Policy

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 I-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, 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 I-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 I-1Markets Expect No Fed Hikes Beyond Next Year Chart I-2Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary In ##br##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 I-3). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart I-4). Chart I-3U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is ##br##Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart I-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 I-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 I-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 I-5The Quits Rate Is Signaling Upside For Wage Growth Chart I-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 I-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 I-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 I-9). Chart I-7Low Housing Inventories Will Support ##br##Home Prices And Construction Chart I-8Housing Affordabiity Is Not Yet Stretched Chart I-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 I-10). Moreover, the interest coverage ratio - EBIT divided by interest expense - for U.S. corporates is still above its historic average (Chart I-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. Chart I-10U.S. Corporate Debt Not That High By Global Standards Chart I-11Interest Coverage Ratio Is Above Its Historic Average 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 I-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. 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 I-13). Chart I-12Banks Have Been Reducing Their ##br##Exposure To The Corporate Sector Chart I-13Historically, The Dollar Has Moved ##br##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 I-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 I-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 I-14EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart I-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 I-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 I-17). Chart I-16China: Debt And Capital ##br##Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart I-17China: Rate Of Return On Assets ##br##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. Chart I-18China Saves A Lot 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 I-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 I-19). Pushing down the value of the yuan against the dollar will not be that difficult. Chart I-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 I-19The RMB Is Still Quite Strong Chart I-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 I-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 I-22). Chart I-21Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined Chart I-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 I-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 I-24). Chart I-23Italian/Bund Spreads Signal Lingering Fiscal Strain Chart I-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 I-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 I-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 I-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 I-27). Chart I-26EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart I-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. 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 I-28), and a temporary countertrend decline in yields becomes quite probable. Chart I-28Bond Sentiment Is Extremely Bearish 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. 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 I-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 I-30). In contrast, China represents less than 15% of global oil demand. Chart I-29When Bremorse Sets In Chart I-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 I-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 I-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 I-31Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat ##br##Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar Chart I-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 September 28, 2018 Next Report: October 25, 2018 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 Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. II. Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks? Per the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, growth has been outperforming value for over 11 years, the longest stretch in the history of the series. Growth's extended winning streak has split investors into two camps: those who believe that value is finished because of overexposure and shortened investor timeframes, and those who are trying to identify the point at which reversion to the mean will ensue. In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are poor proxies for true value. Their methodology strays quite far from the principles enumerated by Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, and Fama and French, the researchers who demonstrated that lower-priced stocks have outperformed over time. The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using simplistic metrics that introduce considerable sector bias, reducing the difference between growth and value to a binary choice between Tech and Financials. Using tools developed by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service, we create sector-neutral U.S. value and growth indexes that correct for the off-the-shelf indexes' flaws, and broaden the range of metrics Fama and French employed to make style distinctions. The ETS-derived indexes appear to better distinguish between value and growth stocks. The ETS value-versus-growth portfolio beat its Fama and French counterpart by four percentage points annually over its 22-year life. We join our custom value and growth indexes to Fama and French's to study the impact of macro variables on relative style performance over time for the purpose of gaining insight into the most opportune points to shift between styles. Relative style performance has not corresponded consistently or robustly enough with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad market direction to support reliable style-decision rules. We find that monetary policy settings, as defined by our stylized fed funds rate cycle, are a consistently reliable predictor of relative style performance. Per the fed funds rate cycle, tight policy is most conducive to value outperformance. From this perspective, value's decade-long slump is not a surprise, given that the ultra-accommodative tide has been lifting all boats. There is no rush to increase value exposure while policy remains easy, but investors should look to load up on value once policy becomes tight, using the metrics in our ETS model to identify true value stocks. We expect that the policy inflection will occur sometime in the second half of 2019, or the first half of 2020. Growth stocks have been on a tear for the longest stretch in the history of the series, based on the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, even if their gains haven't yet matched the magnitude of the 1990s (Chart II-1). It is no surprise, then, that growth stocks are as expensive as they have ever been, outside of the tech-bubble era in the late 1990s. Many investors are thus wondering if the next "big trade" is to bet on an extended reversion to the mean during which value regains the ground it has given up. Chart II-1A Lost Decade For Value Stocks In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are not very good at differentiating growth from value stocks. Trends in relative performance have much more to do with sector performance than intrinsic value, making the indexes a poor proxy for investors who are truly interested in selecting stocks based on their value and growth profiles. We create U.S. value and growth indexes that are unaffected by sector performance, using stock selection software provided by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service. The results will surprise readers who are used to dealing with canned measures of value and growth. What Is Value Investing? Value investing principles have been around at least since the days when Benjamin Graham was a money manager himself. Style investing has been a part of the asset-management lexicon for four decades. Yet there is no universally agreed-upon definition of a value stock versus a growth stock. Based on our reading of Graham's Intelligent Investor, we submit that an essential element of value investing is the identification of stocks that are temporarily trading below their intrinsic value. The temporary drag may persist for a while - stock markets can remain oblivious to fundamentals for extended stretches - but it is ultimately expected to dissipate. Value investing is a play on negative overreaction or neglect, and dedicated value investors have to be contrarians, not to mention contrarians with strong stomachs. The temporary nature of undervaluation is a recurring theme in Graham's book. The stock market's ever-present proclivity toward overreaction ensures a steady supply of value opportunities: "The market is always making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating ordinary vicissitudes into major setbacks.1" "[W]hen an individual company ... begins to lose ground in the economy, Wall Street is quick to assume that its future is entirely hopeless and it should be avoided at any price.2" "[T]he outstanding characteristic of the stock market is its tendency to react excessively to favorable and unfavorable influences.3" Graham viewed security analysis as the comparison of an issue's market price to its intrinsic value. He advised buying stocks only when they trade at a discount to intrinsic value, offering an investor a "margin of safety" that should guard against significant declines. His favorite measure for assessing intrinsic value was a sober, objective estimate of average future earnings, grossed-up by an appropriate multiple. A low price-to-average-earnings ratio was the linchpin of his margin-of-safety mantra. Decades after Graham's heyday, University of Chicago professors Eugene Fama and Kenneth French bestowed the academy's seal of approval on value investing. Their landmark 1992 paper found that low price-to-book ("P/B") stocks consistently and convincingly outperformed high P/B stocks.4 Several "growth" and "value" indexes have been developed over the years, but they bear no more than a passing resemblance to Graham's, and Fama and French's, work. It is important to realize that the off-the-shelf indexes are far from an ideal proxy for the value factor that Fama & French tried to isolate. Traditional Growth And Value Indexes Are Wanting The off-the-shelf growth and value indexes shown in Chart II-1 all share similar cyclical profiles, with only small differences in long-term returns. Given the similarity of the indexes, we will focus on Standard & Poor's/Citigroup methodology for the purposes of this report.5 The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using the following metrics: 3-year growth rates in EPS, 3-year growth rates in sales-per-share, and 12-month price momentum; along with valuation yardsticks including price-to-book, price-to-earnings, and price-to-sales. Companies with higher growth rates in earnings and sales, and better price momentum, are classified as growth stocks, while those with lower valuation multiples are considered value stocks. Several stocks are cross-listed in both indexes, which is baffling and counterproductive for an investor seeking to implement a rigorous style tilt.6 Table II-1 contains a summary of the current sector breakdowns for the S&P 500 Growth and Value indexes. Table II-2 sheds light on each index's aggregate geographical and U.S. business cycle exposure, the former of which is based on our U.S. Equity Strategy service's judgment. Table II-1Current S&P 500 Style Index Exposures Table II-2The Value Index Has Less Global ##br##And Late Cyclical Exposure Growth is currently heavily weighted in Health Care, Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors, while value has a high concentration of Financials, Energy and Consumer Staples (Table II-1). Table II-2 shows that the growth index has a clear current bias toward sectors with global economic exposure that typically outperform the broad equity market late in the business cycle. The value benchmark flips growth's global/domestic exposure, and has slightly more exposure to defensive sectors, while splitting its cyclical exposure evenly between early and late cyclicals. Sector Dominance Unfortunately, the reigning methodology creates a major problem - shifts in the relative performance of growth and value indexes are dominated by sector performance. Financials' higher debt loads, and banks' low-margin operations, depress their multiples relative to nonfinancial firms. Thus, Financials hold permanent residency in the off-the-shelf value indexes. Conversely, Tech stocks perennially account for an outsized proportion of most growth indexes' market cap. Value-versus-growth boils down to a binary choice between Financials and Tech.7 The growth/value price ratio has closely tracked the Technology/Financials price ratio since the late 1990s (Chart II-2, top panel). The correlation was much less evident before 1995, when Tech stocks accounted for a much smaller share of market capitalization. Chart II-3 demonstrates that the positive correlation between growth/value and Tech has steadily climbed over the decades to almost 1, while the correlation with Financials has become increasingly negative (currently at -0.75). Chart II-2The S&P 500 Style Indexes Merely Mimic Relative Sector Performance Chart II-3Style Capture In contrast, the Fama/French approach, which focuses exclusively on price-to-book while ensuring equal representation for large- and small-market-cap stocks, appears much less affected by sector skews; the growth/value index created from their data has not tracked the Tech/Financials ratio, even after 1995 (Chart II-2, second panel). Moreover, note that the extended downward trend in the Fama/French growth/value ratio is consistent with other academic research that shows that value stocks outperform growth over the long-term. The off-the-shelf indexes show the opposite, but that is because they are merely tracking the long-term outperformance of Tech relative to Financials. The bottom line is that the standard indexes incorporate flawed measures of growth and value that limit their usefulness for true style investing. Conventional Wisdom With respect to style investing and the economic cycle, the prevailing conventional wisdom holds that: Inflation - Growth stocks perform best during times of disinflation and persistently low inflation, whereas value stocks perform best during periods of accelerating inflation; Interest Rates - Periods of high and rising interest rates favor value stocks at the expense of growth; and Business Cycle - It is believed that growth stocks outperform value during recessions, because the latter tend to be more highly leveraged to the economic cycle than their growth counterparts. According to the conventional view, value stocks shine in the early and middle phases of a business cycle expansion. Growth stocks return to favor again in the late states of an expansion, when investors begin to worry about the pending end to the business cycle and are looking for reliable and consistent earnings growth. Do the traditional measures of growth and value corroborate this conventional wisdom? Chart II-4 shows that the S&P value/growth index and headline CPI inflation have both trended lower since the early 1980s, but there has been no tendency for value to outperform when inflation rises. Value has shown some tendency to outperform during rising-rate phases since the mid-1980s, but the relationship with the level of the fed funds rate is stronger than its direction, as we discuss below. The growth-over-value relationship with the business cycle is complicated by the tech bubble in the late 1990s, which heavily distorted relative sector performance. The Citigroup measure of growth began to outperform very late in the cycle and through the subsequent recession in some business cycles (1979-1981, 1989-1991, and 2007-2009; Chart II-5). The early and middle parts of the cycles, however, were a mixed bag. Chart II-4Spiting The Conventional Wisdom Chart II-5No Consistent Relationship With The Business Cycle The bottom line is that there appears to be some rough correspondence between the Citigroup index and the interest rate and growth cycles, but it is too variable to point to reliable rules for shifting between styles. Ultimately, determining the direction of the growth and value indexes is more about forecasting relative Tech and Financials performance than it is about identifying cheap stocks. A Better Value Approach We identify four broad shortcomings of off-the-shelf value indexes: They exclusively use trailing multiples, a rear-view mirror metric. They rely on simple price-to-book multiples, which flatter serial acquirers. They rely entirely on reported earnings, which are an imperfect proxy for cash flow. A share of stock ultimately represents a claim on its issuer's future cash flows. They make no attempt to place relative metrics into historical context. Without a mechanism to compare a particular segment's valuation relative to its history, structurally low-multiple stocks will be over-represented and structurally high-multiple stocks will be under-represented. BCA's Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform provides a way of differentiating value from growth stocks that avoids these problems. The web-based platform uses 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology has outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year. The overall BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but to develop our custom value index, we use only the five valuation measures in the ETS database: trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-tangible-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. Every quarter we rank the stocks within each of the 11 sectors based on an equally-weighted composite of the five valuation measures. Note that we are using the data to rank stocks only against other stocks in the same sector. We calculate the total return from owning the top 30% of stocks by value in each sector. We do the same with the bottom 30% and refer to this as our "growth" index.8 We then compute an equally-weighted average of the total returns for the growth indexes across the 11 sectors. We do the same for the value indexes. By comparing stock valuation only to other stocks in the same sector, this approach avoids the sector composition problem suffered by the off-the-shelf measures. Chart II-6 compares the ETS value/growth total return index to the Fama/French value/growth index. Data limitations preclude comparing the two measures before 1996, but the ETS index confirms the Fama/French result that value trumps growth over the long term. The ETS index follows a similar cyclical profile to the Fama/French index from 1997 to 2009, rising and falling in tandem. The two series subsequently diverge: per the criteria ETS uses to identify value and construct an index, lower-priced stocks have outperformed higher-priced ones for most of this expansion, while the Fama/French methodology suggests the reverse. Chart II-6The ETS Model Builds On Fama And French's Work By avoiding sector composition problems and using a wider variety of value measures, the ETS approach appears to be a superior measure of value. An investor that consistently over-weighted value stocks according to the ETS approach would have outperformed someone who did the same using the Fama methodology by an annual average of four percentage points from 1996 to 2018. The history of our ETS index only covers two recessions, limiting our ability to gauge its performance vis-Ã -vis a variety of macro factors, so we extend the ETS index back to 1926 using the Fama/French index. While joining two indexes with different methodologies is less than ideal, we feel the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefit of observing growth and value relative performance across more business cycles. The top panel of Chart II-7 shows U.S. real GDP growth, shaded for recessions. The bottom panel presents our extended ETS value/growth index, shaded for declines of more than 10%. The shaded periods overlap in many, but not all, cycles (indicated by circles in the chart). That is, growth stocks have tended to outperform during economic downturns, although this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Chart II-7No Hard-And-Fast Relationship With The Business Cycle... Value-over-growth relative returns exhibit some directionality with the overall equity market when looking at corrections (peak-to-trough declines of at least 10%, as shaded in the top panel of Chart II-8), though it should be noted that it is nearly impossible to flag a correction in advance. The relationship weakens when considering bear markets, i.e. peak-to-trough declines of at least 20%, which can be forecast with at least some reliability.9 The bottom panel is the same as in Chart II-7; the extended ETS index, shaded for periods of significant value stock underperformance. The correspondence between the shaded periods is hardly perfect, and there does not appear to be a practical style exposure message, even if an investor could call corrections in advance. Chart II-8...And Market Directionality Has Been An Imperfect Guide Over The Last 50 Years Valuation Relative valuation also provides some useful information on positioning, though it is not always timely. Chart II-9 presents an aggregate valuation measure for the stocks in our value index relative to that of the stocks in our growth index. Value stocks are expensive relative to growth when the valuation indicator is above +1 standard deviation, and value is cheap when the indicator is less than -1 standard deviation. Historically, investors would have profited if they had over-weighted value stocks when the valuation indicator reached the threshold of undervaluation, although subsequent outperformance was delayed by as much as a year in two episodes. In contrast, the valuation indicator is not useful as a 'sell' signal for value stocks because they can remain overvalued for long periods. Value was overvalued relative to growth for much of the time between 2009 and 2016. Value stocks have cheapened since then, although they have yet to reach the undervaluation threshold. The Fed Funds Rate Cycle While relative style performance may generally lean in one direction or another in conjunction with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad equity-market performance, there are no hard-and-fast rules. It is difficult to formulate any sort of rotation view between styles, and history does not inspire confidence that any such rule would generate material outperformance. The monetary policy backdrop offers a path forward. We have found the fed funds rate cycle offers a consistent guide to equity and bond returns in other contexts, and our Global ETF Strategy service has found a robust link between the policy cycle and equity factor performance.10 We segment the fed funds rate cycle into four phases, based on whether or not the Fed is hiking or cutting rates, and whether policy is accommodative or restrictive (Chart II-10). Our judgment of the state of policy is derived from comparing the fed funds rate to our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. Chart II-9Sizeable Undervaluation Flags Turning ##br##Points, But You May Have To Wait A While Chart II-10The Fed Funds Rate Cycle As defined by Fama and French, value stocks outperform growth stocks by a considerable margin when monetary policy is restrictive (Table II-3 and Chart II-11, top panel). Considering value and growth stocks separately, both perform extremely well when policy is easy (Chart II-11, second panel), but growth stocks barely advance when policy is tight, falling far behind their value counterparts. A strategy for generalist investors may be to seek out value exposure when policy is tight, while investing without regard to styles when it is easy. Table II-3The State Of Monetary Policy Is The ##br##Best Guide To Style Performance Chart II-11The State Of Monetary Policy Drives Style Performance Investment Conclusions: U.S. equity sectors that have traditionally been considered "growth" have outperformed value sectors for an extended period. The long slump has led some investors to argue that value investing is finished, killed by a combination of overexposure and short-term performance imperatives. Other investors see value's long drought as an anomaly, and are looking for the opportune time to bet on a reversal. We are in the latter camp. The difficulty lies in finding an indicator that reliably leads value stocks' outperformance. Most macro measures are unhelpful, though broad market direction offers some insight, as stocks with low price-to-book multiples have outperformed their high-priced peers by a wide margin during bear markets. Bear markets aren't the most useful timing guide, however, because one only knows in retrospect when they begin and end. The monetary policy backdrop holds the most promise as a practical guide. Although our determination of easy or tight policy turns on the modeled estimate of a concept and should not be looked to for absolute precision, it has provided a timely, reliable guide to value outperformance. We expect the relationship will persist because of the cushion provided by less demanding multiples. Earnings and multiples surge when policy is easy, lifting all boats. It is only when policy is tight, and the tide is going out, that the margin of safety offered by lower-priced stocks yields the greatest benefit. Per our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, we are still firmly ensconced within Phase I of the policy rate cycle, and expect that we will remain there until sometime in the second half of 2019. We therefore expect that value, in Fama and French terms, will continue to underperform growth for another year. The clock is ticking for growth, though, as the expansion is in its latter stages and building inflation pressures will likely force the Fed to take a fairly hard line in this rate-hiking cycle. Once monetary policy turns restrictive, investors should hunt for value candidates using a range of valuation metrics, and combine them in a sector-neutral way, as we have via our Equity Trading Strategy service's model. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy 1 Graham, Benjamin, The Intelligent Investor, Harper Collins: New York, 2005, p. 97. 2 Ibid, p. 15. 3 Ibid, p. 189. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Market Returns," The Journal of Finance, Volume 47, Issue 2 (June 1992), pp. 427-465. 5 S&P currently brands its Growth and Value Indexes as S&P 500 Dow Jones Indexes, but Citigroup has the longest history of compiling S&P 500 Growth and Value Indexes, beginning in 1975, so we join the Citigroup S&P 500 style indexes to the Standard & Poor's series to obtain the maximum style-index history. We use the terms Citigroup and S&P interchangeably. 6 The Pure Value and Pure Growth indexes include only the top quartile of value and growth stocks, respectively, with no overlap between indexes, and are therefore better gauges of true style investing. 7 The Tech-versus-Financials cast of the indexes endures because all of the other sectors, ex-regulated Telecoms and Utilities, which account for too little market cap to make a difference, regularly move between the indexes as their fundamental fortunes, and investor appetites, wax and wane. The current Early Cyclical/Late Cyclical/Defensive profiles are not etched in stone and should be expected to shift, perhaps considerably, over time. 8 We created a second growth index by taking the top 30% of stocks ranked by earnings momentum. However, it made little difference to the results, so we will use the bottom 30% of stocks by value as our measure of "growth" for the purposes of this report, consistent with Fama/French methodology. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst. September 2017, available on bca.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see the May 17, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," available at getf.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity indicators continue to signal that caution is warranted, but U.S. profits remain potent enough to drown out scattered negative messages. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the low end of a multi-year range, suggesting that liquidity conditions have tightened. Our Composite Technical Indicator is in no-man's land, not far above the zero line that marks a sell signal, but coming close to issuing a buy signal by crossing above its 9-month moving average. Our Composite Sentiment Indicator is in a healthy position that suggests that the current level of investor optimism is sustainable. On the other hand, not one of our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) Indicators is moving in the right direction. The U.S. version is still weak and slowly getting weaker; the European one has flat-lined; and our Japanese WTP extended its decline, albeit from a high level. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a sell signal. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, underlining the idea that caution is warranted. On balance, our indicators continue to suggest that the underlying supports of the U.S. equity bull market are eroding. Surging U.S. profits are papering over the cracks, and may still have some legs. Earnings surprises are at an all-time high, and the net revisions ratio remains elevated. The 10-year Treasury yield's march higher is due to run out of steam. Valuation (slightly cheap) and technicals (oversold by almost 2 standard deviations) imply that a countertrend pullback is not too far around the corner. Beyond a near-term correction, though, complacency about inflation and the Fed's ability to hike rates to at least the level of the FOMC voters' median projection points to looming capital losses. The dollar is quite expensive on a purchasing power parity basis, and its long-term outlook is not constructive, but policy and growth divergences with other major economies will likely keep the wind at its back in the near term. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy

Dear Client, This week, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Juan Correa on the topic of carry trades. In this report, Juan builds on our previous work on the subject. He analyses the role of interest rates, spot fluctuations, and volatility in determining the risk profile of carry trade returns. He also provides suggestions to improve the return skew created by the occasional sharp drawdowns suffered by carry trades. I trust you will find this report interesting and informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Feature While the great financial crisis claimed many victims in its wake, none better embodies the promise and perils of carry strategies than John Devaney. The Florida-based fund manager was able to amass a great fortune by using cheap leverage to finance the purchase of high-yielding MBS; a popular and very profitable strategy during the U.S. housing bubble. Eventually, he paid tribute to the pillar of his success by naming his 62-meter yacht "Positive Carry", - as a reminder of the great riches that could be achieved by simply borrowing at low yields to invest at higher ones. But just as his success was great, so was his downfall. When the housing bubble popped, Mr. Devaney's fund found itself unable to meet its margin calls, causing it to shut down. Ultimately, every single penny of investors' money was lost, while Mr. Devaney had to liquidate millions in personal assets; the yacht "Positive Carry" being one of them.1 Of course, bonds have not been the only asset class where carry strategies have been popular. Foreign exchange in particular has historically been the market of choice for investors looking to take advantage of positive carry. Specifically, the seminal 1984 paper, "Forward and Spot Exchange Rates", where Eugene Fama made the empirical observation that uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) does not hold2 (Chart 1), officially formalized the idea that carry in currency markets was a factor that could be systematically exploited. Chart 1The Forward Premium Puzzle So where do FX carry strategies stand in reality? Is carry really a market inefficiency that can be taken advantage of in almost arbitrage-like fashion? Or is it more like playing Russian roulette? A strategy that is deceptively profitable, but one that in the long run will wipe out an investor's capital. Table 1The Mechanics Of The Carry Strategy Index To answer these questions, we analyze the properties of carry strategies by constructing a Carry Strategy Index as follows:3 Ranking the 10 countries in the G10 according to their 3-month interest rate. Using the 3-month rate implied by forward rates.4 Going long 3 crosses that have the following criteria: With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the lowest interest rate. With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the second highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the second lowest interest rate. With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the third highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the third lowest interest rate. Rebalance every three months. (For clarity Table 1 shows an example of the strategy at work) We did not take into account collateral return, as this component can vary depending on the home currency of the investor. While not taking into account collateral returns penalizes the profitability of the strategy, this method allows our Carry Strategy Index to be comparable across investors in the G10. Observations On Carry Returns Chart 2 shows our Carry Strategy Index, along with a breakdown of the strategy's two components: the spot component and the interest rate component. The Carry Strategy Index obtained an annualized rate of return of 4.1% from the beginning of the sample in March 1989 to the end in mid-September 2018, with an annualized daily standard deviation of 9.3%. Moreover, while many investors often laud carry strategies as an opportunity to earn a double whammy of positive carry and positive spot return, most of the sample return was attributable to the interest rate component, as the spot component earned a paltry -0.23% annualized sample return, while it was also responsible for all the risk. Which currencies does the Carry Strategy Index favor? Overall, the AUD and the NZD are overwhelmingly carry currencies while the CHF and the JPY tend to be funding currencies most of the time (Chart 3). Chart 2Carry Throughout The Years Chart 3The Usual Suspects: NZD, AUD, JPY & CHF The amount earned on yield differentials was not consistent over time. The best period for our carry index went from 1995 to 2008, where a relatively high level of carry earned remained stable for more than a decade (Chart 4 - top two panels). Meanwhile the convergence of G10 interest rates to near zero in the wake of the great financial crisis reduced the return from the interest rate component to an annualized rate of roughly 3%. Remarkably, while the return offered by the interest rate component decreased, the implied volatility of currencies stayed relatively constant (Chart 4 - third panel), suggesting that the ex-ante return-to-volatility ratio of these strategies has actually decreased since 2008 (Chart 4 - bottom panel). Although the return for the Carry Strategy Index across the sample is attractive, carry investors are unlikely to implement their position over such a long horizon. It is therefore important to recognize that while the interest rate component tends to be relatively stable through multi year periods, the spot component can make the total return of the carry strategy vary wildly across sub-periods (Chart 5). This sub-period performance is likely more relevant for portfolio managers, as these periods reflect with greater accuracy the length of the horizon used to evaluate them. Interestingly, the annualized returns for longer holding periods are more attractive, while carry returns also become more disentangled from spot returns the longer the time horizon becomes. Chart 4Risk Versus Return In ##br##Carry Strategy Index Chart 5The Spot Component Is The Main Driver Of ##br##Carry Returns On Realistic Time Horizons Bottom Line: Our Carry Strategy Index was overwhelmingly long AUD and NZD, while being short JPY and CHF. Moreover, the interest rate component decreased significantly after G10 central bank rates converged to the zero bound, without a corresponding decrease in volatility, resulting in a deteriorating return-to-volatility ratio. Finally, while spot returns had a very small contribution to the sample return, they are a crucial driver for total return in more realistic time horizons, particularly shorter ones. Structural Determinants Of Carry: Is There Really A Puzzle? Many investors have grown disillusioned with carry trades in recent years, as the spot component of the strategy has become much more mediocre than in the past. This general disenchantment with carry trades has only grown stronger, with recent research showing that since 2008 the relationship between rate differentials and spot returns has flipped from positive to negative.5 So where have the good old days gone? A deeper look at the data suggests that the strong positive relationship between spot returns and rate differentials might have been a temporary phenomenon. In fact, the correlation between rate differentials and spot returns can vary widely from year to year (Chart 6). Thus, while the period after 2008 has shown a decrease in correlation, it is not a particularly unique sub-sample, as there have been other periods in history where there has been a negative correlation between rate differentials and spot returns. In fact, the Fama puzzle is not quite a puzzle if one remembers that UIP is not an arbitrage condition like CIP (Covered Interest Rate Parity). Two currencies could very well offer different rates of return so long as they also offer different levels of risk.6 We can see evidence of this by looking at the characteristics of typical carry currencies vs the characteristics of typical funding currencies. Carry currencies tend to have large current account deficits, negative net international investment positions, and are highly levered to the global economic cycle (Chart 7). Not only does this mean they are correlated to other assets, but it also means they are more prone to sudden pullbacks when global liquidity dries up. Funding currencies on the other hand have the opposite characteristics, being typically safe havens that act as hedges against other assets (Chart 7). Chart 6No Stable Correlation Between Interest Rates ##br##And Currency Returns Chart 7No Puzzle: Yield Differentials Are ##br##Just Risk Differentials Does this mean that carry trades will regain their former glory? It is hard to tell. One reason to remain cautious on the long-term outlook for carry trades has been the trade rebalancing that has taken place since the financial crisis (Chart 8). Technically, a rebalancing in the G10 space implies that the risk differential between countries should be decreasing. However, this also means that the return differential has also decreased, which means that the low interest rate component of the Carry Strategy Index at present might be justified. As mentioned previously, the interest rate component is the ultimate driver of carry returns over long horizons (Chart 9). Therefore, carry investors should keep in mind that as imbalances are fixed, risk and yield differentials will narrow, implying that the long-term return of carry strategies will stay low by historical standards. Chart 8Decreasing Risk Differentials##br## In The G10... Chart 9...Imply A Reduced Long-Term Rate Of Return ##br##For Carry Trades Bottom Line: UIP is not an arbitrage condition, which explains why the correlation between spot returns and rate differentials has historically been highly unstable. Instead, rate differentials are often reflective of risk differentials between countries. Rebalancing within the G10 has likely reduced these risk differentials, and consequently carry returns. Cyclical Determinants Of Carry: The Role Of The U.S. Dollar While occasionally there are other currencies that become either funding or carry currencies, this tends to be a rare phenomenon. In fact, the ranking within the G10 rate distribution for any given country tends to remain stable throughout the years. There is only one glaring exception: the United States (Chart 10A and Chart 10B). Chart 10ASince The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain ##br##Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (I) Chart 10BSince The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain ##br##Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (II) The first half of the 1990s was the only time where there was significant interest rate migration for multiple countries. Since then, the U.S. is the only country whose interest rate has migrated significantly across the distribution. This is because it has become the de facto global price-maker of monetary policy. After all, the U.S. is the G10 country whose inflation dynamics are least sensitive to currency movements. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is less concerned with its interest rate differential relative to other G10 economies than other central banks. This allows the Fed to reposition U.S. rates within the G10 distribution according to its own business cycle (Chart 11). On the other hand, the central banks in the rest of the G10 are much more concerned with the way that currency fluctuations can potentially amplify the effect of monetary policy tightening or easing. This makes them much more prone to holding their place in the distribution, and following the rest of the pack accordingly as the business cycle progresses. Additionally, the U.S. economy tends to be less affected by the global business cycle than other economies in the G10. As a result, while other countries might move in unison, the U.S. can follow its own dynamics. The current business cycle is an exaggerated example of this phenomenon. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for carry trades, as the U.S. dollar is the only chameleon currency that can constantly shift from funding currency to carry currency and vice-versa. Chart 12 shows that returns from carry strategies suffer whenever U.S. rates are at the top of the distribution. By the same token, when the U.S. dollar becomes a funding currency, the return in our Carry Strategy Index increase significantly. Chart 11U.S.: Global Price Maker ##br##Of Monetary Policy Chart 12Carry Strategies Suffer When The##br## USD Is A Carry Currency Why does this relationship exist? External debt for the world in general and emerging markets in particular is denominated in U.S. dollars. Whenever U.S. rates rise, external debt servicing increases, causing the return of investment in emerging markets, commodity producers and other cyclical plays highly sensitive to U.S. dollar borrowing costs to deteriorate. Moreover, the high rates in the U.S. make cyclical plays like Australia or New Zealand relatively less attractive to global investors. This creates a dangerous environment for carry trades, given that the possibility of a risk-off event - where funding currencies can rally - becomes increasingly likely. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar is the only currency that can consistently change from carry to funding currency. When the USD is a funding currency, overall carry returns are attractive. Conversely, when the USD is a carry currency, overall carry returns become poor. Tactical Determinants Of Carry: Fighting Against Negative Skew It is important to recognize that volatility is not the only risk that carry investors are exposed to. One of the most agreed upon hypotheses put forward is that carry strategies offer a positive return in exchange for exposure to negative skew in returns, or what is commonly known as the "Peso Problem". Essentially, when they work, carry strategies generate consistent small positive returns; however, they are subject to infrequent yet violent drawdowns. Hence, the return distribution is not normally distributed, but instead has a heavy left tail7 (Chart 13). Chart 13Negative Skew In Carry Strategy Index Why does skew matter? Carry trades are generally accompanied by leverage to amplify the return earned. However, the negative skew can become extremely dangerous at high levels of leverage, as it can lead to margin calls. In selloffs, investors who are not able to meet their margin calls are forced to quickly liquidate their positions, generating downward pressure on prices, and causing even more margin calls. This dynamic causes vicious cycles in carry trades, where losses can pile up very quickly.8 Chart 14Vega-M: An Enhanced Carry Strategy However, we can use the reflexive relationship between risk aversion and carry returns and turn it to our advantage. If we know that once it rises, volatility will create further downward price pressure, which in turn generates further volatility, then we can use the momentum in volatility to determine entry and exit points into carry trades. To take advantage of the above we created a strategy as follows: Long the Carry Strategy Index at day t if at day t-1 the 20-day moving average of the CVIX is below the 200-day moving average.9 Remain uninvested (earn 0% return) at day t if at day t-1 the 20-day moving average of the CVIX is above the 200-day moving average. We call this strategy the Vega-M Carry Index. Our Vega-M Carry Index manages to outperform the Carry Strategy Index within our sample, while also displaying significantly less volatility (Chart 14 - top panel). The Vega-M Carry Index also manages to closely track the interest rate component of the strategy, while eliminating some of the spot risk (Chart 14 - bottom panel). The Vega-M Carry Index also exhibits a much tighter return profile than the Carry Strategy Index (Chart 15 - top panel). Furthermore, while kurtosis in the Vega-M Index is still high, skew for the Vega-M Carry Index is actually positive (Chart 15 - bottom panel). This reduction in negative skew has important implications for investors using leverage. Chart 16 shows how the Vega-M Carry Index allows for a greater use of leverage, as the reduced negative skew eliminated margin calls, which means investors are not stopped out. This allows investors to have much better performance at high levels of leverage. Bottom Line: Given the reflexive relationship between volatility and carry trades, investors can use volatility momentum to generate buy/sell signals. Carry investors should remain invested when the volatility momentum is negative, while they should close their positions when momentum is positive. Chart 15Vega-M: More Compact Return Distribution And No Negative Skew Chart 16Vega-M: Better Performance When Using Margin Investment Implications With the above points considered, we have made a list of the three rules of thumb for carry investors to use: On a structural basis, the long-term rate of return of carry strategies will be determined by the interest rate differential. In general, this differential is a compensation for risk differentials between countries Cyclically, carry trades will deliver poorer returns whenever the U.S. dollar is a carry currency (at the end of the cycle), and will deliver better returns when the U.S. dollar is a funding currency (at the beginning of the cycle). Tactically, investors can use the momentum in volatility as a signal to enter or exit carry trades. Negative volatility momentum can be used as a long signal, while investors should exit their carry positions when volatility momentum becomes positive. While we have divided our rules into investment horizons, carry investors should use all rules in conjunction. The interest rate differential and the projected risk differential between countries can be used to establish an expected long-term rate of return to benchmark against. The position of U.S. rates within the distribution can be used to determine whether a high or low level of leverage is appropriate. Finally, the momentum in volatility can be used to assess entry or exit points from carry trades. What are all these signals telling us right now? The annualized rate of return of the interest rate component in carry strategies will likely remain low. This means that the long-term rate of return of carry strategies will remain at the low end of its historical distribution. Inflationary forces in the U.S. will continue to be greater than in the rest of the world. Thus, U.S. rates will remain at the top of the distribution, which means that leverage on carry strategies should be maintained at a minimum The momentum in volatility continue to be positive. This means investors should hold off from entering into carry trades, and instead wait for a better entry point. Juan Manuel Correa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com 1 Story, Louise. "Hedge Fund Manager Describes Rock Bottom." The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 July 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/business/10fund.html. 2 Please see Fama, E.F. (1984) "Forward And Spot Exchange Rates" Journal of Monetary Economics, 14(3), 319-338 3 We use a multi-currency strategy, as academic research has shown that this method outperforms single currency strategies. For more details, please see "Multiple Currencies Investment Strategy To Take Advantage Of The Forward Bias," Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley, BA 285/E285 International Finance, Student Project. 4 Carry strategies in the FX markets are normally implemented through buying (selling) forward rates with a forward discount (premium) 5 Please see Bussiere, M., Chinn, M., Ferrara, L.,& Heipertz, J. (2018) "The New Fama Puzzle" NBER Working Papers 6 The UIP theory makes the assumption that economic agents are risk neutral. Given this is not the case in reality, much work has been done to try to explain deviations from UIP with currency risk premiums. For more information please see Menkhoff, L., Sarno, L. , Schmeling, M. and Schrimpf, A. (2012), "Carry Trades and Global Foreign Exchange Volatility". The Journal of Finance, 67: 681-718. 7 This makes the Sharpe ratio deceptive as a measure of risk-reward for carry strategies, as this measure does not account for skew. 8 For a more detailed description about the relationship between unexpected jumps in volatility and carry returns please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 9 We use 20-day and 200-day moving averages given that moving averages using these types of ranges tend to best capture the momentum in financial markets. For more details about momentum strategies please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies in Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights We have deciphered global trade linkages to determine which countries are most at risk from a slowdown in EM/China imports. Our analysis takes into account not only the destinations of shipments but also the types of goods. Peru, Chile, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand are the most vulnerable to a slowdown in industrial sectors in EM and China. The least vulnerable emerging economies to this theme are Mexico, Turkey, Colombia, India and Russia. Feature The growth desynchronization1 currently taking place between developing and advanced economies warrants a detailed analysis of trade flows by countries as well as types of goods to assess the vulnerability of various economies to the global trade slowdown. This report's objective is to reveal which countries are most vulnerable to a slowdown in domestic demand in emerging markets, including China. Our main macro theme remains a considerable slowdown in EM/China capital spending, and a moderate slowdown in their consumer spending. We used these macro assumptions to produce a vulnerability ranking for both developing and developed countries. Why Do China And EM Matter? Annual imports by emerging markets including China stand at a combined $7 trillion. This overshadows both U.S. and EU imports, which collectively stand at $4.6 trillion, and underscores the importance of EM and China in global trade (Chart I-1). Chinese imports excluding processing trade - inputs that are imported, then processed and re-exported - make up $1.6 trillion, i.e., constituting 23% of the $7 trillion total of EM plus China imports. Furthermore, the most vulnerable part of the EM/Chinese economies are capital expenditures. The latter represent a significant portion of the global economy (Chart I-2). Aggregate investment expenditures in developing countries including China are as large as those of the U.S. and EU together. China itself accounts for half of EM investment expenditures. Moreover, capital spending is the largest component of the Chinese economy, constituting 42% of GDP. By comparison, Chinese exports to the U.S. and EU together account for only 7% of GDP. Chinese shipments to the U.S. constitute a mere 3.6% of mainland GDP (Chart I-3). Chart I-1EM/China Imports Are Much Larger ##br##Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chart I-2EM/China Capex Is As Large ##br##As U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chart I-3Structure Of Chinese##br## Economy In turn, Chinese imports are much more leveraged to the country's capital spending than to household expenditures. Table I-1 shows that imports of consumer goods excluding autos account for a mere 15% of total Chinese foreign goods intake. Table I-1Import Composition Of Chinese Imports With construction and infrastructure spending being a substantial part of mainland capital expenditures, China's investment cycle is very sensitive to the money/credit cycle. This is because no construction or infrastructure investment can be undertaken without credit (loans, bonds and other types of financing). Therefore, China's credit cycle - which drives its domestic capex cycle - is a key predictor of Chinese imports and many commodity prices (Chart I-4). Despite the latest liquidity easing in China, the cumulative effect of previous liquidity tightening as well as the ongoing regulatory clampdown on the financial system are still working their way through the banking and shadow banking systems. Our assessment is that it will take some time before the cumulative effect from the recent liquidity easing takes hold and helps growth recover. China accounts for a significant portion of total EM exports (Chart I-5). Shipments to China constitute 18% of emerging Asia's and 22% of South America's total exports. As the mainland's capex cycle and imports continue to decelerate, EM ex-China exports will slump. This will not only generate a negative income shock in EM economies but will also result in currency depreciation, which will push up local interest rates and tighten banking system liquidity (Chart I-6). Overall, a major downturn in the EM ex-China capex cycle and a moderate slowdown in household consumption will ensue. Chart I-4Chinese Imports ##br##To Decelerate Chart I-5Importance China For Emerging Asia ##br##And South America Chart I-6EM Ex-China: Currency Depreciation##br## = Higher Local Rates How are different countries exposed to these forces? Methodology The global marketplace for goods is a complex system. Modern trade is dominated by the exchange of intermediate goods within different supply chains.2 Furthermore, trade flows between countries are dependent on the types of goods that are traded (industrial versus consumption goods, for instance). Our objective is to compute each country's exposure to China and the rest of the EM industrial sectors that are at the epicenter of a slowdown, as we elaborated above. We have developed the following methodology, summing up the following three parameters3 for each major economy in the world: 1) Exports to China that are used for industrial purposes (Table I-2). Table I-2Vulnerability Ranking Of Exports To China In order to adjust for the sensitivity a certain export has to China's industrial sector, we assigned three coefficients to them: 0, 0.5 and 1. Agricultural commodities and non-durable consumer goods are assigned a coefficient of 0, and are therefore omitted from this aggregation. The basis for this is that agricultural goods are not sensitive to the industrial sector, and we do not expect a slump in China's consumption of non-durable goods. A coefficient of 0.5 is assigned to industrial fuels and semi-durable goods. This entails a moderate slowdown in these imports by China. Our rationale is that demand for industrial fuels is somewhat sensitive to the industrial sector, but not significantly as they are also consumed by the consumer sector. Industrial metals, capital goods and durable consumer goods are assigned a coefficient of 1, meaning maximum vulnerability. The former two are directly tied to the industrial sector, (construction and infrastructure, in particular) while the latter one will suffer as discretionary big-ticket item spending will weaken in the wake of a potential decline in financial assets and real estate values. We also have made an adjustment to account for goods that are exported to China and then re-exported to developed markets for final consumption. We assume these goods are not vulnerable, as we are not negative on U.S. and EU final domestic demand. Based on our estimates, around 30% of intermediate manufacturing goods shipments to China from Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand are actually re-exported from China to developed markets for final consumption. We therefore removed this amount from the aggregation to properly reflect the vulnerable portion of their exports. 2) Exports to EM ex-China that are used for industrial purposes (Table I-3). Table I-3Vulnerability Ranking Of Exports To EM Ex-China In order to adjust for the sensitivity of certain exports to the EM ex-China industrial sector, we assigned the same coefficients as above. The reason is that agricultural goods and non-durable consumer goods (a coefficient of zero) will not be sensitive to a slowdown in EM ex-China industrial sectors. Industrial metals, capital goods and durable goods, on the other hand, will be very vulnerable (a coefficient of one). Industrial fuels and semi-durable goods will be modestly affected (a coefficient of 0.5). 3) Exports to complex economies4 (i.e. Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden and Switzerland) that are susceptible of being re-exported to emerging markets. We estimate that 30% of intermediate exports that are shipped to these very advanced economies end up being re-exported to EM and China. So, 30% of any country's intermediate goods exports to the complex economies is considered vulnerable. Vulnerability Ranking Chart I-7 sums up the three variables introduced above - total amount of vulnerable exports - and ranks countries based on their exports that are susceptible to an EM/China industrial slowdown as a share of total imports. Chart I-7Vulnerable Exports To China And EM As A Share Of Total Exports Chart I-8 lists countries based on the size of their vulnerable exports as a share of their GDP from highest to lowest. Chart I-8Vulnerable Exports To China And EM As A Share Of GDP Chart I-9 presents our ultimate trade vulnerability ranking which combines both parameters - vulnerable exports as a share of total exports and GDP. Peru, Chile, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand are the most vulnerable to a slowdown in industrial sectors in EM and China. The least vulnerable emerging economies are Mexico, Turkey, Colombia, India and Russia. Chart I-9Overall Vulnerability Assessment These macro themes and rankings constitute an important but not sole part of our country view formation. There are many other factors - both global and domestic - that enter the formulation of our country views. That is why this ranking is not entirely consistent with our country recommendations. The lists of our overweights and underweights across EM equities, fixed-income, credit and currencies as well as specific trades that we recommend can be found on pages 9-10. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Desynchronization Compels Currency Adjustments", dated September 20, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=2109 3 All values are measured in US$ and are measured as % of total exports. The data is from the United Nations and dated as of December 31, 2017. 4https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/oec-new/overview/ Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The presidential race between Haddad and Bolsorano will be very tight. At present, we put slightly higher odds on Haddad winning by a small margin in the second round. A Haddad victory would lead to a continuation of stress in financial markets. The prospects of Lula's release and populist policies will lead to further downside in Brazilian assets Bolsorano's victory in the second round will likely lead to a tradeable rally in Brazil's financial markets. For now continue underweighting Brazilian equities and credit and continue shorting the BRL. We will consider whether to upgrade Brazil after the outcome of the elections becomes clearer. Feature Chart 1Potential Roadmaps For Equities Relative Performance Brazil's upcoming general elections will be among the closest in recent history. Current polls show a tight race between right-wing candidate Jair Bolsonaro and left-wing candidate Fernando Haddad. A victory by Bolsonaro may spark a short-term rally in Brazilian assets on the expectation of structural reforms. On the other hand, a Haddad victory and return of the Worker's Party to power would be quite negative for financial markets. The upside of this election, regardless of outcome, is that a new government with a new mandate will be formed, restoring a semblance of legitimacy for the first time since the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in 2016. The downside is that this mandate will be weak, the odds of a "pro-market" government are uncertain, and Congress will be fragmented. Much-needed yet painful social security reforms will face an uphill battle, with potentially another market riot needed to motivate policymakers and legislators to enact social security reforms. On the macroeconomic front, Brazil does not have a lot of room and time for maneuver. Without drastic measures to cut the budget deficit or boost nominal GDP, public debt will most likely spiral out of control. Due to the current state of polarization, we cannot have a high conviction view on the election outcome until after the congressional elections on October 7. That said, the macro forces remain negative for EM overall and Brazil in particular. Barring Bolsorano's victory in the second round, there is little reason for Brazilian risk assets to rally (Chart 1). An Anti-Establishment Victory? Media attention has centered on Bolsonaro of the Social Liberal Party. He is the frontrunner in the first round of the race, despite his controversial rhetoric and overt sympathies with Brazil's military dictatorship of the past. In polling for the second round, his considerable lead has shrunk, as he is now neck and neck with the other contenders (Chart 2). Bolsonaro is a serious candidate not because of any overarching, international "Trumpian" narrative, but because Brazil itself is ripe for an anti-establishment electoral outcome: With Lula out of the race, the combined "right-wing" and "left-wing" vote is close in the first round (Chart 3). Chart 2Second-Round Polls Very Tight Chart 3A Tight Race The country is still in the throes of a political crisis and a historic recession (Chart 4). The major political parties have been discredited. Years of slow economic growth have resulted in extremely low levels of public trust in government (Chart 5). Chart 4Brazil In The Wake Of A Historic Recession Chart 5Low Growth Countries Suffer From Lack Of Trust In Their Government This is prompting voters to seek a "change in direction" and/or a "protest vote," from which Bolsonaro is apparently benefiting. There is even a sizable audience for Bolsonaro's authoritarianism and nostalgia for military rule. Brazilians are disillusioned with democracy - with 67% of respondents in a Pew Research poll saying they are "not satisfied" with democracy, compared to a global median of 52%.1 Almost a third of educated Brazilians favor military rule, and that number is as high as 45% among the uneducated (Chart 6).2 Bolsonaro's net approval is less negative than other candidates. In fact, only former Presidents Lula and Rousseff have higher net approval (Chart 7). This is a serious risk to Bolsonaro's likeliest rivals, Fernando Haddad of the Worker's Party and Ciro Gomes of the Democratic Labor Party. Bolsonaro's stabbing at a rally on September 6 has not taken him out of the race. His social media support has become an important tool to reach out to his fan base. Chart 6Brazilian Voters Harbor Some Authoritarian Tendencies Chart 7Net Approvals Advantage Bolsonaro However, there are two key reasons why Bolsonaro is not the favorite to win the election: First, Brazil's two-round electoral system works against Bolsonaro because it enables left-leaning voters to vote strategically in favor of the "least bad option," i.e. the available left-of-center candidate, in the second round. Thus while polling shows Bolsonaro very close to each of his potential opponents in the second round, his final opponent will receive a boost that will not be fully accounted for until after the first round eliminates other left-wing contenders. Recent polls suggest that Haddad stands to benefit much more than Bolsonaro from the "migration" of votes after the first round, as left-wing supporters team up against Bolsonaro in the second round (Table 1). Second, with Lula disqualified from the race, Lula supporters are now in the process of switching to support Haddad. Lula has carried a high approval rating of around 35%-40% for over a year, well above all other candidates. In our "poll of polls" (average of various polls) Haddad has risen rapidly in the one month since Lula's disqualification became clear, so that he is now at equal odds with Bolsonaro (see Chart 2 above). A few polls even suggest Haddad is ahead of Bolsonaro in the second round (Chart 8).3 Table 1Second Round Migration##br## Polls Advantage Haddad Chart 8Haddad Is Ahead##br## In These Polls To elaborate on this last point: First, about 59% of Lula's supporters say they will shift to Haddad (Chart 9), which should be enough to position him as one of the top two contenders in the first round of voting. Only 4% of Lula supporters will shift to right-of-center candidate Alckmin- a share that is overpowered by the 71% of the Lula vote that will go to left-leaning candidates. Second, the number of undecided and "blank" Lula voters is high at 18%. These voters - if they vote - will mostly go to Haddad, and then Gomes. From the above we can conclude that Haddad will face Bolsonaro in the second round runoff. Because of strategic voting, Haddad will be favored to win the Presidency. A major risk to the left-wing candidate in the second round is that as many as 18% of Lula voters may stay home and not vote. This would mean that Haddad could lose the final vote due to low turnout.4 Overall voter turnout has been falling slightly since 2006 (from 83.3% to 80.7% in 2014) and the disillusionment of voters could result in still lower turnout in 2018. This would favor Bolsonaro, whose supporters are the most likely to vote, whereas Haddad's are the least likely, according to surveys. The profile of the most likely voters favors Bolsonaro (Table 2).5 Chart 9Lula's Migration Vote Table 2Voter Profile Of Each Candidate As a consequence, we give Bolsonaro 40%-50% odds of winning the presidency, with the possibility of downgrading his probability to a flat 40% if the rise in Haddad's polling continues at the current pace. Strategic voting imposes a handicap on Bolsonaro, making it hard for him to increase his odds above 50%. The lower net approval for Haddad and Gomes, and the risk that Lula voters will fail to transfer in full force to Haddad, suggests that Bolsonaro has a fair chance of winning the second round. Elections are a Bayesian process and we will update our probabilities as more information comes in. In particular, it is important to see if Haddad exceeds expectations in the October 7 first round. Bottom Line: Given strategic voting in the second round and the momentum behind Haddad, the odds of a left-wing victory in the Brazilian election are 50%-60%. However, this is a low-conviction view. Bolsonaro's odds of winning are closer to 40%-50%, particularly if Lula voters stay home. The New Government's Mandate Will Be Weak No matter who wins, there will be at least one positive takeaway for Brazilian risk assets: a new government will be elected with a fresh mandate to lead the country. The Brazilian state has suffered from a crisis of legitimacy over the past few years. A countrywide anti-corruption campaign and economic depression has led to a general loss of confidence. The latter was further exacerbated by the impeachment of President Rousseff and paralysis of the interim government of Michel Temer. Hence this election will clear the air and give a new government the chance to tackle the country's economic and political problems. However, this clearly positive factor will be overwhelmed by negative factors as the election unfolds and in the aftermath: No first round winner: As outlined above, none of the candidates are likely to win a simple majority of the vote in the first round on October 7. This has been the norm in recent elections, but it precludes the possibility that the current crisis will be matched by a leader with a strong personal mandate, like Cardoso in the 1990s. A close election may lead to contested results: The current second-round polling suggests the outcome will be close. The losing side may challenge the results, a controversy that could cause significant political uncertainty for weeks or months. Bolsonaro has already suggested that he can only lose if the Worker's Party rigs the election. Congress will be fractured: Brazil's Congress is always fractious; with numerous parties and coalitions cobbled together by presidents whose own party has a relatively small share of seats (Chart 10). The upcoming president may even have a weaker congressional base than usual. The erstwhile dominant parties, the PDMB and the PSDB, are less popular than they once were and have put forward lackluster presidential candidates, suggesting they will not win large numbers of seats. The Worker's Party, with a large support base in recent decades, was at the epicenter of the impeachment crisis and suffered huge losses in the municipal elections of 2016, also suggesting it will not win as many seats.6 Meanwhile Bolsonaro's Social Liberal Party is starting from a low base (it currently has only eight out of 513 seats in the lower house and none in the senate). Hence, no party is in a position to sweep Congress, or even come close to a majority, ensuring high diffusion of power, horse-trading, and unstable, ad hoc coalitions. Such coalitions have been a hallmark of Brazilian politics and may even be more unstable this time around. Chart 10ABrazil's Parliament Is Fractious Chart 10BBrazil's Parliament Is Fractious No more pork: Given the focus on fiscal austerity and corruption, the next president of Brazil will struggle to command as much "pork-barrel spending" - politically-motivated fiscal handouts to individual congress members - to grease the wheels of politics. President Lula and President Cardoso both relied on pork to ensure passage of key legislation in the 1990s and early 2000s. Polarization: Polarization will remain high as a result of the economic crisis. If Haddad wins, we expect that he will pardon President Lula, despite his assertions to the contrary, and create ill-will among the roughly 52% of the population that views Lula as corrupt. If Bolsonaro manages a victory, he will face intense opposition and resistance from civil society and possibly a left-of-center Congress. Historically, a governing coalition with a majority of seats eventually emerges from Brazil's fragmented Congress. However, periods of political crisis - and transitions from one leading party to the next - often require more time to form such coalitions. It took Lula two years, from 2002-04, to form a majority coalition during his first term in office, according to research by Taeko Hiroi of the University of Texas at El Paso (Chart 11). Chart 11Historical Profile Of Governing Coalitions Bottom Line: The formation of a new government with a new mandate is positive but it will not bestow as much political capital as the market expects: in all likelihood the new president's mandate will be weak and Congress will, at least initially, be divided. Will Reforms Be Reactive Or Proactive? What are the likely market reactions from the different election scenarios? And will policymakers be proactive or reactive in their pursuit of any structural reforms? While we cannot rule out a knee-jerk rally if Bolsonaro wins, the length and breadth of the market reaction will depend on the government's political capital (e.g. popular margin of victory and strength in Congress) and willingness to be proactive about structural reforms. On the left, both Haddad and Gomes are "populist," left-leaning, candidates whose victory would exacerbate the selloff. Haddad's vice-presidential candidate and coalition partner is Manuela D'Avila, from the Brazilian Communist Party (PCdoB). Their platform states that the solution to low economic growth is expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, such as a removal of the cap on government spending and a reduction in interest rates. Meanwhile the Gomes campaign has denied that Brazil has a pension deficit.7 Neither Haddad nor Gomes faces the IMF-imposed constraints that Lula faced when he took power in 2002. The market pressure surrounding his election in 2002 and the IMF proposals at that time essentially forced Lula to continue his predecessor Cardoso's reforms. Compared to 2002-03, today's profile of Brazilian share prices suggests that more downside is warranted (see Chart 1, page 1). Hence, we believe more market turmoil would be necessary to force Haddad or Gomes to adopt any difficult and unpopular fiscal reforms. We believe that both could be capable of executing reforms if pressed by the market, but a market riot is needed first. On the other hand, a Bolsonaro victory would likely trigger a meaningful rally on the expectation of pro-market reforms. Bolsonaro's economic advisor Paulo Guedes, a University of Chicago economics PhD holder, is a supply-side reformer who has proposed to privatize state-owned assets, enact tax and pension reforms, and scale back the bureaucracy. Crucially, Bolsonaro's camp wants to use the proceeds from privatization to repurchase public debt and buy time before reforming the pension system. Hence, in the eyes of many investors, Bolsonaro represents a market-friendly candidate despite his tough talk and anti-establishment tendencies. The problem is that Guedes has spent far more time giving interviews to the financial press than campaigning on draconian structural reforms. As such, it is not clear that Bolsonaro's economic team's promises jive with the desires of the median voter in the country. Bolsonaro, meanwhile, will likely be limited in forming a coalition in the Chamber of Deputies.8 The ability to form and maintain alliances in the Chamber of Deputies is a key constraint for any Brazilian president, especially from a smaller party. Obstructionism is common.9 Even large parties with strong alliances have fallen into gridlock, most obviously in attempting structural reforms. In late 1998, for instance, 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. In short, it will be difficult for the new president to implement reforms at the beginning of his term even though, as noted above, Brazilian presidents tend to cobble together a coalition over time. It should be noted that Bolsonaro's authoritarian tendencies and desire to rewrite the 1988 constitution - a partisan Pandora's Box - could result in a further deterioration of Brazilian governance (Chart 12). This would push up the risk premium on assets over the long run, though in the short run Bolsonaro may be positively received by financial markets. Bottom Line: Bolsonaro would likely want to be a proactive structural reformer, but he would also be constrained at first due to his small party base in Congress and need to form a coalition. In addition, the days of liberally soothing partisan battles with pork-barrel spending are over. Brazil is both fiscally constrained and increasingly sensitive to corruption. Moreover, fiscal austerity would come with a negative hit to growth in the short term. It is not clear whether Bolsonaro will be able to form a Congressional coalition that can push through the painful part of the "J-Curve" of structural reform (Diagram 1). Chart 12Brazilian Governance Set To Fall Further Diagram 1The J-Curve Of Structural Reform On the other hand, neither Haddad's nor Gomes's platforms are market-friendly. Neither is likely to attempt structural reforms proactively. The market would have to sell off further, as in 2002, to pressure them into such policies. At that point, however, they might ultimately have a better ability to push legislation through Congress than Bolsonaro due to their ability to form larger coalitions amongst leftist parties. Either way Brazilian risk assets have further downside from where they stand today. A market riot is likely necessary to galvanize the population's support for painful structural reforms. That support currently does not exist. What Is At Stake? Chart 13The Achilles Heel Of The Brazilian Economy Brazil's public debt is out of control. Weak nominal GDP growth and high borrowing costs are increasing the public debt burden. This debt stems in large part from a sizable social security deficit that will continue expanding without the above-mentioned reforms (Chart 13). Thus, the next president will face a dilemma: implement austerity to satisfy creditors or increase spending to satisfy voters. A close look at voter preferences suggests that top priorities are improving health services and raising the minimum wage, while pension reform is at the bottom of the list (Chart 14). This reinforces our view that the left-of-center candidates are likely to be the closest to the median voter, and that fiscal austerity is not forthcoming. However, voters are also demanding that inflation be controlled, taxes be cut, and jobs be created - all of which could result in support for right-of-center candidates. Two possibilities to stabilize or reduce the debt load are: (1) restoring a primary budget surplus by enacting social security cuts and/or (2) privatizing state assets to raise fiscal revenues. In Europe throughout the early 2000s, peripheral countries with large public debt imbalances ran large primary budget deficits, just as Brazil has been running (Chart 15, top panel). Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain stabilized their debt-to-GDP ratios by cutting social spending and capping fiscal expenditures (Chart 15, bottom panel). This will prove challenging as Brazil's pension system is one of the most generous in the world, with retirement ages of 54 and 52 for men and women, respectively, and a much lower contribution period relative to other countries. Furthermore, replacement rates for both men and women are 61%, or 10 percentage points above the OECD average and over 15 percentage points above other countries' reformed pension systems.10 Finally, the dependency ratio will continue to increase, as rising life expectancy and a declining working-age population remain structural headwinds for years to come.11 In our conversations with clients, the reality of Brazil's aging demographics usually comes as a complete surprise. Chart 14Brazil's Population Is ##br##Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Chart 15Eurozone Debt Crisis Resulted ##br##In Lower Spending And Stable Debt Therefore, social security reforms require outright cuts in spending, rather than soft caps on the budget balance. The present soft cap on government expenditures is not adequate to stabilize or reduce government debt levels. Could privatization help stabilize public debt dynamics? The privatization program during the 1990s under the Collor, Franco, and Cardoso governments led to the sale of $91 billion (around R$ 100 billion or 9% of GDP) worth of assets from 107 state-owned enterprises over the course of a decade. Presently, in order to re-balance the primary deficits of R$93 and R$79 billion for 2018 and 2019 respectively, the government would be required to frontload the sale of large state-owned entities, such as Petrobras or Banco do Brasil. This will prove challenging, since the sale of state-owned enterprises requires legislative approval. In fact, over the past two years, under interim President Temer, the government has struggled to sell its assets such as Electrobras. Even assuming that a Brazilian government under Bolsonaro conducts large-scale asset sales, previous privatization programs have failed to yield targeted sums and have required a longer time to implement than originally expected. Overall, privatization is not a feasible option to reduce high debt levels in Brazil in the short run. Bottom Line: Stabilizing or reducing the public debt as a share of GDP will be challenging under the current set of preferences set by voters. Moreover, demographic headwinds and structural constraints embodied in Brazil's two-tier legislative system will slow down the process of privatization and pension reform. The market is forward-looking and will cheer attempts to enact supply-side reforms in the short run, should they emerge, despite long-term uncertainties. The key questions are (1) whether the election produces a proactive Bolsonaro regime or a reactive left-wing regime (2) whether coalition formation - in Bolsonaro's case - or exogenous market pressure - in Haddad's case - are sufficient to initiate reforms in a timely manner in 2019. Amidst a broad EM selloff driven by external factors as well as Brazil's and other EM's internal fundamentals, we expect the markets to be largely disappointed in 2019. The evolution of the political context throughout the year will then determine when and if a buying opportunity emerges. Investment Implications In the late 1990s, faced with high foreign debt levels, a large current account deficit, and weak nominal growth, the Brazilian central bank devalued the real by 66% in January 1999 (Chart 16). This led to a rebound in nominal growth which helped the country relieve itself from built up excesses. In today's context, a weaker currency and lower interest rates are required to boost nominal GDP and contain Brazil's public debt as a share of GDP. There are already signs that the central bank is easing liquidity amid currency depreciation - which stands in contrast of the recent past (Chart 17). More liquidity provisioning by the central bank will cause the real to depreciate further. In light of this, we recommend that investors continue shorting the currency versus the U.S. dollar. Furthermore, due to our expectation of further deceleration in global growth stemming from China and a strong dollar, investors should expect more downside in broader EM and Brazilian share prices in U.S. dollar terms. With respect to the outcome of the elections, investors should continue underweighting Brazilian equities and credit in their respective portfolios for now (Chart 18). Chart 16Brazil Needs A Weaker Currency To##br## Boost Nominal Growth Chart 17A New##br## Paradigm Shift? Chart 18Sovereign Credit Spreads Will##br## Continue Widening We will consider whether an upgrade of Brazil is warranted after electoral outcomes become known. Particularly, the balance of the parties in Congress and the new president's coalition formation options will dictate the relative performance of Brazilian equities and credit over the next 6-12 months. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see, Wike, R. et al., "Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy", October 16th, 2017, available at http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/many-unhappy-with-current-political-system/ 2 In addition to the Pew Research data cited in Chart 5, please see Dora Saclarides, "Do Brazilians Believe In Democracy?" InoVozes, The Wilson Center, November 21, 2017, available at www.wilsoncenter.org. 3 Please see "Brazil: Vox Populi Poll Gives Haddad Lead In Presidential Race," Telesur, September 13, 2018, available at www.telesurtv.net, & Data Poder 360 poll from September 21st, available at: https://www.poder360.com.br/datapoder360/datapoder360-bolsonaro-tem-26-e-haddad-22-os-2-empatam-no-2o-turno/ 4 Please see, BTG Pactual September 15-16 poll, page 18. The Polls states that 57% of Lula voters would "not vote at all" while 41% would vote for Haddad. While turnout will improve for the second round, this is a risk to Haddad. 5 A poll by Empiricus Research and Parana Pesquisas p56 shows that 89.5% intend to vote (which is unrealistic), and that 95.7% of Bolsonaro voters intend to vote while 91.6% of Haddad voters intend to vote. 6 "The PT lost four of the five state capitals it had run, including Sao Paulo, the country's economic powerhouse where the leftist party was born. The PT lost two-thirds of the municipalities it won in 2012, dropping to 10th place from third in the number of mayors controlled by each party." Please see Anthony Broadle, "Brazil parties linked to corruption punished in local elections," Reuters, October 2, 2016, available at www.reuters.com. 7 Gomes has, however, admitted the need for some adjustments to the retirement age and public sector worker privileges, which suggests that he could be brought to pursue structural reforms under the right circumstances. https://todoscomciro.com/en_us/pnd/ciro-gomes-previdencia-social/ 8 Bolsonaro's legislative experience is also surprisingly thin. As a congressional representative for 27 years, he has only passed two laws, after presenting a total of 171 bills and one amendment to the constitution. Only three of these bills presented were of economic nature. It is unclear whether he has what it takes to galvanize the legislature in pursuit of tricky reforms. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated September 10, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 A replacement rate is the percentage of a worker's pre-retirement income that is paid out by a pension program upon retirement. 11 Ratio measuring number of dependent zero to 14 and over the age of 65 to total working age population

Highlights The upcoming changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard will substantially alter the sector composition of the MSCI China Investable index, by hollowing out the information technology sector (to the benefit of consumer discretionary and the new communication services sector). The new communication services sector will become a market-neutral (but barbelled) sector from the perspective of cyclicality, with high- and low-beta components. The inclusion of Alibaba in the consumer discretionary sector warrants the closure of our most successful trade over the past year: long consumer staples / short discretionary. Feature S&P Dow Jones and MSCI Inc. will be implementing major structural changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), effective after the market close on September 28, 2018. The changes are among the most significant since the GICS was launched in 1999, and there are meaningful implications for investors. In this brief special report, we summarize the key changes as they pertain to the Chinese investable equity benchmark, and provide a counterfactual simulation of historical performance had the upcoming changes been in effect over the past three years.1 For the MSCI China index, the main investable equity benchmark, the changes to the GICS structure will largely impact three sectors: information technology, consumer discretionary, and telecommunication services: The telecommunication services sector will be renamed to "communication services", and this new level 1 sector will be much broader in scope. Communication services will include companies that facilitate transformation in the way of communication, entertainment, and information seeking. In addition to the companies currently classified within telecommunication services, communication services will include media stocks formerly in the consumer discretionary sector, including advertising, broadcasting, cable & satellite, publishing, movies & entertainment sub-sectors. In addition, home entertainment software and some internet software & services companies, currently classified under the information technology sector, will also move to communication services. These include prominent stocks like Baidu, Tencent, Sina, and Sohu. The consumer discretionary sector will include online retailers, such as Alibaba, from information technology sector under its internet & direct marketing retail sub-sector. Chart 1 shows that these changes will have a very substantial impact on the sector composition of the MSCI China index. The weight of the information technology sector will drop dramatically from 37% to 3% after the GICS changes occur, because all three of the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) will move to other sectors. The weight of consumer discretionary is set to rise from 8% to 20%, as the inclusion of Alibaba offsets the removal of media (Alibaba alone will account for 60% of the consumer discretionary sector after the GICS changes). Relative to the current weight of telecommunication services, the new communication services sector weight will be substantially higher, at 27% (versus its 5% current weight). Chart 2 provides both factual and counterfactual perspectives on what relative performance for these three sectors would have looked like since 2016, had the upcoming changes been in effect. The chart shows that the relative performance of consumer discretionary and communication services sector would have been considerably stronger, while the tech sector would have underperformed (in sharp contrast to what has actually occurred). Chart 3 provides some perspective on the cyclicality of China's new communication services sector. The telecommunication services sector is clearly a defensive sector, and has exhibited a beta less than 0.5 over the past year. However, the chart shows that communication services (had it existed), would have basically been a market-neutral sector in terms of market beta because of the offsetting impact of both including high-beta internet software & services companies and low-beta telecommunication services. In effect, the new communication services will become a barbelled sector from the perspective of cyclicality, with high- and low-beta components. Chart 1A Hollowing Out Of The Information Technology Sector Chart 2CD And Comm Services Would Have Outperformed Over The Past Three Years Chart 3Comm Services: A Market-Neutral, Barbelled Sector Finally, the beta of consumer discretionary sector would have been higher over the past two years in our counterfactual scenario, thanks to the inclusion of Alibaba. Consumer discretionary stocks have fared poorly in response to a trade war with the U.S., but the imminent inclusion of Alibaba in the discretionary sector will substantially alter the character of its future performance. As such, we have decided to close our long MSCI China Consumer Staples / short MSCI China Consumer Discretionary trade at a fantastic return of 47.6%. Qingyun Xu, Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com 1 For China, we proxy the upcoming changes to the GICS structure using a simple set of rules that aims to capture an overwhelming majority (but not all) of the upcoming changes. As such, investors should view our methodology as an approximation, rather than an exact application of the firm-by-firm changes that MSCI will make. Clients who are interested in a similar exercise for the global IMI benchmark should refer to Neeraj Dabake, Craig Feldman. (September, 2018) The New GICS Communication Services Sector. MSCI Research Paper, Retrieved from https://www.msci.com/www/research-paper/the-new-gics-communication/01107886967. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: The housing market is the key channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. As such, it is unlikely that Treasury yields will peak until housing shows meaningful weakness. While residential investment has decelerated in recent quarters, we expect this weakness will prove temporary and that Treasury yields have further cyclical upside. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Yield Curve: The Fed will maintain its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace for the time being, but could be forced to pause next year if weak foreign growth migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar. We recommend hedging this risk via a long position in the 7-year bullet versus a short position in the 1/20 barbell. Corporate Health: Strong profit growth - both organic and as a result of corporate tax cuts - has led to a significant improvement in corporate balance sheet health during the past few quarters. This improvement will not persist for much longer. We recommend only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds, both investment grade and junk. Feature This time last week the 10-year Treasury yield was bumping up against 3% and money markets were on the cusp of discounting an extra rate hike between now and the end of 2019. Both resistance levels broke during the past seven days. The 10-year yield is now 3.07% and the January 2020 fed funds futures contract is fully priced for four rate hikes (Chart 1). Chart 1Past Resistance Levels With the 10-year yield back above 3%, many investors are once again speculating about where it will ultimately peak for the cycle. Any answer to this question relies on an assumption about the neutral fed funds rate, the level of interest rates above which monetary policy turns restrictive and acts to slow economic growth and inflation. In past reports we have suggested several measures investors can track to help decide whether interest rates are close to breaking above neutral.1 In this week's report we focus on one particularly important indicator - the housing market. In his essential 2007 paper "Housing Is The Business Cycle", Edward Leamer notes that of the ten post-WWII U.S. recessions, eight were preceded by a significant slowdown in residential investment.2 Given that recessions are also typically preceded by tightening monetary policy, it is not a stretch to connect the two. In fact, there is good reason to believe that housing is the main channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. Since leverage is employed in the acquisition of new homes, interest rates impact the cost of homeownership more directly than other assets. A similar claim could be made about leveraged investment from the corporate sector, but business investment is also beholden to swings in expected future demand. Households can easily postpone the acquisition of a new home if the interest rate environment makes it uneconomical, businesses need to act when the market demands it. But most importantly, Leamer's paper demonstrates that, unlike residential investment, weaker business investment does not consistently provide advance warning of recession. The State Of U.S. Housing Turning to the data, we see that Leamer's claim is validated by the top panel of Chart 2. Residential investment tends to decline in the year preceding a U.S. recession. Housing starts and new home sales display a similar pattern (Chart 2, panels 2 & 3). Chart 2The Housing Market Predicts Recessions What's worrying is that residential investment has barely grown at all during the past year (Chart 2, bottom panel). If this weakness continues it would signal that interest rates are too high for the housing market, and that we are likely very close to the cyclical peak in bond yields. However, we doubt the current weakness will persist. For one, the recent decline in construction activity has been concentrated in the multi-family sector while single-family construction continues to expand at a steady rate (Chart 3). This could simply reflect a shift in demand away from multi-family toward single-family, reversing the trend witnessed between 2010 and 2012. It's possible that some households who were forced into the rental market in the aftermath of the Great Recession now find themselves able to switch back. But even if we focus on the multi-family sector exclusively, there is little reason to believe that construction will see significantly more downside. The rental vacancy rate remains very low, and the National Multi Housing Council's Survey of Apartment Market Conditions suggests that there is no strong upward or downward pressure on the vacancy rate at the moment (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). The fact that single-family housing starts have not declined casts some doubt on the notion that higher mortgage rates are to blame for the deceleration in residential investment. This is further borne out by the fact that, while higher mortgage rates have certainly increased the cost of homeownership, mortgage payments as a percent of median income are not stretched compared to history (Chart 4). The demand back-drop for housing also remains robust, with household formation in a clear uptrend (Chart 4, panel 2) and homebuilders as optimistic as ever about future sales activity (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3A Temporary Weakness In Residential Investment Chart 4Higher Mortgage Rates Are Not The Culprit We conclude that interest rates are still too low to meaningfully impact the housing market. Residential investment will re-accelerate in the coming quarters and Treasury yields have plenty of room to rise before reaching their cyclical peak. Bottom Line: The housing market is the key channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. As such, it is unlikely that Treasury yields will peak until housing shows meaningful weakness. While residential investment has decelerated in recent quarters, we expect this weakness will prove temporary and that Treasury yields have further cyclical upside. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Hedging Weak Foreign Growth With Steepeners The resilience of the U.S. housing market makes it likely that interest rates will continue to rise for quite some time. However, this does not preclude weak foreign growth - and the resultant dollar strength - from forcing the Fed to slow its 25 basis point per quarter rate hike pace at some point during the next 6-12 months. In fact, we have flagged in recent reports that, since 1993, every time the Global (ex. U.S.) Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has fallen below zero, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed (Chart 5).3 Unless foreign growth suddenly recovers, it is quite likely that dollar strength will drag the U.S. LEI lower in the first half of next year. At that point, the Fed may be forced to pause its rate hike cycle in order to take some shine off the dollar, allowing the recovery to continue. Chart 5Weak Global Growth Could Bring Down The U.S. Drops in the U.S. LEI to below zero almost always coincide with a recommendation for easier monetary policy from our Fed Monitor (Chart 5, bottom panel). Although one notable exception did occur in 2005. An examination of the three components of our Fed Monitor reveals that a falling LEI caused the economic growth component of our monitor to decline in 2005 (Chart 6). However, this was offset by an elevated inflation component and extremely easy financial conditions (Chart 6, bottom 2 panels). Chart 6The Three Components Of Our Fed Monitor As in 2005, inflation pressures are once again elevated and financial conditions remain accommodative. It follows that it could take a significant deterioration in economic growth before the Fed is forced to pause its 25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle, one that is not yet evident in the data. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the risk that weak foreign growth will infiltrate the U.S. via a stronger dollar, forcing the Fed to pause. With only two 25 basis point rate hikes currently discounted for 2019, some pause is already in the price. This makes us reluctant to advocate shifting away from below-benchmark portfolio duration. We think a better way to hedge the risk of a Fed pause is through yield curve steepeners. Since short-dated yields are more heavily influenced by the expected near-term pace of rate hikes than long-dated yields, any Fed pause will cause the yield curve to steepen. Steepeners are also very attractively priced at the moment, meaning that they should even perform well in a mild curve flattening environment.4 Our preferred method for implementing a curve steepener is to go long a bullet maturity near the middle of the curve and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the very short and very long ends of the curve.5 With that in mind, we can determine the best yield curve trade to implement by answering the following two questions: Which bullet over barbell combination offers the most attractive value? Which bullet over barbell combination is most likely to outperform in the "Fed pause" scenario we are trying to hedge? In response to the first question, we consider the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year and 7-year bullet maturities all relative to a duration-matched 1/20 barbell. All of those butterfly spreads offer approximately the same yield pick-up (Chart 7). They also all offer approximately the same yield pick-up relative to our fair value models, which are based on regressions of the butterfly spread versus the 1/20 slope of the curve (Chart 8).6 To answer the second question, we try to identify which of the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year or 7-year yields is likely to decline the most in response to the market pricing-in a pause in Fed rate hikes. To do this we look at the historical correlations between different yield curve slopes and our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter - the change in the fed funds rate that is priced into the market for the next 12 months. The correlations are displayed in Chart 9, and they show that monthly changes in the 7/10 slope are almost always negatively correlated with monthly changes in the 12-month discounter. In other words, when the discounter falls, the 7-year yield falls by more than the 10-year yield. Chart 7Different Bullets, Similar Yield Pick-Up I Chart 8Different Bullets, Similar Yield Pick-Up II Chart 9Hedging The "Fed Pause" Scenario Monthly changes in the 5/7 slope are also usually negatively correlated with changes in the discounter, though the correlation has been closer to zero in recent years. This makes it difficult to say with certainty whether the 5-year or 7-year yield would fall by more in response to a decline in the discounter. Chart 9 also shows that changes in both the 2/3 and 3/5 slopes are positively correlated with changes in the 12-month discounter. This means that when the discounter falls, the 3-year yield falls by more than the 2-year yield and the 5-year yield falls by more than the 3-year yield. In general, we can safely conclude that the 5-year and 7-year bullets are better hedges against a Fed pause than the 2-year or 3-year bullets. The 7-year in particular appears to be a safe bet. Given that the differences in valuation between the different options are miniscule, we are inclined to maintain our current yield curve position: long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. This week we also close our recommendation to favor the 5/30 barbell over the 10-year bullet for a small loss of 2 bps. This trade was designed to hedge the risk of Fed overtightening leading to an inverted yield curve. This trade would underperform in the event of a Fed pause, which we now view as the greater risk. Bottom Line: The Fed will maintain its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace for the time being, but could be forced to pause next year if weak foreign growth migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar. We recommend hedging this risk via a long position in the 7-year bullet versus a short position in the 1/20 barbell. Corporate Balance Sheet Reprieve Last week's release of the second quarter U.S. Financial Accounts (formerly Flow of Funds) allows us to update our indicators of nonfinancial corporate balance sheet health. Overall, there has been a significant improvement in our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) since the end of 2016. It has fallen from deep in "deteriorating health" territory to close to the "improving health" zone (Chart 10). By far, the biggest driver of the CHM's improvement has been the sharp increase in after-tax cash flows (Chart 10, panel 2). This is partly due to the recent corporate tax cuts, but also reflects a significant rebound in pre-tax cash flows (Chart 10, bottom panel). Despite the rebound in profits, we remain cautious on the outlook for corporate balance sheets going forward. First, our bottom-up samples of firms included in the investment grade and high-yield Bloomberg Barclays bond indexes both show that the median firm's net debt-to-EBITDA has improved in recent quarters, but remains elevated compared to history (Chart 11). Chart 10After-Tax Cash Flows Drive CHM Improvement Chart 11Debt Levels Still High Second, we see increasing headwinds to profit growth going forward. The positive impact from tax cuts is set to wane, while the stronger dollar and faster wage growth will both weigh on pre-tax profits during the next year.7 It is important to note that it will not take much deceleration in pre-tax profits for corporate balance sheets to worsen. Our measure of gross leverage - total debt over pre-tax profits - has only managed to flatten-off during the past few quarters, even as profit growth has surged. This means that the rapid gains in profits have only managed to keep pace with the rate of debt growth. Even a small deceleration in profits will cause leverage to rise, and rising leverage tends to occur alongside an increasing default rate (Chart 12). Chart 12Gross Leverage And Corporate Defaults Bottom Line: Strong profit growth - both organic and as a result of corporate tax cuts - has led to a significant improvement in corporate balance sheet health during the past few quarters. This improvement will not persist for much longer. We recommend only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds, both investment grade and junk. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The Two-Stage Treasury Bear", dated August 14, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2http://www.nber.org/papers/w13428 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Playing Catch-Up", dated September 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresesarch.com 5 For further details on why we prefer this trade construction, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We calculate the butterfly spread as: the bullet yield minus the yield of the duration-matched barbell. 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The Global Golden Rule (GGR): The gap between market expectations of global central bank policy rates and realized interest rate outcomes is a reliable predictor of government bond returns. Thus, "getting the policymaker call right" is the key to outperformance for bond investors. Implied Government Bond Yields: Given the strong correlation between policy rate surprises and government bond yield changes, we can use the GGR to forecast yields one year from now based on our own assumptions of how many rate hikes (cuts) will be delivered versus what is discounted in money market yield curves. Total Return Forecasts: We can use implied government bond yield changes from the GGR to generate expected 12-month total returns for government bond indexes of different maturities, taking into account different rate hike assumptions for various central banks. Feature Chart 1Global Monetary Divergences? This month marked the ten-year anniversary of the 2008 Lehman Brothers default, which set off a worldwide financial crisis and a massive easing of global monetary policy. Extraordinary measures - zero (or negative) interest rates, large-scale asset purchases and dovish forward guidance from policymakers - were all successful in suppressing both global bond yields and volatility over time, helping the global economy slowly heal from the crisis. Now, a decade later, such hyper-easy monetary policies are no longer required given low unemployment rates and rising inflation in the major developed economies. That can be seen today with the Federal Reserve shifting to "quantitative tightening" (letting bonds run off its swollen balance sheet) alongside steady rate hikes, the European Central Bank (ECB) set to stop net new buying of euro area bonds at year-end, and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) dramatically slowing its pace of asset purchases. BCA's Central Bank Monitors, which assess the cyclical pressure on policymakers to tighten or ease monetary policy, have collectively been calling for interest rate increases since the start of 2017. Yet our Central Bank Monetary Barometer, which measures the percentage of central banks that have tightened policy over the previous three months, shows that only 1 in 5 banks have actually delivered rate hikes of late (Chart 1). Thus, the risks are tilted towards more countries moving away from highly accommodative monetary conditions given tightening labor markets and rising inflation pressures. This now-global shift towards policy normalization has major implications for global bond investing. The focus is now returning back to more traditional drivers of government bond returns, like changes in central bank policy rates. We recently shared a Special Report published by our colleagues at our sister BCA service, U.S. Bond Strategy, describing a methodology they dubbed "The Golden Rule of Bond Investing".1 That report introduced a numerical framework that translates actual changes in the U.S. fed funds rate relative to market expectations into return forecasts for U.S. Treasuries. The historical results convincingly showed that investors who "get the Fed right" by making correct bets on changes in the funds rate versus expectations were very likely to make the right call on the direction of Treasury yields. In this Special Report, we extend that Golden Rule analysis to government bonds in the other major developed markets (DM). Our conclusion is that utilizing a "Global Golden Rule" (GGR) framework that links bond returns to unexpected changes in policy rates can help bond investors correctly forecast changes in non-U.S. bond yields. The report is set up in two sections. First, we illustrate how the GGR works and how it empirically tends to generally succeed over time for different DM bond markets. In the second section, we make use of the GGR to generate expected return forecasts for non-U.S. government bonds for a variety of interest rate "surprise" scenarios. ECB Policy Rate Surprises Dovish surprises from the ECB do reliably coincide with positive German government bond excess returns versus cash (Chart 2A). Chart 2AECB Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 2BECB Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month ECB policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays German Treasury index yield displays a strong positive correlation (Chart 2B). The excess returns during periods of dovish surprises is 14.4% on average and are positive 85% of the time. Hawkish surprises on the other hand, coincide with negative average excess returns of -1.5% (Chart 2C). In terms of total return, the picture is roughly the same except that under hawkish surprises, the average total return you would expect is now positive, given that it factors in coupon income (Chart 2D). Chart 2CGermany: Government Bond Index Excess Return & ECB Policy Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Chart 2DGermany: Government Bond Index Total Return & ECB Policy Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Table 1Germany: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Looking ahead, the ECB should not deviate from its current dovish forward guidance of no interest rate hikes until at least the third quarter of 2019. That is somewhat consistent with the reading of the ECB monitor being almost equal to zero. Bank Of England (BoE) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works well for the U.K. as can be seen in Chart 3A. Chart 3ABoE Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 3BBoE Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month BoE policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays U.K. Treasury index yield displays a strong positive correlation except for a major divergence in 1997-1998 (Chart 3B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns over cash 78% of the time and are on average equal to 6.2% over the full sample (Chart 3C and Chart 3D). As you would expect if the GGR applies, hawkish surprises coincide with negative excess returns. Chart 3CU.K.: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoE Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Chart 3DU.K.: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoE Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Table 2U.K.: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Looking ahead, outcomes will be biased toward dovish surprises over the next six months given the uncertain outcome of the U.K.-E.U. Brexit negotiations. Against that backdrop, the BoE will remain accommodative despite inflationary pressures building up. Bank Of Japan (BoJ) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR does not seem to work when it comes to the Japanese bond market. This reflects the fact that both the markets and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have understood that chronic low inflation has required no changes in BoJ policy rates (Chart 4A, second panel). Chart 4ABoJ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 4BBoJ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II While the 12-month BoJ policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Japan Treasury index yield displayed a strong positive correlation pre-1998, the correlation has broken down since then (Chart 4B). Negative excess returns over cash both coincide with dovish and hawkish surprises, on average over time. Further, dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns only 45% of the time (Chart 4C and Chart 4D). Chart 4CJapan: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoJ Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Chart 4DJapan: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoJ Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Table 3Japan: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Looking ahead, given that the BoJ will in all likelihood maintain its ultra-accommodative monetary policy stance in the near future, we do not expect the GGR to become more effective when applied to the Japanese bond market. Bank Of Canada (BoC) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works relatively well for the Canadian bond market (Chart 5A). Chart 5ABoC Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 5BBoC Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II We observe a tight correlation between 12-month BoC policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Canada Treasury index yield, especially post-2010 (Chart 5B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns 81% of the time and 94% of the time if we look at total returns (Chart 5C and Chart 5D). Chart 5CCanada: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoC Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Chart 5DCanada: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoC Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Table 4Canada: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Looking ahead, the BoC will most likely continue to follow the tightening path of the Federal Reserve, admittedly with a lag. However, accelerating inflation at a time when there is no spare capacity in the Canadian economy suggests that the BoC could deliver more rate hikes than are already priced for the next 12 months. As shown in Table 4, hawkish surprises from the BoC do coincide with negative monthly excess returns of -2.8%. Reserve Bank Of Australia (RBA) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR applies extremely well to the Australian bond market (Chart 6A). Chart 6ARBA Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 6BRBA Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month RBA policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Australia Treasury index yield displays the tightest correlation out of all the countries covered (Chart 6B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns 83% of the time and 96% of the time if we look at total returns (Chart 6C and Chart 6D). Turning to hawkish surprises, they reliably coincide with negative excess returns. Chart 6CAustralia: Government Bond Index Excess Return & RBA Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Chart 6DAustralia: Government Bond Index Total Return & RBA Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Table 5Australia: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) As can be seen on the bottom panel of Chart 6A, the RBA Monitor has been rapidly falling since 2016 and now stands in the "easier monetary policy" required. However, the RBA will likely have to see a rise in unemployment or a decline in realized inflation before it considers cutting rates, which raises a risk of "hawkish" surprises if the market begins to price in rate cuts. Reserve Bank Of New Zealand (RBNZ) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works fairly well for Nez Zealand (NZ) government bonds (Chart 7A). Chart 7ARBNZ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 7BRBNZ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II 12-month RBNZ policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays NZ Treasury yield exhibit a decent correlation (Chart 7B). Unusually, NZ is the only bond market covered in this report where both dovish and hawkish surprises coincide with positive excess returns on average, although positive episodes are much less frequent for hawkish surprises than for dovish surprises; respectively 55% and 86% (Chart 7C and Chart 7D). Chart 7CNZ: Government Bond Index Excess Return & RBNZ Policy Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Chart 7DNZ: Government Bond Index Total Return & RBNZ Policy Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Table 6New Zealand: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Looking ahead, the RBNZ has already provided forward guidance indicating that the Overnight Cash Rate (OCR) will most likely stay flat until 2020 - an assessment that we agree with, so the odds are against any policy surprises over at least the next 6-12 months. Using The Global Golden Rule To Forecast Government Bond Returns The practical application of the GGR is that it can be used as a framework for generating expected changes in yields and calculating total return forecasts for global government bond indices. The strong correlation demonstrated in the previous section between the 12-month policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the average yield from the government bond indexes allows us to translate our "assumed" policy rate surprise over the next 12 months into expected changes in yields along the curve. With these expected yield changes, we can simply generate expected total returns using the following formula: Expected Total Return = Yield - (Duration*Expected Change In Yield) + 0.5*Convexity*E(DY2) E(DY2) = 1-year trailing estimate of yield volatility It is important to note that we would not give too much importance to what this analysis yields for longer-dated bonds. As shown in the Appendices, once we move into longer government bond maturities, the correlation between the policy rate surprise and the change in yields declines or even becomes non-existent for some countries. This result should not be surprising, as longer-term yields are driven by other factors besides simply changes in interest rate expectations. Inflation expectations, government debt levels and demand from longer-term investors like pension funds all can have a more outsized influence on the path of longer-term bond yields relative to the shorter-end. That results in much more uncertainty when it comes to the total return forecasts for long-dated maturities calculated with this framework. Practically speaking, we are not encouraging our readers to blindly follow that yield and return expectations generated by the GGR, even for bond markets where it clearly seems to be working over time. Rather, the GGR can be integrated in a larger asset-allocation framework for a global fixed-income portfolio by providing one possible set of bond market outcomes. On a total return basis, the results presented below, interpreted alongside the readings on the BCA Central Bank monitors, suggest that investors should be underweight core Euro Area (Germany, France and Italy), Australia and New Zealand while remaining overweight the U.K. and Canada over the next twelve months. As for Japan, given the likelihood that BoJ will leave its policy rate flat, the results hint at a neutral allocation. Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremie@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: Divergences Opening Up," dated September 19, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Global Golden Rule: Germany In light of the forward guidance ECB President Mario Draghi has been providing to the markets, it appears that the most likely scenario over the next 12 months is for the ECB to keep interest rates on hold. Based on the strong relationships between 12-month ECB policy rate surprises and 12-month changes in yields along the curve (Appendix A), a flat interest rate scenario would be bond bearish for German government bonds especially at the short end of the curve with the 1-year German yield expected to rise by 16bps (Table 7A). Table 7AGermany: Expected Changes In Bund Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Using the expected change in yields thus inferred by the policy rate surprise, the German government bond aggregate index is forecasted to return 0.45% over the next 12 months (Table 7B). Table 7BGermany: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: U.K. Markets are currently discounting only 21bps of rate hikes in the U.K. over the next year. Thus, even a scenario where the BoE delivers only a single 25bp rate hike would be bearish for U.K. Gilts, especially at the short-end of the curve. Applying the GGR, 1- and 3-year Gilt yields would be expected to rise by 20bps and 10bps respectively (Table 8A). Table 8AU.K.: Expected Changes In Gilt Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Interpolating these expected yield changes, the 1-3 year government bond index total return forecast would be 0.46%. On the other hand, if the BoE prefers to keep rates on hold given the uncertainty of the Brexit outcome, that same 1-3 year government bond index is forecasted to deliver 0.97% of total return over the next 12 months (Table 9B). This is our current base case scenario for Gilts. Table 8BU.K.: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Japan Despite many rumors to the contrary earlier this year, the base case view remains that the BoJ will not change its stance on monetary policy anytime soon. As such, the expected changes in JGB yields under a flat interest rate scenario over the next 12 months are close to zero at the short end of the curve and rather bond bullish at the longer end of the curve; for instance, the 30-year JGB yield would be expected to rally by 9bps (Table 9A). Table 9AJapan: Expected Changes In JGB Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) In that most likely scenario, the Japanese government bond index is forecasted to deliver 0.83% of total return over the next 12 months. In the event that the BoJ surprises the markets by delivering one rate hike of 25bps, it would be bond bearish for JGBs and the total return forecasts for the government bond indices would be negative, regardless of the maturity (Table 9B). Table 9BJapan: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Canada Will the Bank of Canada follow the footsteps of the Fed? The markets certainly seem to think so, with more than three 25bps rate hikes priced in for next 12 months in the OIS curve. Table 10ACanada: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) That scenario would be outright bearish for Canadian government bonds, with 1- and 2-year yields rising by 16bps and 21bps, respectively (Table 10A). In terms of total returns, the GGR framework forecasts that with 75bps of rate hikes, the Canadian government bond aggregate index would deliver a positive return of 2.35% (Table 10B). This is because 75bps of hikes are currently discounted in the Canadian OIS curve, thus it would neither be a hawkish nor dovish surprise. Table 10BCanada: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Australia The RBA Monitor just dipped below the zero line, implying that easier monetary policy is required based on financial and economic data. Table 11A shows that a rate cut delivered by the RBA in the next 12 months would be bond bullish for Aussie yields, especially at the long end of the curve, where the 30-year Aussie bond yield would fall by 34bps. Table 11AAustralia: Expected Changes In Aussie Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Of all the interest rate scenarios presented in Table 11B, the two rate cut scenarios would return the highest total returns. For instance, the Australian government bond aggregate index would return 2.80% and 3.90% in the event of one and two 25bps rate hikes, respectively. Table 11BAustralia: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: New Zealand Our view is that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will stay on hold for a while longer, which is broadly the same message conveyed by the RBNZ Monitor being positive, but very close to 0. With that in mind, a flat interest rate scenario appears to be bond bearish for the NZ bond yields, except for the longer end of the curve (Table 12A). Table 12ANew Zealand: Expected Changes In NZ Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Table 12BNew Zealand: Government Bond Index Total For New Zealand, the government bond aggregate bond index is the only index provided by Bloomberg Barclays, as opposed to the other countries in our analysis where different maturities are given. In the flat interest rate scenario, the total return forecast for the overall index would be of 2.53% over the next 12 months. Appendix A: Germany Chart 1Change In 1-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 2Change In 2-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 3Change In 3-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 4Change In 5-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 5Change In 7-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 6Change In 10-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 7Change In 30-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix B: France Chart 8Change In 1-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 9Change In 2-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 10Change In 3-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 11Change In 5-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 12Change In 7-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 13Change In 10-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 14Change In 30-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix C: Italy Chart 15Change In 1-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 16Change In 2-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 17Change In 3-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 18Change In 5-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 19Change In 7-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 20Change In 10-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 21Change In 30-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix D: U.K. Chart 22Change In 1-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 23Change In 2-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 24Change In 3-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 25Change In 5-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 26Change In 7-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 27Change In 10-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 28Change In 30-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Appendix E: Japan Chart 29Change In 1-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 30Change In 2-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 31Change In 3-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 32Change In 5-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 33Change In 7-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 34Change In 10-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 35Change In 30-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Appendix F: Canada Chart 36Change In 1-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 37Change In 2-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 38Change In 3-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 39Change In 5-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 40Change In 7-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 41Change In 10-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 42Change In 30-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Appendix G: Australia Chart 43Change In 1-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 44Change In 2-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 45Change In 3-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 46Change In 5-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 47Change In 7-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 48Change In 10-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Appendix H: New Zealand Chart 49Change In 1-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 50Change In 2-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 51Change In 3-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 52Change In 5-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 53Change In 7-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 54Change In 10-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise

Highlights Rates are going higher ... : Flight-to-quality episodes aside, the bond bear market that began in July 2016 remains in force. Investors should maintain below-benchmark Treasury duration. ... but that doesn't necessarily spell immediate trouble for stocks: Consistent with our work on the fed funds rate cycle, it appears that the level of rates matters more for equity returns than their direction. Empirical evidence of a rates tipping point is elusive ... : The notion that investors migrate from stocks to bonds at a particular level of rates exerts a powerful intuitive appeal, but the data fail to validate it. ... but a 10-year yield Treasury of 3.75 - 4% might halt the bull market in its tracks: Higher rates reliably slow equities only when they rise enough to slow the economy. We estimate that the pinch point is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 3.75 - 4% 10-year Treasury yield. Feature A share of stock is a pro rata claim on the future earnings of the company that issued it. Holding future earnings constant, the price an investor will be willing to pay for a share is wholly a function of the rate used to discount its earnings back to the present day. The simplicity and ubiquity of this valuation approach suggest that equity returns should be predictably related to moves in interest rates. It may also point the way to a tipping point - either in the level of rates, or the magnitude of their rise - at which capital and savings migrate from stocks to bonds. This Special Report reviews the historical record to see how U.S. equities have interacted with real 10-year Treasury yields. It considers the key variables that would logically seem to bear on equity performance and investors' propensity to rotate between asset classes. We find that the relationship between rates and equity returns is conditional, depending on which crosscurrent dominates in any given episode. We did not uncover any predictable rotation pattern. Do The Math As noted above, valuing a stream of future cash flows is a simple mechanical process once one settles on an appropriate discount rate for converting future dollars to current dollars. According to the security analysis textbooks, then, moves in stock prices are inversely related to changes in interest rates. But the textbooks leave out one key point: changes in interest rates don't occur in a vacuum. When they change, earnings estimates are likely to change, too, most often in the same direction as real rates. To be sure, the denominator discounting future cash flows rises when real rates rise, but the future-earnings numerator most likely rises, too. If real rates are rising, the economy is probably gaining momentum, and earnings estimates should probably be revised higher as well. Conversely, falling rates lead to a higher earnings multiple (ex-the not insignificant animal-spirits wild card), but will regularly be accompanied by downward revisions in future earnings. The net effect is uncertain, and depends on whether the multiple change outweighs the change in earnings or vice versa. Bonds Are A Snap Compared To Stocks It's far simpler to compute the impact on a bond portfolio from a given increase in interest rates because the denominator is the only variable that changes. The future-cash-flows numerator is contractually fixed, and it takes a big shift in the state of the economy to spark an economy-wide change in perceived repayment potential.1 This is why bonds' sensitivity to changes in interest rates can be captured in a single universal metric (duration). Stocks are pulled in so many different directions by factors affecting future cash flows that duration has no equity analogue. Investors should therefore be cautious about pinning too much on interest rates as they relate to equities. Bonds move in fixed orbits around the interest-rate sun, according to strictly ordered rules that establish a very clear cause-and-effect relationship. Equities improvise as they go along, taking their cues from a rotating cast of variables that interact differently over time. Attempts to stretch the concept of interest-rate sensitivity beyond bonds regularly trip up equity investors; we cannot know in advance how rates will come together with the other factors that influence equities. Confounding Intuition, Part 1: Equities Prefer Rising Rates (And Multiples Don't Care) U.S. postwar history makes it clear that equity investors need not run from rising rates. The S&P 500 has fared considerably better when real 10-year yields have risen by at least 100 basis points ("bps") than it has when they've declined by that magnitude (Chart 1), gaining 9.4% and 5%, respectively (Chart 2). Rates do not exhibit any sort of a consistent relationship with either forward (Chart 3) or trailing (Chart 4) S&P 500 multiples, though extremely high and extremely low real yields are both associated with lower trailing P/Es. Negative real yields carry an unwelcome whiff of deflation, and their scatterplot data points tend to cluster at below-the-mean forward and trailing multiples. Chart 1Stocks Actually Do Better When Rates Rise ... Chart 2... Considerably Better When Do Higher Rates Hurt The Economy? Charts 3 and 4 show that both forward and trailing multiples almost always decline when real 10-year Treasury yields cross above 5%. What's bad for multiples isn't necessarily bad for earnings, however, and a 5% real threshold is irrelevant to today's cycle. The steady decline in the average fed funds rate over the last several completed cycles (Chart 5) makes it clear that neutral rate thresholds are not constant across time periods. Assessing interest rates' impact on the economy over time requires a sliding scale. Chart 3Hard To See A Trend Through The Windshield ... Chart 4... Or The Rear-View Mirror Estimates of potential economic growth provide a useful yardstick for measuring the impact of real yields. Comparing real long rates to potential output offers insight into the burden of servicing debt across the economy. If real rates exceed the economy's potential growth rate by a material amount, several marginal borrowers are likely to be gasping for air, and their travails will weigh on the economy. Conversely, servicing debt should be easy when real rates are below potential growth, and investors are more likely to invest, businesses are more likely to expand, and consumers are more likely to spend. Chart 5One Size Does Not Fit All There have been 22 instances in the postwar era when real 10-year Treasury yields have increased by at least 100 bps, and Table 1 lists all of them, grouped by their relationship to real GDP's potential five-year growth rate. There are three possible states for interest rate increases in relation to potential output: starting and ending below trend growth, starting below trend growth and ending above it, and starting and ending above trend. The S&P 500 comfortably tops its overall postwar returns when rates go from Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above, but declines outright when rates start above potential growth and go even higher. Earnings consistently rise when rates start below potential growth, making multiples the swing factor - when they expand, S&P 500 gains tend to be very large (Box 1). Table 1Real Rates Versus Potential GDP Growth Box 1 Decomposing S&P 500 Returns Table 2 details the decomposition of S&P 500 returns during rising real rate episodes occurring after S&P 500 earnings estimates began to be compiled in 1979. Except in the crucible of 2009, when they were flat, forward earnings estimates have always risen when rates rise from a below-trend starting point, putting a tailwind behind the S&P 500 that regularly overcomes the multiple contraction that occurs in half of the Below/Above instances. Multiples are the swing factor; when they expand in conjunction with rising earnings estimates, U.S. equities soar. They always contract when rates go from high to higher, dragging stocks down against a mixed earnings expectations backdrop. The action is consistent with our fed funds rate cycle work: stocks do best when rates are below equilibrium and falling because earnings and multiples expand in tandem in that setting, but they do nearly as well after rate hikes commence, in spite of multiple contraction. Earnings surge when the Fed is confident enough about the economy to embark on a tightening cycle, but has not yet hiked enough to choke off the expansion. Multiple expansion in a majority of the Below/Above instances reveals that investors do not rotate out of equities en masse when rates rise, even by a considerable amount. The rotation story has intuitive appeal, but it doesn't show up in these data. Table 2Decomposition Of S&P 500 Returns During Rising Rate Periods A Little More Slicing And Dicing (Potential GDP Matters) Chart 6Mind The Gap Defining Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above states is easy in hindsight, but an investor cannot know in real time where a rising-rate instance that begins with rates below potential output will end. Earnings rise no matter where rates end relative to potential GDP, but re-rating in Below/Below can flip to de-rating in Below/Above, slamming the brakes on phase gains. The empirical data say investors should lighten up on S&P 500 exposure when real rates cross above real potential GDP. S&P 500 returns trounce their overall postwar gain when rates rise from below potential GDP to potential GDP but lag it once rates cross above potential GDP (Chart 6). Confounding Intuition, Part 2: Institutional Investors Don't Rotate Even if S&P 500 returns fail to demonstrate any consistent relationship with interest rates, one would expect that professional investors' asset-class positioning would. Bonds and stocks are alternatives for one another, and institutional investors presumably shift their allocations in line with the asset classes' relative prospects. We examine Pension Funds', Life Insurers', and Mutual Funds' asset-allocation profiles over time using balance-sheet data from the Federal Reserve's quarterly Flow of Funds report. The data show that asset-allocation decisions are made without apparent regard for relative valuations, at least as proxied by the equity risk premium. Pension funds' steady increase in equity allocations across the '90s appears to have been less a function of rate moves than buying into the bull market (Chart 7). Since the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, bond and equity allocations have mainly reflected the performance tides. The extended trend in pension funds' equity-to-bond allocation ratio suggests that the funds set a long-range goal and grind steadily toward achieving it, regardless of relative valuation movements. It also suggests that the funds may not bother with rebalancing, much less dynamic asset allocation. Life insurers kept their fixed income and equity allocations more or less fixed across the '70s (not shown) and most of the '80s. They then reduced equity exposure for three years after 1987's Black Monday, assiduously built it up across the '90s, and have more or less let it drift since the millennium (Chart 8). The equity risk premium does not appear to have been a consideration. Asset-allocation stasis may simply be a reflection of life insurers' stringent regulatory constraints, but their portfolio managers' limited discretion precludes opportunistic allocation shifts. Mutual fund allocations tend to depend much more on past events than future expectations. Equity holdings peak when the equity risk premium bottoms and bottom when the equity risk premium peaks (Chart 9). The problem is that mutual fund managers are structurally hostage to their investors' whims. They are sorted into narrow silos and then straitjacketed by the rigid allocation rules written into their fund prospectuses. Even if they think asset-class rotation is a great idea, only a tiny minority of fund managers can act upon it. Chart 7Pension Funds Don't Allocate Based On Yields Or The ERP ... Chart 8... While Life Insurers Appear To Allocate In Defiance Of Them Chart 9Mutual Funds##BR##Obey Their Owners ... Confounding Darwin's Intuition: Human Investors Never Learn Chart 10... Who Act On Real Emotion, Not Real Yields Kahneman and Tversky's groundbreaking research into decision-making under uncertainty revealed that our species is wired to make suboptimal investment decisions. Prospect theory, loss aversion and an unhealthy fixation on recent data all encourage retail investors to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. When it comes to asset allocation, households appear to focus exclusively on the action in the rear-view mirror (Chart 10). Retail investors as a group rotate between equities and fixed income retroactively, in response to recent past returns, not proactively in response to cues about future relative-return prospects. Investment Implications Despite the compelling intuition that investors should set their course by the interest-rate stars, there is no evidence in the flow of funds data that they have done so in the past. We posit that structural constraints on institutional investors, combined with humans' durable cognitive biases, offer no reason to expect that they will do so in the future. While there may not be any predictable rotation pattern, rising rates have given rise to a predictable performance pattern. Equities reliably perform better when real rates are rising by at least 100 basis points than they do when they're falling. Decomposition of S&P 500 returns indicates that the pattern holds because earnings rise a good bit more in rising-rate periods than multiples decline. And multiples don't always decline when rates rise, anyway; sometimes emotion overrides cash flow discounting mechanics. Investors should lighten up on Treasury allocations, while keeping the exposures they do hold at below-benchmark duration. They should not flee equities, however. Rates have not yet risen enough to cool off the economy in any material way, and we judge that they won't until somewhere around a 3.75% 10-year Treasury yield.2 Tight supplies in labor and goods markets will eventually stoke realized inflation and provoke the Fed into tightening enough to cut off the rally, but it hasn't happened yet, and it is far too early to de-risk portfolios on account of interest rates. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 An unusually large drop in rates may well be associated with economic distress, but default-adjusted bond payment streams are much less variable than near- and intermediate-term earnings estimates. 2 Based on the evolution of the Congressional Budget Office's longer-run estimates of real potential GDP growth, and the trend in our own model of long-term inflation expectations, it appears as if nominal potential GDP growth will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.75-4% next year. This is a much lower estimate than one would get from adding the Fed's 2% inflation target to the current rate of GDP growth, but we need to look past the immediate boost of the stimulus package to get a read on its longer-run effects. As with all of the estimates produced by our models, we look to it for a general guide to the future, not a precise point estimate.

Highlights We review last year's "Three Tantalizing Trades" and offer four additional ones: Trade #1: Long June 2019 Fed funds futures contract/short Dec 2020 Fed funds futures contract Trade #2: Long USD/CNY Trade #3: Short AUD/CAD Trade #4: Long EM stocks with near-term downside put protection Feature A Review Of Last Year's "Three Tantalizing Trades" I had the pleasure of speaking at BCA's last Annual Investment Conference on September 25th, 2017, where I presented the following three trade ideas (Chart 1): 1. Short December 2018 Fed funds futures We closed this trade for a profit of 70 basis points. Had we held on, it would be up 92 basis points as of the time of this writing. 2. Long global industrial equities/short utilities We closed this trade on February 1st for a gain of 12%, as downside risks to global growth began to mount. This proved to be a timely decision, as the trade would be up only 6.1% had we kept it on. We would not re-enter this trade at present. 3. Short 20-year JGBs/long 5-year JGBs This trade struggled for much of 2018 but sprung back to life in August. It is up 0.6% since we initiated it. We still like the trade over the long haul. Investors are grossly underestimating the risk that Japanese inflation will move materially higher as an aging population creates a shortage of workers and a concomitant decline in the national savings rate. We also think the government will try to egg on any acceleration in consumer prices in order to inflate away its debt burden. In the near term, however, the trade could struggle if a combination of weaker EM growth and an increase in the value of the trade-weighted yen cause inflation expectations to decline. Four Additional Trades Trade #1: Long June 2019 Fed funds futures contract/short December 2020 Fed funds futures contract Investors expect U.S. short-term rates to rise to 2.38% by the end of 2018 and 2.85% by the end of 2019. The 47 basis points in tightening priced in for next year is less than the 75 basis points in hikes implied by the Fed dots. Investors appear to have bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They are convinced that short rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession (Chart 2). Chart 1Revisiting Last Year's Three Tantalizing Trades Chart 2Markets Expect No Fed Hikes Beyond Next Year Regardless of what one thinks of Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term drivers of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, 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 compared to 3.6% of GDP in 2015. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP next year, little changed from a deficit of 0.9% it ran in 2015 (Chart 3). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is rising faster than GDP (Chart 4). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart 5). 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 6). 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 ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 7). 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 3U.S. Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary Than The Euro Area Chart 4U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart 5U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Chart 6Quits Rate Is Signaling That There Is Upside For Wage Growth Chart 7The 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 A more hawkish-than-expected Fed will bid up the value of the greenback. A stronger dollar, in turn, will undermine emerging markets, which have seen foreign-currency debts balloon over the past six years (Chart 8). The deflationary effects of a stronger dollar and falling commodity prices could temporarily cause investors to price out some hikes over the next few quarters. With that in mind, we recommend shorting the December 2020 Fed funds futures contract, while going long the June 2019 contract. The first leg of the trade captures our expectation that the market will revise up its estimate the terminal rate, while the second leg captures near-term risks to global growth. The gap between the two contracts has widened over the past few days as we have prepared this report, but at 21 basis points, it has plenty of room to increase further (Chart 9). Chart 8EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 9U.S. Rate Expectations Are Too Low Beyond Mid-2019 Trade #2: Long USD/CNY China's economy is slowing, which has prompted the government to inject liquidity into the financial system. The spread in 1-year swap rates between the U.S. and China has fallen from about 3% earlier this year to 0.6% at present, taking the yuan down with it (Chart 10). It is doubtful that China will be willing to match - let alone exceed - U.S. rate hikes. This suggests that USD/CNY will appreciate. China's real trade-weighted exchange rate has weakened during the past four months, but is up 25% over the past decade (Chart 11). U.S. tariffs on $250 billion (and counting) of Chinese imports threaten to erode export competitiveness, making a further devaluation necessary. Chart 10USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Chart 11The RMB Is Still Quite Strong President Trump will oppose a weaker yuan. However, just as China's actions earlier this year to strengthen its currency did not prevent the U.S. from imposing tariffs, it is doubtful that efforts by the Chinese authorities to talk up the yuan would appease Trump. Besides, China needs a weaker currency. 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%. As a matter of arithmetic, national savings need to be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. China has concentrated on the former strategy over the past decade. The problem is that this approach has run into diminishing returns. Chart 12 shows that the capital stock has risen dramatically as a share of GDP. As my colleague Jonathan LaBerge has documented, the rate of return on assets among Chinese state-owned companies, which have been the main driver of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below their borrowing costs (Chart 13).2 Chart 12China's Capital Stock Has Grown Alongside Rising Debt Levels Chart 13China: Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For State-Owned Companies Now that the economy is awash in excess capacity, the authorities will need to steer more excess production abroad. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. The dollar is currently working off overbought technical conditions, a risk we flagged in our August 31st report.3 That process should be complete over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, hopes of a massive Chinese stimulus focused on fiscal/credit easing will fade. The combination of these two forces will push up USD/CNY above the psychologically-critical 7 handle by the end of the year. Trade #3: Short AUD/CAD A weaker yuan will raise raw material costs to Chinese firms. This will hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are much more vulnerable to slower Chinese growth than oil. Chart 14 shows that China consumes close to half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced in the world, compared to only 15% of oil output. Our expectation that developed economy growth will hold up better than EM growth over the next few quarters implies that oil will outperform industrial metals. Oil is also supported by a tighter supply backdrop, particularly given the downside risks to Iranian and Venezuelan crude exports. A bet on oil over metals is a bet on DM over EM growth in general, and the Canadian dollar over the Australian dollar specifically (Chart 15). Canada exports more oil than metals, while Australian exports are dominated by ores and metals. In terms of valuations, the Canadian dollar is still somewhat cheap relative to the Aussie dollar based on our FX team's long-term valuation model (Chart 16). Chart 14China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil Chart 15Oil Over Metals = CAD Over AUD Chart 16Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar The loonie has been weighed down by ongoing fears that Canada will be left out of a renegotiated NAFTA. However, our geopolitical strategists believe that the Trump administration is trying to focus more on China, against whom the case for unfair trade practices is far easier to make. The U.S. has already negotiated a trade deal with Mexico and an agreement with Canada is more likely than not. If a new deal is struck, the Canadian dollar will rally. We recommended going short AUD/CAD on June 28. The trade is up 3.4%, carry-adjusted, since then. Stick with it. Trade #4: Long EM stocks with near-term downside put protection It is too early to call a bottom in EM assets. Valuations have not yet reached washed-out levels (Chart 17). 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 18). However, at some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. During the 1990s, this capitulation point occurred shortly after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in September 1998. EM equities fell by 26% between April 21, 1998 and June 15, 1998. After a half-hearted attempt at a rally, EM stocks tumbled again in July, falling by 35% between July 17 and September 10. The second leg of the EM selloff brought down the S&P 500 by 22%. Thanks to a series of well-telegraphed Fed rate cuts, global markets stabilized on October 8th (Chart 19). The S&P 500 surged by 68% over the next 18 months. The MSCI EM index more than doubled in dollar terms over this period. EM stocks outperformed U.S. equities by a whopping 71% between February 1999 and February 2000. Europe also outperformed the U.S. starting in mid-1999. Value stocks, which had lagged growth stocks over the prior six years, also finally gained the upper hand. Chart 17EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart 18EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound Chart 19The ''Great Equity Rotation'' Is Coming: A Roadmap From The 1990s The "Great Equity Rotation" is coming. All the trades that have suffered lately - overweight EM, long Europe/short U.S., long cyclicals/short defensives, long value/short growth - will get their day in the sun. Investors can prepare for this inflection point by scaling into EM equities today, but guarding against near-term downside risk by buying puts. With that in mind, we are going long the iShares MSCI Emerging Market ETF (EEM), while purchasing March 15, 2019 out-of-the-money puts with a strike price of $41. 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 simulative 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 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 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging," dated August 29, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Global Growth: Are The Tables About To Turn?" dated August 31, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades