming year. Chart 3No Major Acceleration In Credit Growth Evident Yet Chart 4Americans Support A Tough Stance Against China But a second explanation of recent investor behavior, one that we have been hearing more loudly from some market participants, is that China is waiting until after the midterm elections in the U.S. to make a deal, in anticipation that Republican losses in Congress will weaken Trump and change the political reality in terms of trade policy towards China. There are three reasons why investors holding this view are likely mistaken, and have been taken in by false hope: In the U.S., the actual implementation of tariffs lies within the control of the Presidency. Congress has delegated substantial authority to the president that would take time to be clawed back. Moreover, the president controls the execution of tariffs, and has a general prerogative over national security issues, which certainly includes the trade war with China. Democratic control of the House or Senate may cause President Trump to act even more forcefully against China, as trade will be among the few relatively unfettered policy options left to him. Chart 4 highlights that a sizeable majority of the American public views Chinese trade policy towards the U.S. as unfair, unlike the U.S.' other major trade partners. Reflecting this point, Democrats themselves maintain a hawkish stance on trade with China. This suggests that Trump will have a strong mandate to continue to demand major concessions from China even after the elections. We agree that Chinese stocks have already priced in a sizeable earnings decline, but we would still characterize buying now as an ill-advised case of trying to catch a falling knife. We highlighted in our September 19 Weekly Report that during the 2014-2016 episode Chinese stocks bottomed several months after stimulus began to take effect,2 because of a delayed decline in forward earnings. A similar situation would appear to be developing this time around: the third round of tariffs against China will likely soon be announced, the shock to Chinese export growth will soon manifest itself in the data, and yet Chinese forward earnings have only fallen 5-6% from their June peak. Bottom Line:Investors who are betting on a resolution to the U.S./China trade war following the U.S. midterm elections have likely been taken in by false hope. Stay neutral China relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. Recent Sector Performance: A Beta Story, And A New Trade Idea Chart 5Last Week We Closed One Of Our Most Successful Calls We recommended closing one of our most successful trades of the past year in a brief Special Report last week.3 The report outlined major changes to the global industry classification standard (GICS) that took effect this week, as well as the implications for China's stock market. One key change is that Alibaba, one of the "BATs", is now part of the consumer discretionary sector and makes up roughly 60% of its market capitalization. Given this fundamental shift in the risk/reward profile of the position, we recommended closing our long MSCI China Consumer Staples / short MSCI China Consumer Discretionary trade for a profit of 47% (Chart 5). With the goal of identifying new trade ideas that are likely to outperform within the context of a trade war, Chart 6 presents the alpha and beta characteristics of 23 industry groups in the MSCI China index (the investable benchmark) from mid-June to the end of September. The x-axis of the chart represents the group's beta versus the benchmark, whereas the y-axis shows standardized alpha over the period. The chart also distinguishes between out/underperforming sectors. Chart 6Since Mid-June, Sector Performance Has Largely Been Beta-Driven Several points are notable: Largely speaking, the relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been determined by their beta characteristic (with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming). This supports our existing position of favoring low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index, a trade that we initiated on June 27.4 Four industry groups that belong to traditionally cyclical sectors have outperformed since mid-June and have had a beta less than 1: energy, capital goods, banks, and consumer durables and apparel. Energy and capital goods have been particularly notable, having outperformed by 24% and 15%, respectively. Technology-related industry groups have underperformed, including the pharma, biotech, and life sciences industry group within health care. Consumer services and retailers have significantly underperformed, due to the heavy influence of travel-related businesses in both indexes. Among the top performing industry groups over the past three months, Chinese energy stocks look like the most compelling trade in absolute terms. While we are normally reluctant to chase performance, several factors support an outright long position: BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service is bullish on oil prices, and recently increased their 2019 Brent price forecast to $95/bbl based on both supply and demand factors.5 Despite the recent outperformance of Chinese energy companies within the investable universe, they remain cheap versus global energy companies based on cash flow-based valuation metrics (Chart 7). This is true even after accounting for the fact that they are typically discounted relative to their global peers due to heavy state ownership. Chinese energy companies look reasonably priced relative to the value of global oil production (Chart 8). Chinese energy companies largely receive their revenue in U.S. dollars, which is an attractive hedge in an environment where CNY-USD may decline further. Chart 7Chinese Energy Stocks Are Cheap Versus Their Global Peers... Chart 8...And Versus The Value Of Global Oil Production Given this, we are updating our trade book and recommend that investors initiate an outright long position in Chinese energy stocks as of today. Chart 9Despite Outperforming, Absolute Capital Goods Performance Has Been Lackluster What about Chinese capital goods companies? For now, we are content with relative rather than absolute exposure, which (surprisingly) exists in our low-beta sectors trade. Capital goods companies account for almost 70% of the Chinese industrial sector, and industrial stocks have been less volatile than the broad market over the past year, in large part because they underperformed so significantly in 2017. Given this, they have been included in our low-beta sectors portfolio, despite being typically pro-cyclical. In absolute terms, though, it is far from clear that Chinese capital goods stocks will trend higher (Chart 9). Some investors are hopeful that capital goods producers will benefit from a significant acceleration in infrastructure spending but, as we noted above, the bar is high for the type of stimulus that investors have come to expect. In addition, potential weakness in property construction could be a drag, and could offset gains from a pickup in infrastructure investment.6 We recommend that investors stick with a relative position, until compelling signs of a stimulus overshoot emerge. Bottom Line: The relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been almost entirely determined by their beta characteristic, with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming. Energy stocks have been among the top outperformers within the Chinese equity universe, and several factors support our recommendation that investors initiate an outright long position. A Pause In Broad "Reform" As An Investment Theme Following last November's Communist Party Congress, we noted that China was likely to step up its reform efforts in 2018, and would take meaningful steps to: Pare back heavy-polluting industry Hasten the transition of China's economy to "consumer-led" growth Slow or halt leveraging in the corporate/financial sector Eliminate corruption and graft We argued that Chinese policymakers would have to set the pace of reforms to avoid a significant slowdown in the economy, but we noted that a policy mistake (moving too aggressively) could not be ruled out. We introduced the BCA China Reform Monitor as a way of tracking the intensity of the reforms, which was calculated as an equally-weighted average of the four "winner" sectors that emerged in the month following the Party Congress (energy, consumer staples, health care, and technology) relative to an equally-weighted average of the remaining seven sectors (Chart 10). In particular, we argued that a rise in the monitor that was driven by the underperformance of the denominator would be a warning sign that reforms had become too aggressive for the economy to withstand. Chart 10Reform, As A Broad Theme, Will Be Less Relevant In The Year Ahead Chart 10 highlights that the reform monitor rose for the first half of the year, driven by the gains of the numerator rather than losses in the denominator. The message of a sustainable pace of reforms, even against the backdrop of brewing trade tension, was consistent with the relative performance of Chinese stocks and was part of the reason we recommended staying overweight versus the global benchmark in Q1 and the majority of Q2.7 Since mid-June, however, the reform theme has been thrown into reverse: our reform monitor has declined, alongside absolute declines in both "winner" and "loser" sectors. The timing of this inflection point is clearly aligned with President Trump's announcement of the second round of tariffs. Given this, and our view that the U.S./China trade war is likely to get worse over the coming 6-12 months, it is likely that broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant for the foreseeable future, at least relative to policymaker efforts to stabilize the economy. However, for several reasons, we view this as a pause in the theme, rather than an end: On the environmental front, Chart 11 highlights that China continues to pursue a clean air policy, at least in large population centers. Anti-pollution efforts are a signature policy of President Xi Jinping. They affect quality of life and ultimately the legitimacy of the regime, so they cannot be postponed entirely or indefinitely. Chart 11China Continues To Clamp Down On Air Quality Shifting China's growth model away from primary and secondary industry remains a long-term goal of policymakers. Chart 12 highlights that tertiary industry has already risen non-trivially as a share of GDP. This trend is also clearly visible in the electricity consumption data, which shows that residential and tertiary industry consumption has risen quite materially over the past several years. Chinese policymakers will clearly ease up on the brake over the coming year in terms of deleveraging, but it is far from clear that they will aim for another wave of aggressive private sector debt growth. We highlighted one key reason for this in a recent Special Report: comparing adjusted state-owned enterprise (SOE) return on assets to borrowing costs suggests that the marginal operating gain from debt has become negative for these firms (Chart 13). This implies that further aggressive leveraging of SOEs could push them into a debt trap. In fact, if policymakers do refrain from promoting a major private sector credit expansion over the coming year, that restraint will directly reflect the reform agenda. Chart 12Policymakers Continue To Emphasize A Transition Towards Services Chart 13SOEs Now Appear To Have A Negative Financial Gain From Debt Chart 14 highlights that while anti-corruption cases involving gifts and the improper use of public funds are off of their high from early this year, they remain elevated and are not trending lower. As a final point, Chart 15 shows that our long MSCI China environmental, social, and governance (ESG) leaders / short MSCI China trade has been negatively impacted by the pause in reform as an investment theme. While MSCI's ESG indexes aim to generate low tracking error relative to the underlying equity market of each country, technology companies are typically overrepresented in ESG indexes because of the low emissions nature of their business model. In China's case, we noted above that technology industry groups have fared poorly since mid-June, and panel 2 of Chart 15 shows that the underperformance of Chinese investable technology companies since mid-June lines up with the latest leg of ESG underperformance. Chart 14China's Anti-Corruption Drive Is Still In Effect Chart 15Favor ESG Leaders Again When The Reform Theme Reasserts Itself It remains unclear how much of tech's underperformance has been due to rich multiples versus concerns that the U.S. crackdown on Chinese technology transfer and intellectual property theft will negatively impact the market share of China's tech companies (via an opening of the market and a rise in the market share of foreign competitors). But we believe that the latter is a factor, and we recommend closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade until "reform", both environmental and otherwise, reasserts itself as a driving factor for the Chinese equity market. Bottom Line: While it is likely paused rather than stalled, broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant over the coming 6-12 months relative to policymaker efforts to stabilize the economy. We are closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade at a loss of 5.5%. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" dated August 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War", dated September 19, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "GICS Sector Changes: The Implications For China", dated September 26, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Now What?", dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?", dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 The rapidly escalating trade war between China and the U.S. caused us to recommended putting Chinese stocks on downgrade watch at the end of March, and we recommended that investors cut their exposure to neutral on June 20. Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight", dated March 28, 2018, and China Investment Strategy Special Report "Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, both available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights So What? Go long Brent / short S&P 500. The risk of a recession in 2019 is underappreciated. Why? The likelihood is increasing of a geopolitically-induced supply-side shock that pushes crude prices above $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months. Oil supply disruptions in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela represent the primary source of risk. Historically, the combination of Fed rates hike and an oil price spike has preceded 8 out of the last 9 recessions. Also... A recession in 2019, ahead of the 2020 election, would set the stage for a confrontation between Trump and the Fed, adding fuel to market volatility. Feature Geopolitical tensions are brewing from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca. As we go to press, news is breaking that a Chinese naval vessel almost collided with the USS Decatur as the latter conducted "freedom of navigation" operations within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson reefs in the Spratly Islands. Given the trade tensions between China and the U.S., this alleged maneuver by the Chinese vessel suggests that Beijing is not backing off from a confrontation. Our view remains that Sino-American trade tensions can get a lot worse before they get better. The latest incident, which builds on a series of negative gestures recently in the South China Sea, suggests that both sides are combining longstanding geopolitical tensions with the trade war. This will likely encourage brinkmanship and further degrade U.S.-China relations. Yet China-U.S. tensions are not the only concern for investors in 2019. Another crisis is brewing in the Middle East, with the potential to significantly increase oil prices over the next 12 months. U.S. households may have to deal with a double-whammy next year: higher costs of imported goods as the U.S.-China trade war rages on and a significant increase in gasoline prices. In this report, we discuss this dire outlook. The Folly Of Recession Forecasting In mid-2017, BCA Research published two reports, one titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession" and another titled "The Timing Of The Next Recession."1 Both argued that if the Federal Reserve kept raising rates in line with the FOMC dots, then monetary policy would move into restrictive territory by early 2019 and increase the likelihood of recession thereafter. We subsequently adjusted the timing of our recession forecast to 2020 or beyond, based on a more positive assessment of the U.S. economy. In this report, we explore a risk to the BCA House View on the timing of the next recession. As BCA's long-time Chief Economist Martin Barnes has said, predicting recessions is a mug's game. There have been eight recessions in the past 60 years (excluding the brief 1980-81 downturn) and the Fed failed to forecast all of them (Table 1). Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes The Atlanta Fed produces a recession indicator index which is designed to highlight the odds of recession based on trends in recent GDP data. At the moment, the indicator is at a historically sanguine 2.4%. Unfortunately, low readings are not a reliable cause for optimism. The 1974-75, 1981-82, and 2007-09 recessions were all severe and the Atlanta Fed's recession indicator had a low reading of 10%, 1.6%, and 7.7%, respectively - just as the recession was about to begin (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The 1974-75 recession is instructive, given the numerous parallels with the current environment: Energy Geopolitics: The 1973 oil crisis caused a massive spike in crude prices. This point is especially pertinent since the 1973 oil embargo is widely viewed as an important contributor to the 1974-75 recession. Real short rates had risen and the yield curve had inverted long before oil prices spiked, so recession was almost inevitable even without the oil price move. But the oil spike made the recession much deeper than otherwise. Protectionism: President Nixon imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports into the U.S. in 1971 to try to force trade partners to devalue the U.S. dollar. Dislocation: Competition from newly industrialized countries - Japan and the East Asian tigers in particular - laid waste to the steel industry in the developed world. Polarization: President Nixon polarized the nation with both his policies and behavior, leading to his resignation in 1974. Given the exogenous and geopolitical nature of oil supply shocks, today's recession indicators are missing a critical potential headwind to the economy. A geopolitically induced oil-price shock could create more pain than the economy is able to handle. Why An Oil Price Shock? America's renewed foray into the politics of the Middle East will unravel the tenuous equilibrium that was just recently established between Iran and its regional rivals. The U.S.-Iran détente that produced the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) created conditions for a precarious balance of power between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran and its allies on the other side. This equilibrium led to a meaningful change in Tehran's behavior, particularly on the following fronts: The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran ceased to rhetorically threaten the Strait as soon as negotiations began with the U.S. (Chart 2). Since then, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities remain unchanged.2 Iraq: Iran directly participated in the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. Tehran changed tack after 2013 and cooperated closely with the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State. In 2014, Iran acquiesced to the removal of the deeply sectarian, and pro-Iranian, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bahrain and the Saudi Eastern Province: Iran's material and rhetorical support was instrumental in the Shia uprisings in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011 (Map 1). Saudi Arabia had to resort to military force to quell both. Since the détente with the U.S. in 2015, Iranian support for Shia uprisings in these critical areas of the Persian Gulf has stopped. Chart 2Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Put simply, the 2015 nuclear deal traded American acquiescence toward Iranian nuclear development in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. By unraveling that détente, President Trump is upending the balance of power in the Middle East and increasing the probability that Iran retaliates. Since penning our latest net assessment of the U.S.-Iran tensions in May, Iran has already retaliated.3 Our checklist for "kinetic" conflict has now risen from zero to at least 15%, if not higher (Table 2). We expect the probability to rise once the U.S. starts implementing the oil embargo in November. This will dovetail our Iran-U.S. decision tree, which sets the subjective probability of kinetic action by the U.S. against Iran at a baseline of 20% (Diagram 1). Table 2Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Bottom Line: The premier geopolitical risk to investors in 2019 is that President Trump's maximum pressure tactic on Iran spills over into Iraq, causing a loss of supply from the world's fifth-largest crude producer.4 We expect the U.S. oil embargo against Iran to remove between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels per day from the market. In addition, the loss of Iraqi production due to sabotage could be anywhere between 500,000 and 3.5 million barrels per day. Added to this total is the potential loss of Venezuelan exports due to the deteriorating situation there. When our commodity team combines all of these factors, they generate a worst-case scenario where the price of crude rises to $110 per barrel in 2019 or higher (Chart 3). And this scenario assumes that EMs do not reinstitute energy subsidies (and therefore their consumption falls faster than if they do reinstitute them). Chart 3Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward 0/Barrel The Ayatollah Recession We believe that the midterm election is a dud from an investment perspective, no matter the outcome. However, the election does matter as a hurdle that, once cleared, will allow President Trump to renew his "maximum pressure" tactic against China, Iran, and perhaps domestic tech corporations.5 Iran is a critical risk in this strategy. If President Trump applies maximum pressure on Iran, then a reduction in crude exports from Iran, Iranian retaliation in Iraq, and the simultaneous loss of Venezuelan supplies could combine to increase the likelihood of U.S. recession in 2019. Readers might recall that no sitting president has gotten re-elected during a recession. Why would Trump pursue a policy that risks his re-election chances in 2020? Surely he would deviate from his maximum pressure tactic if faced with the prospect of a recession. However, it is folly to assume that policymakers are perfectly rational, or fully informed. American presidents are some of the most unconstrained policymakers in the world, given both the hard power of the United States and the constitutional lack of constraints on the president when it comes to national security. Trump may believe, for instance, that the 660 million barrels of crude in America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve can offset the impact of sanctions against Iran.6 Or he may believe that he can force OPEC to supply enough oil to offset the Iranian losses. The problem for President Trump is that Iran is not led by idiots. Iranian policymakers understand that the best way to reduce American pressure is to induce an oil price spike in the summer of 2019 that hurts President Trump's re-election chances, forcing him to back off. As such, sabotaging Iraqi oil exports, which mainly transit through the port of Basra - a city highly vulnerable to Shia-on-Shia violence that is already a risk to the country's stability - would be an obvious target. An oil price spike would serve as a negotiating tool against the U.S., and the additional revenue would help replace what Iran loses due to the embargo. Tehran and Washington will therefore play a game of chicken throughout 2019, and there is a fair probability that neither side will swerve. President Trump may be making the same mistake as many predecessors have made, assuming that the Iranian regime is teetering at a precipice and that a mere nudge will force the leadership to negotiate. Oil price shocks and recessions have a historical connection. In a recent report, our commodity strategists highlighted that a spike in oil prices preceded 10 out of the past 11 recessions in the U.S. since 1945 (Table 3). Admittedly, not all spikes were followed by recession. The combination of an oil price spike and Fed rate hikes has produced a recession 8 out of 9 times.7 If oil prices rose to $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months, there will be several negative macro consequences. In particular, gasoline prices will rise back toward $4 per gallon (Chart 4). Retail gasoline prices have already increased by more than 50% since they bottomed in February 2016. So how much more upside can the U.S. private sector take? Table 3History Of Oil Supply Shocks Chart 4A Source Of Pressure For Consumers The Household Sector Consumer confidence is currently near all-time highs, which tends to signal that the path of least resistance is flat or down (Chart 5). Household gasoline consumption has already declined in response to higher oil prices since the middle of 2017. Given that gasoline demand is relatively inelastic, consumers may already be near their minimum consumption level. Chart 5Nearing All-Time Highs Instead, households will experience a decline in their disposable income. This will come on the back of both higher gasoline prices and an increase in the prices of other goods and services, as the oil spike spills across sectors. U.S. households - and most likely those in other markets - are stretched to the limit already. A recent Fed survey found that 40% of U.S. households do not have the funds needed to meet an unexpected $400 cost in any given month.8 Such an unexpected expense would require them to either sell possessions, borrow, or cut back on other purchases. Chart 6Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Left with few other options, households would react to their lower disposable income by reducing demand for other goods and services. This dent in consumer spending would bring down aggregate demand, leading to slower employment growth and even less income and spending. Households could save less to maintain their current purchasing levels, given the recent rise in the savings rate (Chart 6). But this is unlikely. Although the household savings rate has increased in recent years, we have previously argued that a material part of the increase was driven by small business-owner profits. These owners have much higher levels of income than the median consumer. For Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, it would be difficult to reduce a savings rate that is already close to, or below, zero. Higher oil prices will also hurt growth in Europe and Japan, economies that are already struggling to gain economic momentum after grappling with a weaker growth impulse from China. In addition, EM economies that took the opportunity to reform their oil subsidies amid lower oil prices post-2014 will have to grapple with a much larger shock to consumers than usual. The Corporate Sector In theory, what consumers lose from rising oil prices, producers of crude can gain in stronger revenue. This is especially important in the U.S. as domestic energy production has increased significantly over the past 10 years. Nonetheless, the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for just 1.1% of GDP and 0.1% of total employment. The marginal propensity to spend out of every dollar of income is lower for producers than consumers. Moreover, if consumer confidence fell and consumer spending weakened, non-energy capex would decline as businesses reassessed household demand and held off from making investment decisions. Small business confidence is at record highs, and as with consumer confidence, vulnerable to downward revisions (Chart 7). Chart 7Dizzying Heights Chart 8Only One Way To Go (Down) Profit margins remain at a highly elevated level and also have only one way to go (Chart 8). If high oil prices should combine with rising borrowing costs and upward pressure on wages (which could develop in this macro environment) the result would be a triple hit to margins (Chart 9). Of course, rising wages would give consumers some offset to higher oil prices, so the question will be the net effect of all variables. And if the dollar bull market continues, as our FX team believes it will, the combination of higher oil prices and a strong USD would hurt U.S. companies with international exposure. The debt load held by the U.S. corporate sector would turn this bad dream into a nightmare. Many American companies have spent the past 10 years increasing leverage to buy back equity (Chart 10). Companies with high debt would need to revise down their profit expectations, with potentially devastating consequences. Elevated debt levels also increase the likelihood of financial market stress if bond investors get worried and spreads begin to widen significantly. Chart 9Rising Pressures On Earnings? Chart 10Large Corporate Debts According to all measures, U.S. stocks are at or near their all-time valuation peaks. Investors have also priced in a significant amount of optimism for profit growth (Chart 11). These expectations would be subject to quick revision if our oil shock scenario plays out. In other words, investor expectations for profit margins are not sufficiently factoring the triple hit of higher oil prices, higher interest rates, and higher wages. Chart 11The Market Has High Hopes An additional geopolitical risk on the horizon for 2019 is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. This is unrelated to an oil price spike (other than that it would be an effect of U.S. policy) but could nonetheless combine with rising energy prices to sour investors' mood.9 Bottom Line: An oil price spike above $100 would produce negative consequences for the U.S. household and corporate sectors. Given the supply-side nature of the price shock, it would not be accompanied by the usual decline in USD, and could therefore hurt the foreign profits of U.S. corporations as well. If investors must also deal with mounting regulatory pressures on FAANG stocks, they could face a perfect storm. Given the high probability of such an oil price shock, why isn't a 2019 recession BCA's House View, rather than merely a risk to it? Because it is difficult to say how high oil prices need to rise to cause a recession. For example, 1973 both marked a permanent move up in oil prices and saw oil prices triple. In 2019 terms, that would mean an oil price above $200, a far less probable scenario than $100-$110. Nevertheless, the combination of elevated oil prices and the price impact on consumer goods of the U.S.-China trade war could combine to create a nightmare scenario for consumers. But it is impossible to gauge the level of both required to push the U.S. into a recession. Second, there are many ways in which today's macro environment is different from that in 1974. In the 1970s the inventory cycle was a key factor in the business cycle, with excesses building up ahead of recessions, forcing output cutbacks as demand weakened. That is no longer the case in today's world of just-in-time inventory management. Also, inflation was a much bigger problem back then, requiring tougher Fed action. On the other hand, debt burdens were much lower. Investment Implications To be clear, none of the usual recession indicators that BCA Research uses are flashing red at this time. The point of this analysis is to illustrate a credible, exogenous scenario that cannot be revealed through the usual data-driven recession forecasting methods. What happens if a recession does occur ahead of the 2020 election? How would President Trump react to a recession induced by his foreign policy adventurism in the Middle East? By doing what every other president would do: finding someone else to blame. In this case, we would put high odds on the Federal Reserve becoming the target of President Trump's fury. Ahead of 2020, the Fed and its independence may very well become an election issue.10 This could spell serious trouble for the Fed, which is at a massive disadvantage when it comes to explaining to voters why central bank independence is so important. The Fed had great difficulty managing public opinion regarding its extraordinary measures to combat the Great Recession - its attempts at public outreach largely failed. Compare the number of Trump's Twitter followers to that of the Fed's (Chart 12). Chart 12The Fed's PR Abilities Are Limited Though most of our clients and colleagues will probably disagree, we do not see central bank independence as a static quality. It was bestowed upon central banks by politicians following widespread inflation fears throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although in the U.S. the current tradition goes back to the 1951 Treasury Accord that restored the independence of the Fed. Our colleague Martin Barnes penned a report on the politicization of monetary policy in 2013.11 His conclusion is that political meddling in monetary affairs is less pernicious than economic performance. The Fed will incur Trump's ire, in other words, but it will be its failure to generate economic growth that causes a break in independence. We are not so sure. The next recession is likely to be a mild one for Main Street given the lack of real economic bubbles. But given the slow recovery in real wages over the past decade and the general angst of the populace towards governing elites, even a mild recession that merely reminds voters of 2008-2009 could produce deep anxiety and significant public reactions. Further, the idea of "independent," non-politically accountable institutions is going out of style. President Trump - and other policymakers in the developed world - have specifically targeted the "so-called experts" and "institutions." President Trump has attacked America's foreign policy architecture, NATO, the WTO, and a slew of supposedly outdated norms and practices for being "out of touch" with the electorate. This policy has served him well thus far. If our nightmare scenario of an oil price-induced recession plays out, the immediate implication for investors will be a sharp downturn in risk assets. As such, we are recommending that investors hedge their portfolios with a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade. Alternatively we would recommend going long U.S. energy / short technology stocks. A longer-term, and perhaps even more pernicious implication, would be the end of the era of central bank independence and a full politicization of the economy. Laissez-faire capitalist system would give way to dirigisme. In the process, the U.S. dollar and Treasuries would be doomed. Jim Mylonas, Global Strategist Daily Insights & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018 and "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently covers 100 days of net crude imports, or 200 days of net petroleum imports, and can be tapped for reasons of political timing as well as international emergencies. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," dated September 13, 2018, available at bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the U.S. Federal Reserve, "Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017," May 2018, available at federalreserve.gov. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Daily Insights, "Politics And Monetary Policy," dated August 22, 2018, and "The Battle Of The Press Conferences: Trump Versus Powell," dated September 27, 2018, available at dailyinsights.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Special Report, "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?" dated April 15, 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Macro outlook: Global growth will continue to decelerate into early next year on the back of brewing EM stresses and an underwhelming policy response from China. Equities: Stay neutral for now, while underweighting EM relative to DM stocks. Within DM, overweight the U.S. in dollar terms. Bonds: Global bond yields may dip in the near term, but the longer-term path is firmly higher. Currencies: The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end. EM currencies will suffer the most. Commodities: Favor oil over industrial metals. Precious metals will also remain under pressure until the dollar peaks next year, before beginning a major bull run as inflation accelerates. Feature I. Economic Outlook The Fed Can Hike A Lot More If 2017 was the year of a synchronized global growth recovery, 2018 is turning out to be a year where desynchronization is once again the name of the game. The U.S. economy continues to fire on all cylinders, while much of the rest of the world is struggling to stay afloat. The divergence in economic outcomes has been mirrored in central bank policy. The Fed is now hiking rates once per quarter whereas most other major central banks are still sitting on their hands. How high can U.S. rates go? The answer is a lot higher than investors anticipate. Market participants currently expect the Fed funds rate to rise to 2.37% by the end of this year and 2.84% by the end of 2019. No rate hikes are priced in for 2020 and beyond. The Fed dots are somewhat higher than market expectations (Chart 1). The median dot rises to about 3.4% in 2020-21, but then falls back to 3% over the Fed's longer-run horizon. Both investors and the Fed have apparently bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They seem convinced that rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession. While we have a lot of sympathy for Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term determinants of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, as discussed last week, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP (Chart 2). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Chart 1Markets Expect No Fed ##br##Hikes Beyond Next Year Chart 2Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary ##br##In The U.S. Than In The Euro Area Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is increasing faster than GDP (Chart 3). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart 4). Chart 3U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart 4U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart 5). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers' pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current level of household net worth (Chart 6). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart 5The Quits Rate Is Signaling Upside For Wage Growth Chart 6The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 An Absence Of Major Financial Imbalances Will Allow The Fed To Keep Raising Rates The past three recessions were all caused by financial market overheating rather than economic overheating. The 1991 recession was mainly the consequence of the Savings and Loan crisis, compounded by the spike in oil prices leading up to the Gulf War. The 2001 recession stemmed from the dotcom bust. The Great Recession was triggered by the housing bust. Today, it is difficult to point to any clear imbalances in the economy. True, housing activity has been weak for much of the year. However, unlike in 2006, the home vacancy rate stands near record-low levels (Chart 7). Tight supply will limit downside risks to both construction and home prices. On the demand side, low unemployment, high consumer confidence, and a rebound in the rate of new household formation should help the sector. Despite elevated home prices in some markets, the average monthly payment that homeowners must make to service their mortgage is quite low by historic standards (Chart 8). The quality of mortgage lending has also been very high over the past decade, which reduces the risk of a sudden credit crunch (Chart 9). Chart 7Low Housing Inventories Will Support Home Prices And Construction Chart 8Housing Affordabiity Is Not Yet Stretched Chart 9Mortgage Lenders Are Being Prudent Unlike housing debt, there are more reasons to be concerned about corporate debt. The ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen to record-high levels. So-called "covenant-lite" loans now make up the bulk of corporate leveraged loan issuance. While there is no doubt that the corporate debt market is the weakest link in the U.S. financial sector, some perspective is in order. U.S. corporate debt levels are quite low by global standards. Corporate debt in the euro area is more than 30 points higher as a percent of GDP than in the United States (Chart 10). Moreover, the interest coverage ratio - EBIT divided by interest expense - for U.S. corporates is still above its historic average (Chart 11). While this ratio will fall as interest rates rise, this will not happen very quickly. Most U.S. corporate debt is at fixed rates and average maturities have been rising. This reduces both rollover risk and the sensitivity of debt-servicing costs to higher short-term rates. An increasing share of U.S. corporate debt is held by non-leveraged investors. Bank loans account for only 18% of nonfinancial corporate sector debt, down from 40% in 1980 (Chart 12). This is important, because what makes a spike in corporate defaults so damaging is not the direct impact this has on the economy, but the second-round effects rising defaults have on financial sector stability. Chart 10U.S. Corporate Debt Not That High By Global Standards Chart 11Interest Coverage Ratio Is Above Its Historic Average Chart 12Banks Have Been Reducing Their Exposure To The Corporate Sector In any case, we already had a dress rehearsal for what a corporate debt scare might look like. Credit spreads spiked in 2015. Default rates rose, but the knock-on effects to the financial system were minimal. This suggests that corporate America could handle a fair bit of monetary tightening without buckling under the pressure. The Fed And The Dollar If the Fed is able to raise rates substantially more than the market is discounting while most central banks cannot, the short-term interest rate spread between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen. History suggests that this will produce a stronger dollar (Chart 13). Chart 13Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Some have speculated that the Trump administration will intervene in the foreign-exchange market in order to drive down the value of the greenback. We doubt this will happen, but even if such interventions were to occur, they would not be successful. Presumably, currency interventions would take the form of purchases of foreign exchange, financed through the issuance of Treasurys. The purchase of foreign currency would release U.S. dollars into the financial system, but the sale of Treasury securities would suck those dollars back out of the system. The net result would be no change in the volume of U.S. dollars in circulation - what economists call a "sterilized" intervention. Both economic theory and years of history show that sterilized interventions do not have lasting effects on currency values. The Fed could, of course, provide funding for the Treasury's purchases of foreign exchange, leading to an increase in the monetary base. This would be tantamount to an unsterilized intervention. However, such a deliberate attempt to weaken the dollar by expanding the money supply would fly in the face of the Fed's efforts to cool growth by tightening financial conditions. We highly doubt the Fed's current leadership would go along with this. Emerging Markets In The Crosshairs The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels, both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart 14). The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. The fiscal deficit stands at nearly 8% of GDP and government debt has soared from 60% of GDP in 2013 to 84% of GDP at present (Chart 15). Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. This could cause the real to weaken much more than it already has. Chart 14EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 15Brazil's Perilous Fiscal Position Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. The stimulus measures in 2015 followed an even greater wave of stimulus in 2009. While these stimulus measures invigorated China's economy and helped put a floor under global growth, they came at a price: China's debt-to-GDP ratio has swollen from 140% in 2008 to over 250% at present, which has endangered financial stability (Chart 16). Excess capacity has also increased. This can be seen in the dramatic rise in the capital-to-output ratio. It can also be seen in the fact that the rate of return on assets within the Chinese state-owned enterprise sector, which has been the main source of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart 17). Chart 16China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart 17China: Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For SOEs Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not turn sour. Unfortunately, that is becoming an impossible feat. The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46% (Chart 18). As a matter of arithmetic, national savings must be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. Now that the former strategy has run into diminishing returns, the Chinese authorities will need to concentrate on the latter. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. Above-average productivity growth has pushed up the fair value of China's real exchange rate over time. However, the currency still looks expensive relative to its long-term trend line (Chart 19). Pushing down the value of the yuan against the dollar will not be that difficult. Chart 20 shows that USD/CNY has moved broadly in line with the one-year swap spread between the U.S. and China. The spread was about 3% earlier this year. Today, it stands at only 0.6%. As the Fed continues to raise rates, the spread will narrow further, taking the yuan down with it. Chart 18China Saves A Lot Chart 19The RMB Is Still Quite Strong Chart 20USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Unlike standard Chinese fiscal/credit easing, a stimulus strategy focused on weakening the yuan would hurt other emerging markets by undermining their competitiveness in relation to China. A weaker yuan would also make it more expensive for Chinese companies to import natural resources, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. The Euro Area: Back In The Slow Lane After putting in a strong performance in 2017, the economy in the euro area has struggled to maintain momentum this year. Growth is still above trend, but the overall tone of the data has been lackluster at best, with the risks to growth increasingly tilted to the downside. Weaker growth in China and other emerging markets certainly has not helped. However, much of the problem lies closer to home. Bank credit remains the lifeblood of the euro area economy. The 12-month credit impulse - defined as the change in credit growth from one 12-month period to the next - tends to track GDP growth (Chart 21).2 Euro area credit growth accelerated over the course of 2017, but has been broadly stable this year. As a result, the credit impulse has fallen, taking GDP growth down with it. It will be difficult for euro area GDP growth to increase unless credit growth starts rising again. So far, there is little sign that this is about to happen. According to the latest euro area bank lending survey, while banks continue to ease standards for business loans, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the past. A net 3% of banks eased lending standards in the second quarter, compared to 8% in the first quarter. Loan demand growth has been fairly stable. This suggests that loan growth will remain positive, but is unlikely to increase much from current levels. Worries about the health of European banks will further constrain credit growth. European banks in general, and Spanish banks in particular, have significant exposure to the most vulnerable emerging markets (Chart 22). Chart 21Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined Chart 22Spain Most Exposed To Vulnerable EMs Concerns about the ability of the Italian government to service its debt obligations will also restrain bank lending. Investors breathed a sigh of relief last month when the Italian government signaled a greater willingness to pare back next year's proposed budget deficit, in accordance with the dictates of the European Commission. Tensions remain, however, as evidenced by the fact that the ten-year spread between BTPs and German bunds is still 120 basis points higher than in April (Chart 23). The European political establishment is terrified of the rise in populism across the region and would love nothing more than to see Italy's populist parties implode. This means that any help from the ECB and the European Commission will only arrive once a full-fledged crisis is underway. Anyway, it is far from clear that a smaller budget deficit would actually translate into a lower government debt-to-GDP ratio. Like China, Italy also has a private sector that saves too much and spends too little. A shrinking population has reduced the need for firms to invest in new capacity. The prior government's pension cuts have also incentivized people to save more for their retirement. The result is a private sector savings-investment surplus that stood at 5% of GDP in 2017 compared to close to breakeven a decade ago (Chart 24). Chart 23Italian/Bund Spreads Signal Lingering Fiscal Strain Chart 24Italy: Private Sector Saves Too Much And Spends Too Little Unlike Germany, Italy cannot export its excess production because it does not have a hypercompetitive economy. Nor does it have the ability to devalue its currency to gain a quick competitiveness boost. This means that the Italian government has to absorb excess private-sector savings with its own dissavings - a fancy way of saying that it has to run a large budget deficit. This has effectively been Japan's strategy for over two decades. However, unlike Japan, Italy does not have a lender of last resort that can unconditionally buy government debt. This raises the risk that Italy's debt woes will resurface, either because the government abandons austerity measures, or because the lack of fiscal support causes nominal GDP to stagnate, making it all but impossible for the country to outgrow its debt burden. Receding Policy Puts The discussion above suggests that many of the "policy puts" that investors have relied on are in the process of having their strike price marked down to deeper out-of-the-money levels. Yes, the Fed will ease off on rate hikes if U.S. growth is at risk of stalling out completely. However, now that the labor market has reached full employment, the Fed will welcome modestly slower growth. Remember that there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percentage point without a recession taking place (Chart 25). The further the unemployment rate falls below NAIRU, the more difficult it will be for the Fed to achieve the proverbial soft landing. Chart 25Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Likewise, the "China stimulus put" - the presumption that most investors have that the Chinese authorities will launch a barrage of fiscal and credit easing at the first sign of slower growth - has become less reliable in light of the government's competing objectives namely reducing debt growth and excess capacity. The same goes for the "ECB put." Yes, the ECB will bail out Italy if the entire European project appears at risk. But spreads may need to blow out before the cavalry arrives. Meanwhile, just as the aforementioned policy puts are receding, new policy risks are rising to the fore, chief among them protectionism. We expect the trade war to heat up, with the Trump administration increasingly directing its ire at China. Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened rather than narrowed under his watch? Will he blame himself or Beijing? No trophy for getting that answer right. II. Financial Markets Global Equities The combination of slower global growth, rising economic vulnerabilities outside the U.S., and a more challenging policy environment caused us to downgrade our view on global equities from overweight to neutral in June,3 while reiterating our preference for developed market equities relative to EM stocks. For now, we are comfortable with our bearish view towards emerging market stocks. While EM equities have cheapened, they are not yet at washed out levels (Chart 26). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart 27). Chart 26EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart 27EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound At some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. At that point, EM stocks will rebound. European and Japanese equities should also start to outperform the U.S., given their more cyclical nature. As far as the absolute direction of the S&P 500 is concerned, the next few months could be challenging. U.S. stocks have been able to decouple from those in the rest of the world, but this state of affairs may not last. Recall that the S&P 500 fell by 22% peak-to-trough between July 20 and October 8, 1998, in what otherwise was a massive bull market. We do not know if there is another Long-Term Capital Management lurking around the corner, but if there is, a temporary selloff in U.S. stocks may be hard to avoid. Such a selloff would present a buying opportunity over a horizon of 12-to-18 months. If we are correct that cyclical forces have lifted the neutral rate of interest, it will take a while for monetary policy to reach restrictive territory. This means that both fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative at least for the next 18 months. As such, the S&P 500 may not peak until 2020. Appendix A - Chart I presents a stylized diagram of where we think global equities are going. It incapsulates three phases: 1) a challenging period over the next six months, driven by EM weakness; 2) a blow-off rally in equities starting in the middle of next year; 3) and finally, a recession-induced bear market beginning in late-2020. Appendix B also presents our valuation charts, which highlight that long-term return prospects are better outside the United States. Fixed Income After advocating for a long duration strategy for much of the post-crisis recovery, BCA declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016, the very same day that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. Cyclically and structurally, we continue to expect U.S. bond yields to rise more than the market is discounting. As noted above, the Fed is underestimating how high rates will need to go before they reach restrictive territory. This means that the Fed will end up behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise above the Fed's comfort zone. Chart 28Bond Sentiment Is Extremely Bearish Granted, the Fed is willing to tolerate a modest inflation overshoot. However, a core PCE reading above 2.3%, which is at the top end of the range of the Fed's own forecast, would prompt the Fed to expedite the pace of rate hikes. A bear flattening of the yield curve - a situation where long-term yields rise, but short-term rates go up even more - would be highly likely in that environment. Over a shorter-term horizon spanning the next six months, the outlook for yields is more benign. The combination of a stronger dollar, slower global growth, and flight-to-quality flows into the Treasury market from vulnerable emerging markets can cap yields. Add to this the fact that sentiment towards bonds is currently extremely bearish (Chart 28), and a temporary countertrend decline in yields becomes quite probable. Developed market bond yields in general are likely to follow the direction of U.S. yields, both on the upside and the downside, but in a more muted manner. Outside the periphery, euro area yields have less scope to fall in the near term given that they are already so low. European yields also have less room to rise once global growth bottoms next year because the neutral rate of interest is much lower in the euro area than in the United States. Ironically, a more dovish ECB would help reduce Italian bond yields, as higher inflation is critical for increasing Italian nominal GDP. Since labor market slack is still elevated in Italy, continued monetary stimulus would also lift wages in core Europe more than in Italy, helping to boost Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area. Japanese yields have plenty of scope to rise over the long haul. An aging population is pushing more people into retirement, which will cause the national savings rate to fall further. A decline in the savings pool will increase the neutral rate of interest in Japan. Instead of raising the policy rate, the Japanese authorities will let the economy overheat, generating inflation in the process. This will cause the yield curve to steepen, particularly at the very long end (e.g., beyond 10 years) which is the part of the yield curve that is the least susceptible to the BoJ's yield curve control regime. We are positioned for this outcome through our short 20-year JGB/long 5-year JGB trade recommendation. Appendix A - Chart II shows our expectations for the major government bond markets over the coming years. Turning to credit markets, high-yield credit typically underperforms in the latter innings of business-cycle expansions, a period when the Fed is raising rates. Thus, while we do not think that U.S. corporate debt levels will be a major source of systemic financial risk for the broader economy, this is hardly a reason to be overweight spread-product. A more cautious stance towards credit outside the U.S. is also warranted. Currencies And Commodities The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end, as EM tensions intensify and hopes of a massive credit/fiscal-fueled Chinese stimulus package fizzle. EM currencies will weaken the most against the dollar over the next three-to-six months, but the euro and, to a lesser extent, the yen, will also come under pressure. Granted, the dollar is no longer a cheap currency, but if long-term interest rate differentials stay anywhere close to current levels, the greenback will remain well supported. Consider the dollar's value against the euro. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 3.20% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.12%, a difference of 208 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 82 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.4 We do not expect EUR/USD to get down to that level, but a descent into the $1.10-to-$1.12 range over the next six months is probable. Sterling will remain hostage to Brexit negotiations. It is impossible to know how talks will evolve, but our bias is to take a somewhat pound-positive view. The main reason is that support for Brexit has faded (Chart 29). Opinion polls suggest that if a referendum were held again, the "bremain" side would almost certainly prevail. Lacking public support for leaving the EU, it is unlikely that British negotiators could simply walk away from the table. This reduces the odds of a "hard Brexit" outcome. Indeed, a second referendum that leads to a "no-Brexit" verdict remains a distinct possibility. The combination of slower global growth and a resurgent dollar is likely to hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are more vulnerable than oil. China consumes around half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced around the world (Chart 30). In contrast, China represents less than 15% of global oil demand. Chart 29When Bremorse Sets In Chart 30China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil The supply backdrop for oil is also more favorable than for metals. Not only are Saudi Arabia and Russia maintaining production discipline, but U.S. sanctions against Iran threaten to weigh on global crude supply. Further reduction in Venezuela's oil output, as well as potential disruptions to Libyan or Iraqi exports, could also boost oil prices. The superior outlook for oil over metals means we prefer the Canadian dollar relative to the Aussie dollar. While AUD/CAD has weakened in recent months, the Aussie dollar is still somewhat expensive against the loonie based on our long-term valuation model (Chart 31). We also see an increasing chance that Canada will negotiate a revamped trade deal with the U.S., as Trump focuses his attention more on China. Should this happen, it will remove the NAFTA break-up risk discount embedded in the Canadian dollar. Finally, a few words on precious metals. Precious metals typically struggle during periods when the dollar is appreciating (Chart 32). Consequently, we would not be eager buyers of gold or other precious metals until the dollar peaks, most likely around the middle of next year. As inflation starts to accelerate in late-2019 and in 2020, gold will finally move decisively higher. Chart 31Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar Chart 32Gold Won't Shine Until The Dollar Peaks Appendix A - Chart III and Chart IV present an illustration of where the major currencies and commodities are heading. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too stimulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the personal savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. Euro area private-sector credit growth accelerated from -2.6% in May 2014 to 3.1% in March 2017, but has been broadly flat ever since. Hence, the credit impulse has dropped. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. 4 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.47% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.52 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.52/(1.0208)^30=0.82 today. Appendix A Appendix A Chart IMarket Outlook: Equities Appendix A Chart IIMarket Outlook: Bonds Appendix A Chart IIIMarket Outlook: Currencies Appendix A Chart IVMarket Outlook: Commodities Appendix B Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades