Trade

Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. In the medium-to-long run the trade war with China should reaccelerate while the U.S. should back away from war with Iran. But for now the opposite is happening. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall. Feature Two significant geopolitical events occurred over the past week. First, U.S. President Donald Trump declared his third pause to the trade war with China. The terms of the truce are vague and indefinite, but it has given support to the equity rally temporarily. Second, Iran edged past the limits on uranium stockpiling, uranium enrichment, and the Arak nuclear reactor imposed by the 2015 nuclear pact. Trump instigated this move by walking away from the pact and re-imposing oil sanctions. If these events foreshadow things to come, global financial markets should position for lower odds of a deflationary trade shock and higher odds of an inflationary oil shock in the coming six-to-18 months. But is this conclusion warranted? Is the American “Pivot to Asia” about to shift into reverse? If the White House pursued a consistent strategy to contain China, it would bring Americans together and require forming alliances. In the short run, perhaps – but the conflict with China is ultimately the greater of the two geopolitical risks. We expect it to intensify again, likely in H2, but at latest by Q3 of 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election. Our highest conviction call on this matter, however, is that any trade deal before that date will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on June 14 to account for the expected resumption of negotiations at the G20, can be found in Diagram 1. The combined risk of further escalation is 68%. Diagram 1Trade War Decision Tree (Updated June 13, 2019 To Include G20 Tariff Pause) The Polybius Solution The Polybius Solution The risk to the view? The U.S.-Iran conflict could spiral out of control and the Trump administration could get entangled in the Middle East. This would create a very different outlook for global politics, economy, and markets over the next decade than a concentrated conflict with China.  The Missing Corollary Of The “Thucydides Trap” The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1  This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2).    Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. China Is Gaining On The U.S. China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order.   Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4).  China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated China's Domestic Risks Underrated China's Domestic Risks Underrated How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 2. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 2Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain The Polybius Solution The Polybius Solution Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. Chart 5 A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 3). Diagram 3Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos The Polybius Solution The Polybius Solution In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers.  Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant market-mover. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Iran Is The Wild Card A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Chart 11 Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While short-term events are pushing toward truce with China and war with Iran, the Trump administration is likely to downgrade the conflict with Iran and upgrade the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. Chart 12 China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 4). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 4Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation The Polybius Solution The Polybius Solution If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget An Iran War Will Bust The Budget An Iran War Will Bust The Budget If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Over the past week, developments point toward the former scenario, meaning that Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, we think the latter scenario will prevail.  We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).  

Highlights The EM equity and currency rebounds should be faded. When corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. This is the case in EM and China. Our leading indicators for the Chinese business cycle continue to point to intensifying profit contraction in both China and EM. The ratio of global broad money supply to the current value of securities worldwide is at an all-time low. This casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. Feature Chart I-1EM Share Prices: Decision Time EM Share Prices: Decision Time EM Share Prices: Decision Time EM share prices are at a critical juncture (Chart I-1). Their ability to hold their recent lows and break above their April highs will signify that a sustainable cyclical rally is in the making. Failure to punch through April’s highs will pose a major breakdown risk. In brief, EM is facing a make-it-or-break-it moment. Fundamentally, the outlook for EM risk assets and currencies largely hinges on economic growth in general and corporate profits in particular. In our June 20 report, we illustrated that the primary drivers of EM risk assets and currencies have historically been their business cycles and profit growth – not U.S. interest rates. Falling interest rates are positive for share prices when profits are expanding, even if at a slower rate. However, when corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. Hence, lower global interest rates in of themselves are not a sufficient condition to foster a sustainable cyclical EM rally. As to EM corporate profits, the rate of their contraction will continue deepening. Since early this year, we have been arguing that expectations of recovery in the Chinese economy and global trade are unwarranted. That is why BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team contends that EM risk assets and currencies, as well as China-plays, face the risk of a breakdown. This differs from BCA’s house view, which is positive on global risk assets in general. Global And Chinese Business Cycles: No Recovery So Far Chart I-2Chinese A-Share EPS Is Heading Into Contraction Chinese A-Share EPS Is Heading Into Contraction Chinese A-Share EPS Is Heading Into Contraction The rebound in EM risk assets and currencies since last December has occurred despite no improvement in both China’s business cycle and global trade, and despite the deepening contraction in EM corporate profits. Since early this year, we have been arguing that expectations of recovery in the Chinese economy and global trade are unwarranted. So far, our baseline economic view has played out – mainland growth has been rather weak, and global trade has contracted. Yet EM financial markets have done better than we had anticipated. China’s domestic industrial new orders lead Chinese A-share earnings per share growth rate by about nine months and point to intensifying profit slump into early 2020 (Chart I-2). Furthermore, China’s adjusted narrow money(M1+)1 growth leads Chinese investable stocks earnings per share (EPS) by about nine months, and is also pointing to further compression (Chart I-3). Finally, Korea’s exports are shrinking, as are EM EPS (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-3Chinese Investable Companies' EPS Is Already Shrinking Chinese Investable Companies' EPS Is Already Shrinking Chinese Investable Companies' EPS Is Already Shrinking Chart I-4Korean Exports And EM EPS Korean Exports And EM EPS Korean Exports And EM EPS   Notably, both Korean exports values and EM EPS in U.S. dollars terms are on par with their early  2011 levels (Chart I-4, bottom panel). This indicates that neither Korean exports nor EM EPS have expanded sustainably over the past eight years. Chart I-5Global Stocks Did Not Lead Global PMI Historically Global Stocks Did Not Lead Global Manufacturing PMI Historically Global Stocks Did Not Lead Global Manufacturing PMI Historically Is it possible that the current gap between global share prices and global manufacturing is due to the fact that financial markets are forward-looking and lead business cycles? Historical evidence suggests that global share prices have not led the global manufacturing PMI, as exhibited in Chart I-5. In fact, global share prices have actually been coincident with the global manufacturing PMI not only throughout this decade but before that as well. The de-coupling between share prices and the manufacturing PMI is currently also present in EM, albeit in a less-striking form. Chart I-6 illustrates that the EM manufacturing PMI has slipped below 50 line, yet share prices have recently rebounded and sovereign spreads have tightened. In a nutshell, the divergence between global share prices and the global manufacturing PMI is unprecedented. This cannot be explained by falling global bond yields either. The latter were falling in the previous business cycle downtrends (2011-12 and 2015), yet share prices did not deviate from the global manufacturing PMI during those episodes (Chart I-5). Chart I-6EM PMI And EM Risk Assets EM PMI And EM Risk Assets EM PMI And EM Risk Assets Chart I-7The Rest Of World's Exports To China Will Continue Shrinking The Rest Of Worlds' Exports To China Will Continue Shrinking The Rest Of Worlds' Exports To China Will Continue Shrinking It seems that the global equity and credit markets expect an imminent recovery in the global business cycle in general and in China in particular. As we elaborated in the previous reports, the current global manufacturing recession stems primarily from China. Our leading indicators of the mainland business cycle suggest that more growth disappointments are likely before China’s growth and other economies’ shipments to the mainland hits a bottom (Chart I-7). For example, Korea’s exports to China in June were still dropping by 24% from a year ago. The primary reason for the lack of revival in growth is that China’s stimulus efforts have so far not been large enough, and the marginal propensity to spend among households and companies is diminishing, offsetting the positive effect of the stimulus, as we have discussed in previous reports. Will the recent G20 trade truce between the U.S. and China boost business confidence worldwide and in China? In our view, it is unlikely to produce a quick and meaningful recovery in business confidence among multinational companies and Chinese businesses. Corporate managers have probably come to realize that the U.S.-China row is not about import tariffs but rather geopolitical confrontation between the existing hegemon and a rising superpower. Hence, there is no easy solution that will satisfy both parties. An acceptable resolution for China will be unacceptable for the U.S., and vice versa. Hence, it will be hard to find a formula that gratifies both sides politically and economically. Overall, we reckon there are low odds in the next six months of an agreement between the U.S. and China that removes tariffs, addresses structural issues and satiates both nations. Korea’s exports are shrinking, as are EM EPS. Finally, even though the S&P 500 is hovering around its previous highs, under-the-surface dynamics have been less upbeat. Specifically, the equal-weighted share price index of U.S. high-beta stocks in cyclical sectors such as industrials, technology and consumer discretionary versus the S&P 500 has been tame and has not yet broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-8, top panel). The same holds true for the relative performance of an equal-weighted stock index of global cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials and semiconductors against the overall global equity benchmark (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Conversely, despite its recent setback, the U.S. dollar has technically not yet broken down (Chart I-9, top panel). In fact, our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted dollar has troughed at zero – a sign that downside is limited and another up-leg will likely emerge soon (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-8Cyclical Stocks Have Been Underperforming bca.ems_wr_2019_07_04_s1_c8 bca.ems_wr_2019_07_04_s1_c8 Chart I-9The U.S. Dollar Has Technically Not Broken Down The U.S. Dollar Has Technically Not Broken Down The U.S. Dollar Has Technically Not Broken Down   Bottom Line: The EM equity and currency rebounds should be faded. As EM currencies depreciate, sovereign and corporate credit spreads will likely widen. Asset allocators should continue underweighting EM equities and credit markets relative to their DM peers. Too Much Money Chasing Too Few Assets? Many investors identify “liquidity” as the main reason why global equity and credit markets have done so well this year, despite the relapsing global business cycle. Yet there are as many definitions of “liquidity” as there are investors. Many commentators use the term “liquidity” to denote balance sheet expansion by global central banks. As part of their quantitative easing programs, central banks in the U.S., U.K., Japan, the euro area, Switzerland and Sweden have expanded their balance sheets enormously. In line with their asset expansion, their liabilities – the monetary base, consisting primarily of commercial banks’ excess reserves – have also mushroomed. Nevertheless, broad money supply has grown only modestly in these economies.2 The principal reason behind this phenomenon has been a collapse in the money multiplier due to both banks’ unwillingness to boost lending proportionally to their swelling excess reserves, and a persistent lack of demand for credit among households and businesses. This computation casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. Broad money supply includes all types of deposits at commercial banks and cash in circulation. Crucially, it does not include commercial banks’ excess reserves at central banks. This differentiation between broad money and excess reserves at central banks is vital because excess reserves are not used to purchase goods, services or assets/securities. Hence, a true measure of purchasing power for assets, goods and services is broad money supply. Consistently, the pertinent liquidity ratio for financial markets can be computed by dividing global broad money supply by the value of all securities outstanding excluding those owned by central banks. The top panel of Chart I-10 depicts the ratio of the sum of broad money supply in 12 economies3 - excluding China - to the market value of investable global equities and bonds. The latter is calculated as the market cap of the Datastream World Equity Index plus the market value of the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, excluding securities owned by central banks (Chart I-11). Bonds include both government and corporate issues. Chart I-10Comparing Global Broad Money And Market Value Of Outstanding Securities Comparing Global Broad Money And Market Value Of Outstanding Securities Comparing Global Broad Money And Market Value Of Outstanding Securities Chart I-11Broad Money, Securities Absorbed By QEs And Value Of Outstanding Securities Broad Money, Securities Absorbed By QE And Value Of Outstanding Securities Broad Money, Securities Absorbed By QE And Value Of Outstanding Securities   We exclude China from this calculation because its money supply (deposits) is not internationally “mobile” – i.e., due to capital controls, Chinese residents cannot convert their renminbi deposits to other currencies, or use them to purchase international securities. Likewise, we exclude Chinese on-shore equity and bond markets from the calculation because they are not easily accessible to all foreign investors. This broad money supply-to-asset values ratio can be regarded as a rough proxy for available liquidity for financial markets.4 Our interpretation is that a lower ratio means investors have lower cash balances relative to the value of financial assets they hold, and vice versa. Interestingly, the ratio of global broad money to the current value of securities worldwide is at an all-time low (Chart I-10, top panel). Hence, this computation casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. By flipping this ratio, we compute the ratio of market value of all investable securities (excluding the ones owned by central banks) to broad money supply (Chart I-10, bottom panel). It is at all-time high entailing that the market value of globally investable publically-traded securities has expanded much more than global broad money supply/deposits. Bottom Line: We recognize that this is a simplistic macro exercise, and a more comprehensive methodology is required to compute global cash balances that are available to purchase securities worldwide. However, at minimum the above casts doubt on the hypothesis that “too much money is chasing too few assets”. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      M1+ is calculated as M1 plus household demand deposits and deposits at third-party payment platforms. 2      Note that when a central bank purchases securities from commercial banks, this operation originates excess reserves, but not a new deposit at commercial banks. However, when a central bank acquires securities from a non-bank entity, such as a pension fund or an insurance company, this transaction creates both excess reserves and a bank deposit that did not exist before. Hence, QE programs have created some deposits but less so than excess reserves. 3      Economies included into this aggregate are the U.S., the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. 4      This calculation does not strip out transactional demand for money, i.e., how much money is required to finance regular  economic activity. Given transactional demand for money is not stable, it is hard to estimate and adjust for it.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations Chart I-

Highlights The Chinese economy slowed in May following two months of improvement, but the June PMI data suggests that the pace of decline is moderating. Still, the economy remains highly vulnerable in a full-tariff scenario. This weekend’s agreement to continue trade talks was a weaker result compared with what emerged from the G20 meeting in Argentina, and did not represent any real progress toward a final trade agreement that includes a substantial tariff rollback. Our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged: Chinese stocks face potentially acute near-term risks, but are likely to outperform global stocks over the coming year as mounting economic weakness forces policymakers to overcome their reluctance to act and to ultimately stimulate as needed. Feature The Caixin PMI decline in June appears to have been preceded by the official PMI in May. No change in the latter in June is thus somewhat encouraging. Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, May’s activity data shows that the economy slowed following two months of improvement, which underscores that the budding, credit-driven recovery in China’s investment relevant economic activity remains in its infancy and is vulnerable to a further deterioration in external demand. The Caixin manufacturing PMI fell back below the 50 mark in June, but this appears to have simply confirmed the prior decline in the official PMI. June’s official PMI was flat on the month, which in combination with only a modest further decline in new export orders, implies that the May slowdown in activity noted above did not repeat itself in June (at least not in terms of magnitude) Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Within financial markets, Chinese stocks actively outperformed the global benchmark over the past month as the latter rallied. The rally was in response to assurances from the PBoC about the capacity to ease further if needed, and the steadily rising odds over the course of the month that a new tariff ceasefire would be reached at the G20 meeting in Osaka. While this expectation was indeed validated, our view is that the agreement to continue talks was a weaker result compared with what emerged from the G20 meeting in Argentina, and did not represent any real progress toward a final trade agreement that includes a substantial tariff rollback. As such, our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged: Chinese stocks face potentially acute near-term risks, but are likely to outperform global stocks over the coming year as mounting economic weakness forces policymakers to overcome their reluctance to act and to ultimately stimulate as needed. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1A Sharp Decline In Electricity Production A Sharp Decline In Electricity Production A Sharp Decline In Electricity Production China’s economy slowed in May according to the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index, after having picked up for two months in a row. While both electricity production and rail cargo volume fell in May, the former fell sharply, almost into negative territory (Chart 1). This underscores that the budding, credit-driven recovery in China’s investment relevant economic activity remains in its infancy, and that economic activity is set to deteriorate meaningfully in a full-tariff scenario. Our LKI leading indicator rose modestly in May, with all six components showing an improvement. Still, the uptrend in the indicator is slight, and is being held back by the money supply components, particularly the growth in M2. Much stronger money & credit growth will be required if Chinese economic activity relapses and no deal to end U.S. import tariffs has occurred, but policymakers are likely to be reactive rather than proactive in this regard. The picture painted by China’s housing data continues to be a story of weak housing demand arrayed against seemingly strong housing construction and stable growth in house prices. However, we noted in a May 9 joint Special Report with our Emerging Market Strategy service that the strength observed in floor space started over the past year reflected a funding strategy by cash-strapped real estate developers.1 Launching new projects aggressively last year – i.e., more property starts – allowed real estate developers to pre-sell property units in order to raise cash in a tight credit environment. On the demand side, the annual change in the PBOC’s pledged supplementary lending injection has strongly predicted floor space sold over the past four years; it remains deeply in negative territory and our measure declined in May for the 8th month in a row. Given that housing construction cannot sustainably decouple from housing demand, we expect floor space started to slow meaningfully over the coming several months absent a major pickup in housing sales. Chart 2The Flat Official PMI In June Is Somewhat Encouraging The Flat Official PMI In June Is Somewhat Encouraging The Flat Official PMI In June Is Somewhat Encouraging The Caixin manufacturing PMI fell back below the 50 mark in June, but this appears to have simply confirmed the prior decline in the official PMI (Chart 2). The official PMI was flat in June with only a modest further decline in new export orders, which implies that the May slowdown in activity noted above did not repeat itself in June, at least not in terms of magnitude. Chinese stocks have rallied 8-9% over the past month in U.S. dollar terms, outpacing the EM and global equity benchmarks. The rally initially followed comments from Governor Yi Gang that the PBoC had “tremendous” room to ease monetary policy if needed, and was sustained by expectations later in the month of a second tariff truce emerging from the G20 meeting in Osaka. For China-exposed investors, the issue is not whether Chinese policymakers have the capacity to support China’s economy, but rather the willingness to ease materially. From our perspective, the renewal of trade talks with the U.S. does not represent material progress towards the ultimate removal of tariffs. But the existence of talks is likely to give Chinese authorities a reason (for now) to avoid aggressively stimulating the economy, meaning that our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged. Chart 3The BAT Stocks Will Outperform China If Chinese Stocks Outperform Global The BAT Stocks Will Outperform China If Chinese Stocks Outperform Global The BAT Stocks Will Outperform China If Chinese Stocks Outperform Global The significant outperformance of the investable consumer discretionary has been the most meaningful equity sector development over the past month. We have noted in past reports that changes last December to the global industry classification standard (GICS) mean that trends in investable consumer discretionary are now largely driven by Alibaba’s stock price, and Chart 3 highlights that the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) have indeed risen relative to the overall investable index. We noted in last month’s macro & market review that investors appeared to be wrongly conflating the risks facing Huawei (U.S. supply chain reliance) with those facing the BATs (the outlook for Chinese consumer spending), and the outperformance of the latter over the past month, as expectations mounted of another tariff truce emerging from the G20, would appear to validate this view. This implies that the outlook for the relative performance of the BATs versus the Chinese equity benchmark is likely to be the same as that of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark: near-term risk, but likely to outperform over a 6-12 month time horizon. Chinese interbank rates fell over the past month, in response to an injection of liquidity by the PBoC following the collapse and takeover of Baoshang bank. The event marked the first takeover of a commercial bank in China since 1998, and has been described by authorities as an isolated event that was caused, in part, by the illegal use of bank funds. Market participants have clearly been concerned that Baoshang is not an isolated event; China’s 3-month interbank repo rate rose nearly 60bps from early-April to mid-June, and the PBoC’s response was intended to help prevent a significant tightening in credit conditions for China’s smaller lenders. While bad debt concerns have clearly impacted the interbank market over the past several weeks, there has been little impact on China’s onshore corporate bond market (Chart 4). Spreads on bonds rated AA+ did rise meaningfully in June, but have since nearly returned to late-May levels. We continue to recommend an overweight stance towards Chinese onshore corporate bonds, on the basis that market participants are pricing in a much higher default rate than we expect over the coming 6-12 months. The risk to Hong Kong is not the stability of the peg, but the impact of higher interest rates on an extremely leveraged economy. Chart 4The Onshore Corporate Bond Market Is Not Concerned By The Baoshang Takeover The Onshore Corporate Bond Market Is Not Concerned By The Baoshang Takeover The Onshore Corporate Bond Market Is Not Concerned By The Baoshang Takeover Chart 5HKD Strength Reflects More Than Just Falling U.S. Rate Expectations HKD Strength Reflects More Than Just Falling U.S. Rate Expectations HKD Strength Reflects More Than Just Falling U.S. Rate Expectations The Hong Kong dollar has strengthened significantly over the past month, with USD-HKD having retreated to the midpoint of its band. This has occurred in part because of declining U.S. interest rate expectations, but also because of a sharp rise in 3-month HIBOR versus the base rate (Chart 5). The strengthening in HIBOR seems linked to the anti-extradition bill protests, implying that HKD has strengthened due to anti-capital flight measures by the HKMA. We see no major risk to the currency peg at the moment, but discussed the negative implications of higher interest rates in Hong Kong on the region’s property market and share prices in last week’s joint report with our Emerging Market Strategy service.2   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Making Sense Of Divergences”, dated May 9, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Hong Kong’s Currency Peg: Truths And Misconceptions”, dated June 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Image Highlights Fed policy is likely to proceed in two stages: An initial stage characterized by a highly accommodative monetary policy, followed by a second stage where the Fed is raising rates aggressively in response to galloping inflation. The first stage, which will end in late 2021, will be heaven for risk assets. The subsequent stage, which will feature a global recession, will be hell. In the end, we expect the fed funds rate to reach 4.75%, representing thirteen more 25-basis point hikes than implied by current market pricing. For the time being, investors should maintain a pro-risk stance: Overweight global equities and high-yield credit relative to government bonds and cash. Regardless of what happens to the trade negotiations, China is stimulating its economy, which will benefit global growth. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will weaken over the next 12 months. Cyclical stocks will outperform defensives. We expect to upgrade European and EM stocks this summer. Feature Dear Client, In lieu of next week’s report, I will be hosting a webcast on Wednesday, July 3rd at 10:00 AM EDT, where I will be discussing the major investment themes and views I see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Macro Outlook Right On Stocks, Wrong On Bonds We turned structurally bullish on global equities following December’s sell-off, having temporarily moved to the sidelines last June. This view has generally played out well. In contrast, our view that bond yields would rise this year as stocks recovered has been one gigantic flop. What went wrong with the bond view? The answer is that central banks are reacting to incoming news and data differently than in the past. As we discuss below, this has monumental implications for investment strategy. A Not So Recessionary Environment If one had been told at the start of the year that investors would be expecting the fed funds rate to fall to 1.5% by mid-2020 – with a 93% chance that the Fed would cut rates at least twice and a 62% chance it will cut rates three times in 2019 – one would probably have assumed that the U.S. had teetered into recession and that the stock market would be down on the year (Chart 1). Chart 1 Instead, the S&P 500 is near an all-time high, while credit spreads have narrowed by 145 bps since the start of the year. Outside the manufacturing sector, the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace and the unemployment rate is below most estimates of full employment. According to the Atlanta Fed, real final domestic demand is set to increase by 2.8% in Q2, up from 1.6% in Q1. Real personal consumption expenditures are tracking to rise at a 3.7% annualized pace (Chart 2). Chart 2 So why is the Fed telegraphing rate cuts when real interest rates are barely above zero? A few reasons stand out: Global growth has slowed (Chart 3). The trade war has heated up again following President Trump’s decision to further increase tariffs on Chinese goods. Inflation expectations have fallen in the U.S. as well as around the world (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Growth Has Slowed Global Growth Has Slowed Global Growth Has Slowed Chart 4Inflation Expectations Have Fallen Around The World Inflation Expectations Have Fallen Around The World Inflation Expectations Have Fallen Around The World   There’s More To The Story As important as they are, these three factors, even taken together, would not be enough to justify rate cuts were it not for an additional consideration: The Fed, like most other major central banks, has become increasingly worried that the neutral rate of interest – the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – is extremely low. This has resulted in a major shift in its reaction function. Nobody really knows exactly where the neutral rate is. According to the widely-cited Laubach Williams (L-W) model, the nominal neutral rate stands at 2.2% in the United States. This is close to current policy rates (Chart 5). The range for the longer-term interest rate dot in the Summary of Economic Projections is between 2.4% and 3.3%, which is higher than the L-W estimate. However, the range has trended lower since it was introduced in 2014 (Chart 6). Chart 5The Fed Thinks Rates Are Close To Neutral The Fed Thinks Rates Are Close To Neutral The Fed Thinks Rates Are Close To Neutral Chart 6 A Fundamental Asymmetry Given that inflation expectations are quite low and there is considerable uncertainty over the level of the neutral rate, it does make some sense for policymakers to err on the side of being too dovish rather than too hawkish. This is because there is an asymmetry in monetary policy in the current environment. If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than expected and inflation starts to accelerate, central banks can always raise rates. In contrast, if the neutral rate turns out to be very low, the decision to hike rates could plunge the economy into a downward spiral. Historically, the Fed has cut rates by over five percentage points during recessions (Chart 7). At the present rate of inflation, the zero-lower bound on interest rates would be quickly reached, at which point monetary policy would become largely impotent. Chart 7The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound The asymmetry described above argues in favor of letting the economy run hot in order to allow inflation to rise. A higher inflation rate going into a recession would let a central bank push real rates deeper into negative territory before the zero bound is reached. In addition, a higher inflation rate would facilitate wage adjustments in response to economic shocks. Firms typically try to reduce costs when demand for their products and services declines, but employers are often wary of cutting nominal wages. Even though it is not fully rational, workers get more upset when they are told that their wages will fall by 2% when inflation is 1% than when they are told their wages will rise by 1% when inflation is 3%. More controversially, a modestly higher inflation rate could improve financial stability. In a low-inflation, low-nominal-rate environment, risky borrowers are likely to be able to roll over loans for an extended period of time. This could lead to the proliferation of bad debt. Chart 8Higher Underlying Inflation Can Cushion Nominal Asset Price Declines Higher Underlying Inflation Can Cushion Nominal Asset Price Declines Higher Underlying Inflation Can Cushion Nominal Asset Price Declines Higher inflation can also cushion the blow from a burst asset bubble. For example, the Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Index fell by 34% between 2006 and 2012, or 41% in real terms. If inflation had averaged 4% over this period and real home prices had fallen by the same amount, nominal home prices would have declined by only 26%, resulting in fewer underwater mortgages (Chart 8). A New Reaction Function It is usually a mistake to base market views on an opinion about what policymakers should do rather than what they will do. On rare occasions, however, the opposite is true. And, where our Fed call is concerned, this seems to be the case. Where we fumbled earlier this year was in assuming the Fed would follow a more traditional, Taylor Rule-based monetary framework, which calls for raising rates as the output gap shrinks. Instead, the Fed has adopted a risk-based approach of the sort described above, reminiscent in many ways of the optimal control framework that Janet Yellen set out in 2012. The New Normal Becomes The New Consensus Chart 9 If one is going to conduct monetary policy in a way that errs on the side of letting the economy overheat, one should not be too surprised if the economy does overheat. Yet, the implied rate path from the futures curve suggests that investors are not taking this risk seriously. Chart 9 shows that investors are assigning a mere 5% chance that U.S. short-term rates will be above 3.5% in mid-2022. Why isn’t the market assigning more of a risk to an inflation overshoot? We suspect that most investors have bought into the consensus view that the real neutral rate is zero. According to this view, U.S. monetary policy had already turned restrictive last year when the 10-year Treasury yield climbed above 3%. If this view is correct, the recent decline in yields may stave off a recession, but it will not be enough to cause the economy to overheat. Many of the same investors also believe that deep-seated structural forces ranging from globalization, automation, demographics, to the waning power of trade unions, will all prevent inflation from rising much over the coming years even if the unemployment rate continues to fall. In other words, the Phillips curve is broken and destined to stay that way. But are these views correct? We think not.  Where Is Neutral? There is a big difference between arguing that the neutral rate may be low – and taking preemptive steps to remedy it – and arguing that it definitely is low. We subscribe to the former view, but not the latter. Our guess is that in the end, we will discover that the neutral rate is lower than in the past, but not nearly as low as investors currently think. Probably closer to 1.5% in real terms than 0%. As we discussed in detail two weeks ago, while a deceleration in trend growth has pushed down the neutral rate, other forces have pushed it up.1 These include looser fiscal policy (especially in the U.S.), a modest revival in private-sector credit demand, and dwindling labor market slack.  Since the neutral rate cannot be observed directly, the best we can do is monitor the more interest rate-sensitive sectors of the economy to see if they are cooling in a way that would be expected if monetary policy had become restrictive. For example, housing is a long-lived asset that is usually financed through debt. Hence, it is highly sensitive to changes in mortgage rates. History suggests that the recent decline in mortgage rates will spur a rebound in home sales and construction later this year (Chart 10). The fact that homebuilder confidence has bounced back this year and purchase mortgage applications have reached a cycle high is encouraging in that regard. The same goes for the fact that the vacancy rate is near an all-time low, housing starts have been running well below the rate of household formation, and the quality of mortgage lending has been quite strong (Chart 11). Chart 10Declining Yields Bode Well For Housing Declining Yields Bode Well For Housing Declining Yields Bode Well For Housing Chart 11U.S. Housing: No Oversupply Problem, While Demand Is Firm U.S. Housing: No Oversupply Problem, While Demand Is Firm U.S. Housing: No Oversupply Problem, While Demand Is Firm     Nevertheless, if the rebound in housing activity fails to materialize, it would provide evidence that other factors, such as job security concerns among potential homebuyers, are overwhelming the palliative effects of lower mortgage rates.  Have Financial Markets “Trapped” Central Banks? An often-heard argument is that central banks can ill-afford to raise rates for fear of unsettling financial markets. Proponents of this argument often mention that the value of all equities, corporate bonds, real estate and other risk assets around the world exceeds $400 trillion, five times greater than global GDP. There are at least two things wrong with this argument. First, an increase in financial wealth should translate into more spending, and hence a higher neutral rate of interest. Second, as we discussed earlier this year, the feedback loop between asset prices and economic activity tends to kick in only when monetary policy has already become restrictive.2  When policy rates are close to or above neutral, further rate hikes threaten to push the economy into recession. Corporate profits inevitably contract during recessions, which hurts risk asset prices. A vicious spiral can develop where falling asset prices lead to less spending throughout the economy, leading to lower profits and even weaker asset prices. In contrast, when interest rates are below their neutral level, as we believe is the case today in the major economies, an increase in policy rates will simply reduce the odds that the economy will overheat, which is ultimately a desirable outcome. U.S. Imbalances Are Modest Chart 12U.S. Corporate Debt (I): No Cause For Alarm U.S. Corporate Debt (I): No Cause For Alarm U.S. Corporate Debt (I): No Cause For Alarm Recessions usually occur when rising rates expose some serious imbalances in the economy. In the U.S. at least, the imbalances are fairly modest. As noted above, housing is on solid ground, which means that mortgage rates would need to rise substantially before the sector crumbles. Equities are pricey, but far from bubble territory. Moreover, unlike in the late 1990s, the run-up in stock prices over the past five years has not led to a massive capex overhang. Corporate debt is the weakest link in the financial system, but we should keep things in perspective. Even after the recent run-up, net corporate debt is only modestly higher than it was in the late 1980s, a period where the fed funds rate averaged nearly 10% (Chart 12). Thanks to low interest rates and rapid asset accumulation, the economy-wide interest coverage ratio is above its long-term average, while the ratio of debt-to-assets is below its long-term average (Chart 13). The corporate sector financial balance – the difference between what businesses earn and spend – is still in surplus. Every recession during the past 50 years has begun when the corporate sector financial balance was in deficit (Chart 14). Chart 13U.S. Corporate Debt (II): No Cause For Alarm U.S. Corporate Debt (II): No Cause For Alarm U.S. Corporate Debt (II): No Cause For Alarm Chart 14U.S. Corporate Debt (III): No Cause For Alarm U.S. Corporate Debt (III): No Cause For Alarm U.S. Corporate Debt (III): No Cause For Alarm     The Dollar, The Neutral Rate, and Global Growth In a globalized economy, capital flows can equalize, at least partially, neutral rates across countries. If any one central bank tries to raise rates – while others are standing pat or even cutting rates – the currency of the economy where rates are rising will shoot up, causing net exports to shrink and growth to slow.  In the case of the U.S. dollar, there is an additional issue to worry about, which is that there is about $12 trillion in overseas dollar-denominated debt. A stronger greenback would make it difficult for external borrowers to service their debts, leading to increased bankruptcies and defaults. Since financial and economic imbalances are arguably larger outside the U.S., a rising dollar would probably pose more of a problem for the rest of the world than for the United States. Although this is a serious risk, it is unlikely to materialize over the next 12-to-18 months, given our assumption that the dollar will weaken over this period. The U.S. dollar trades as a countercyclical currency, which is another way of saying that it tends to weaken whenever global growth strengthens (Chart 15). While the U.S. benefits from faster global growth, the rest of the world benefits even more. This stems from the fact that the U.S. has a smaller manufacturing base and a larger service sector than most other economies, which makes the U.S. a “low beta” economy. Hence, stronger global growth tends to cause capital to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, putting downward pressure on the greenback. Right now, China is stimulating its economy. The stimulus is a reaction to both slowing domestic growth, as well as worries about the potential repercussions of a trade war. It also reflects the fact that Chinese credit growth had sunk to a level only modestly above nominal GDP growth late last year. With the ratio of credit-to-GDP no longer rising quickly, the authorities had the luxury of suspending the deleveraging campaign (Chart 16). Chart 15The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 16Chinese Deleveraging Campaign Has Now Been Put On The Backburner Chinese Deleveraging Campaign Has Now Been Put On The Backburner Chinese Deleveraging Campaign Has Now Been Put On The Backburner   The combination of Chinese stimulus, the lagged effects from lower bond yields, and a turn in the global manufacturing cycle should all lift global growth in the back half of this year. This should cause the dollar to weaken. Trade War Worries Needless to say, this rosy outlook is predicated on the assumption that the trade war does not get out of hand. Our baseline envisions a “muddle through” scenario, where some sort of deal is hatched that allows the U.S. to bring down existing tariffs over time in exchange for a binding agreement by the Chinese to improve market access for U.S. companies and better secure intellectual property rights. The specifics of the deal are less important than there being a deal – any deal – that avoids a major escalation. Ultimately, the distinction between a “small” trade war and a “moderate” trade war is a function of how high tariffs end up being. Tariffs are taxes, and while no one likes to pay taxes, they are a familiar part of the global capitalist system. Chart 17 What is less familiar, and much more dangerous to global finance, are nontariff barriers that effectively bar countries from accessing critical inputs and technologies. Most global trade is in the form of intermediate goods (Chart 17). If a company cannot access the global supply chain, there is a good chance it may not be able to function at all. The current travails of Huawei is a perfect example of this. A full-blown trade war would create a lot of stranded capital. The stock market represents a claim on the existing capital stock, not the capital stock that would emerge after a trade war has been fought. Stocks would plunge in this scenario, with the U.S. and most other economies succumbing to a recession. Enough voters would blame Donald Trump that he would lose the election. While such an outcome cannot be entirely dismissed, it is precisely its severity that makes it highly unlikely. Inflation: Waiting For Godot? Global monetary policy is highly accommodative at present, and will only become more so if the Fed and some other central banks cut rates. Provided that the trade war does not boil over, global growth should accelerate, putting downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A weaker dollar will further ease global financial conditions. In such a setting, global growth is likely to remain above trend, leading to a further erosion of labor market slack. Among the major economies, the U.S. is the closest to exhausting all remaining spare capacity (Chart 18). The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.6%, the lowest level since 1969. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job as a share of the working-age population is below the level last seen in 2000. The quits and job opening rates remain near record highs. Given the erosion in slack, why has inflation not taken off? To some extent, the answer is that the Phillips curve is “kinked.” A decline in the unemployment rate from say, 8% to 5%, does little to boost inflation because even at 5%, there are enough jobless workers keen to accept what employment offers they get. It is only once the unemployment rate falls well below NAIRU that inflation starts to kick in. In the 1960s, it was not before the unemployment rate fell two percentage points below NAIRU that inflation broke out (Chart 19). Chart 18U.S. Is Back To Full Employment U.S. Is Back To Full Employment U.S. Is Back To Full Employment Chart 19Inflation Took Off In The 1960s Amid An Overheated Economy Inflation Took Off In The 1960s Amid An Overheated Economy Inflation Took Off In The 1960s Amid An Overheated Economy   Wage growth has picked up. However, productivity growth has risen as well. As a result, unit labor costs – the ratio of wages-to-productivity – have actually decelerated over the past 18 months. Unit labor cost inflation tends to lead core inflation by up to one year (Chart 20).  Chart 20No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral As the unemployment rate continues to drop, wage growth is likely to begin outstripping productivity gains. A wage-price spiral could develop. This is not a major risk for the next 12 months, but could become an issue thereafter. Could structural forces related to globalization, automation, demographics, and waning union power prevent inflation from rising even if labor markets tighten significantly further? We think that is unlikely. Globalization Regardless of what happens to the trade war, the period of hyperglobalization, ushered in by the fall of the Berlin Wall and China’s entry into the WTO, is over. As a share of global GDP, trade has been flat for more than ten years (Chart 21).  Chart 21Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Granted, it is not just the change in globalization that matters for inflation. The level matters too. In a highly globalized world, excess demand in one economy can be satiated with increased imports from another economy. However, this is only true if other economies have enough spare capacity. Even outside the United States, the unemployment rate in the G7 economies is approaching a record low (Chart 22). Chart 22The Unemployment Rate In The U.S. And Elsewhere Is Near Record Lows The Unemployment Rate In The U.S. And Elsewhere Is Near Record Lows The Unemployment Rate In The U.S. And Elsewhere Is Near Record Lows In any case, for a fairly closed economy such as the U.S., where imports account for only 15% of GDP, relative prices would need to shift a lot in order to incentivize households and firms to purchase substantially more goods from abroad. In the absence of dollar appreciation, this would require that the prices of U.S. goods increase in relation to the prices of foreign goods. In other words, U.S. inflation would still have to rise above that of the rest of the world. Automation Everyone likes to think that they are living in a special age of technological innovation. Yet, according to the productivity statistics, U.S. productivity has grown at a slower pace over the last decade than during the 1970s (Chart 23). As we argued in a past report, this is unlikely to be the result of measurement error.3  Perhaps the recent pickup in productivity growth will mark the start of a new structural trend. Maybe, but it could also just reflect a temporary cyclical revival. As labor has become less plentiful, companies have started to invest in more capital. Chart 24 shows that productivity growth and capital spending are highly correlated over the business cycle. Chart 23 Chart 24U.S. Productivity Growth And Capex Move In Lock-Step U.S. Productivity Growth And Capex Move In Lock-Step U.S. Productivity Growth And Capex Move In Lock-Step   It is less clear whether total factor productivity (TFP) growth — which reflects such things as technological know-how and business practices – has turned the corner. Over the past two centuries, TFP growth has accounted for over two-thirds of overall productivity growth. Recent data suggests TFP growth in the U.S. and around the world has remained sluggish (Chart 25). Chart 25ATotal Factor Productivity Remains Muted Across Developed Markets Total Factor Productivity Remains Muted Across Developed Markets Total Factor Productivity Remains Muted Across Developed Markets Chart 25BTotal Factor Productivity Remains Muted Across Developed Markets Total Factor Productivity Remains Muted Across Developed Markets Total Factor Productivity Remains Muted Across Developed Markets     Even if TFP growth does accelerate, it is not obvious that this will end up being deflationary. Increased productivity means more income, but more income means more potential spending. To the extent that stronger productivity growth expands aggregate supply, it also has the potential to raise aggregate demand. Thus, while faster productivity growth in one sector will cause relative prices in that sector to fall, this will not necessarily reduce the overall price level. Chart 26Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Chart 27 True, faster productivity growth has the ability to shift income from poor workers to rich capitalists. Since the former spend more of their income than the latter, this could slow aggregate demand growth. However, the recent trend has been in the other direction, as a tighter labor market has pushed up labor’s share of income (Chart 26). Among workers, wage growth is now higher at the bottom end of the income distribution than at the top (Chart 27). Demographics For several decades, slower population growth has reduced the incentive for firms to expand capacity. Population aging has also shifted more people into their prime saving years. The combination of lower investment demand and higher desired savings pushed down the neutral rate on interest. Chart 28The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Now that baby boomers are starting to retire, they are moving from being savers to dissavers. Chart 28 shows that ratio of workers-to-consumers globally has begun to decline as the post-war generation leaves the labor force. As more people stop working, aggregate savings will fall. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in the neutral rate, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up. The Waning Power Of Unions The declining influence of trade unions is often cited as a reason for why inflation will remain subdued. There are a number of problems with this argument. First, unionization rates in the U.S. peaked in the mid-1950s, more than a decade before inflation began to accelerate. Second, while the unionization rate continued to decline in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s, it remained elevated in Canada. Yet, this did not prevent Canadian inflation from falling as rapidly as it did in the United States (Chart 29). The widespread use of inflation-linked wage contracts in the 1970s appears mainly to have been a consequence of rising inflation rather than the cause of it (Chart 30). Chart 29Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate Chart 30Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around   Ultimately, the price level cannot increase on a sustained basis independent of other things such as the level of the money supply. Unions have influence over wages, but in the long run, central banks play the decisive role. Alt-Right Or Ctrl-Left, The Result Is Usually Inflation In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations this week, Jay Powell noted that “The Fed is insulated from short-term political pressures – what is often referred to as our ‘independence’.”4 The operative words in his remarks were “short-term”. Powell knows full well that the Fed’s independence is not cast in stone. Even if Trump cannot legally fire or demote him, the President can choose who to nominate to the Fed’s Board of Governors. Early on in his tenure, Trump showed little interest in the workings of the Federal Reserve. He even went so far as to nominate Marvin Goodfriend – definitely no good friend of easy money – to the Fed board. Trump’s last two candidates, Stephen Moore and Herman Cain, were both political flunkies, happy to ditch their previous commitments to hard money in favor of Trump’s desire to see lower interest rates. Neither made it as far as the Senate confirmation process. Recent media reports have suggested that Trump will nominate Judy Shelton, a previously unknown economist whose main claim to fame is the promulgation of a bizarre theory about why the Fed should not pay interest on excess reserves (which, conveniently, would imply that overnight rates would need to fall to zero immediately).5  It is not clear whether Trump’s attempt to stack the Fed with lackeys will succeed. But one thing is clear: Countries with independent central banks tend to end up with lower inflation rates than countries where central banks are not independent (Chart 31). Chart 31 Whether it be Trump-style right-wing populism or left-wing populism (don’t forget, MMT is a product of the left, not the right), the result is usually the same: higher inflation. Investment Recommendations Overall Strategy The discussion above suggests the Fed will proceed along a two-stage path: An initial stage characterized by a highly accommodative monetary policy, followed by a second stage where the Fed is raising rates aggressively in response to galloping inflation. The first stage will be heaven for risk assets. The subsequent stage will be hell. The big question is when the transition from stage one to stage two will occur. Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. It usually does not peak until a recession has begun and does not bottom until a recovery is well under way (Chart 32). Chart 32 While some measures of U.S. core inflation such as the Dallas Fed’s “trimmed mean” have moved back up to 2%, this follows a prolonged period of sub-target inflation. For now, the Fed wants both actual inflation and inflation expectations to increase. Thus, we doubt that inflation will move above the Fed’s comfort zone before 2021, and it will probably not be until 2022 that monetary policy turns contractionary. It will take even longer for inflation to rise meaningfully in the euro area and Japan. Recessions rarely happen if monetary policy is expansionary. Sustained equity bear markets in stocks, in turn, almost never happen outside of recessionary periods (Chart 33). As such, a pro-risk asset allocation, favoring global equities and high-yield credit over safe government bonds and cash, is warranted at least for the next 12 months. Chart 33Recessions And Equity Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Equity Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Equity Bear Markets Usually Overlap The key market forecast charts on the first page of this report graphically lay out our baseline forecasts for equities, bonds, currencies, and commodities. Broadly speaking, we expect a risk-on environment to prevail until the end of 2021, followed by a major sell-off in equities and credit. Equities Stocks tend to peak about six months before the onset of a recession. In the 13-to-24 month period prior to the recession, returns tend to be substantially higher than during the rest of the expansion (Table 1). We are approaching that party phase. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Third Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: The Long Hurrah Third Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: The Long Hurrah Global equities currently trade at 15-times forward earnings. Unlike last year, earning growth estimates are reasonably conservative (Chart 34). Chart 34Global Stocks Are Not That Expensive Global Stocks Are Not That Expensive Global Stocks Are Not That Expensive Outside the U.S., stocks trade at a respectable 13-times forward earnings. Considering that bond yields are negative in real terms in most economies – and negative in nominal terms in Japan and many parts of Europe – this implies a sizable equity risk premium.  We have yet to upgrade EM and European stocks to overweight, but expect to do so some time this summer, once we see some evidence that global growth is accelerating. International stocks should do especially well in common-currency terms over the next 12 months, if the dollar continues to trend lower, as we expect will be the case.  We are less enthusiastic about Japanese equities. First, there is still the risk that the Japanese government will needlessly raise the consumption tax in October. Second, as a risk-off currency, the yen is likely to struggle in an environment of strengthening global growth. Investors looking for exposure to Japanese stocks should favor the larger multinational exporters. At the global sector level, cyclicals should outperform defensives in an environment of stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and ongoing Chinese stimulus. We particularly like industrials and energy. Financials should catch a bid in the second half of this year. According to the forwards, the U.S. yield curve will steepen by 38 bps over the next six months (Chart 35). Worries about an inverted yield curve will taper off. Curves will also likely steepen outside the U.S. as growth prospects improve. A steeper yield curve is manna from heaven for banks. Euro area banks trade at an average dividend yield of 6.4% (Chart 36). We are buying them as part of a tactical trade recommendation. Chart 35 Chart 36Euro Area Banks Are A Buy Euro Area Banks Are A Buy Euro Area Banks Are A Buy     Fixed Income The path to higher rates is lined with lower rates. The longer a central bank keeps rates below their neutral level, the more economies will overheat, and the larger the eventual inflation overshoot will be. The Fed’s dovish turn means that rates will stay lower for longer, but will ultimately go higher than we had originally envisioned. As a result, we are increasing our estimate of the terminal fed funds rate for this cycle by 50 bps to 4.75% and initiating a new trade going short the March 2022 Eurodollar futures contract. Our terminal fed funds rate projection assumes a neutral real rate of 1.5% and a peak inflation rate of 2.75%. Rates will rise roughly 50 basis points above neutral in the first half of 2022, enough to generate a recession later that year. The 10-year Treasury yield will peak at 4% this cycle. While the bulk of the increase will happen in 2021/22, yields will still rise over the next 12 months, as U.S. growth surprises on the upside. Thus, a short duration stance is warranted even in the near-to-medium term. The German 10-year yield will peak at 1.5% in 2022. We expect the U.S.-German spread to narrow modestly through to end-2021 and then widen somewhat as U.S. inflation accelerates relative to German inflation. The spread between Italian and German yields will decline in the lead-up to the global recession in 2022 and widen thereafter. U.K. gilt yields are likely to track global bond yields, although Brexit remains a source of downside risk for yields. Our base case is either no Brexit or a very soft Brexit, given that popular opinion has turned away from leaving the EU (Chart 37). Chart 37U.K.: In The Case Of A Do-Over, The Remain Side Would Likely Win U.K.: In The Case Of A Do-Over, The Remain Side Would Likely Win U.K.: In The Case Of A Do-Over, The Remain Side Would Likely Win Chart 38U.S. Default Losses Will Remain In Check U.S. Default Losses Will Remain In Check U.S. Default Losses Will Remain In Check   We expect only a very modest increase in Japanese yields over the next five years. Japanese long-term inflation expectations are much lower than in the other major economies, which will require an extended period of near-zero rates to rectify. We expect corporate credit to outperform government bonds over the next 12 months. While spreads are not likely to narrow much from present levels, the current yield pickup is high enough to compensate for expected bankruptcy risk. Our U.S. fixed-income strategists expect default losses on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index on the order of 1.25%-1.5% over the next 12 months (Chart 38). In that scenario, the junk index offers 224 bps – 249 bps of excess spread, a solid positive return that is only slightly below the historical average of 250 bps.  Currencies And Commodities The two-stage Fed cycle described above will govern the trajectory of the dollar over the next few years. In the initial stage, where global growth is accelerating and the Fed is falling ever further behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, the dollar will depreciate. Dollar weakness will be especially pronounced against the euro and EM currencies. Commodities and commodity currencies will see solid gains. Our commodity strategists are particularly bullish on oil, as they expect crude prices to benefit from both stronger global demand and increasingly tight supply conditions. The Chinese yuan will start strengthening again if a detente is reached in the trade talks. Even if a truce fails to materialize, the Chinese authorities will likely step up the pace of credit stimulus, rather than trying to engineer a significant, and possibly disorderly, devaluation.   In the second stage, where the Fed is desperately hiking rates to prevent inflation expectations from becoming unmoored, the dollar will soar. The combination of higher U.S. rates and a stronger dollar will cause global equities to crash and credit spreads to widen. The resulting tightening in financial conditions will lead to slower global growth, which will further turbocharge the dollar. Only once the Fed starts cutting rates again in late 2022 will the dollar weaken anew. Gold should do well in the first stage of the Fed cycle and at least part of the second stage. In the first stage, gold will benefit from a weaker dollar. In the initial part of the second stage, gold prices will continue to rise as inflation fears escalate. Gold will probably weaken temporarily once real interest rates reach restrictive territory and a recession becomes all but inevitable. We recommended buying gold on April 17, 2019. The trade is up 10.8% since then. Stick with it.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Two-Stage Fed Cycle,” dated June 14, 2019. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Low Odds Of An FCI Doom Loop,” dated January 4, 2019. 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 26, 2016. 4      Please see “Powell Emphasizes Fed’s Independence,” The New York Times, June 25, 2019. 5      Heather Long, “Trump’s potential Fed pick Judy Shelton wants to see ‘lower rates as fast as possible’,” The Washington Post, June 19, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Chart 39 Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights So What? Economic stimulus will encourage key nations to pursue their self-interest – keeping geopolitical risk high. Why? The U.S. is still experiencing extraordinary strategic tensions with China and Iran … simultaneously. The Trump-Xi summit at the G20 is unlikely to change the fact that the United States is threatening China with total tariffs and a technology embargo. The U.S. conflict with Iran will be hard to keep under wraps. Expect more fireworks and oil volatility, with a large risk of hostilities as long as the U.S. maintains stringent oil sanctions. All of our GeoRisk indicators are falling except for those of Germany, Turkey and Brazil. This suggests the market is too complacent. Maintain tactical safe-haven positioning. Feature “That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed. “It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed. -Joseph Heller, Catch-22 (1961)   One would have to be crazy to go to war. Yet a nation has no interest in filling its military’s ranks with lunatics. This is the original “Catch-22,” a conundrum in which the only way to do what is individually rational (avoid war) is to insist on what is collectively irrational (abandon your country). Or the only way to defend your country is to sacrifice yourself. This is the paradox that U.S. President Donald Trump faces having doubled down on his aggressive foreign policy this year: if he backs away from trade war to remove an economic headwind that could hurt his reelection chances, he sacrifices the immense leverage he has built up on behalf of the United States in its strategic rivalry with China. “Surrender” would be a cogent criticism of him on the campaign trail: a weak deal will cast him as a pluto-populist, rather than a real populist – one who pandered to China to give a sop to Wall Street and the farm lobby just like previous presidents, yet left America vulnerable for the long run. Similarly, if President Trump stops enforcing sanctions against Iranian oil exports to reduce the threat of a conflict-induced oil price shock that disrupts his economy, then he reduces the United States’s ability to contain Iran’s nuclear and strategic advances in the wake of the 2015 nuclear deal that he canceled. The low appetite for American involvement in the region will be on full display for the world to see. Iran will have stared down the Great Satan – and won. In both cases, Trump can back down. Or he can try to change the subject. But with weak polling and yet a strong economy, the point is to direct voters’ attention to foreign policy. He could lose touch with his political base at the very moment that the Democrats reconnect with their own. This is not a good recipe for reelection. More important – for investors – why would he admit defeat just as the Federal Reserve is shifting to countenance the interest rate cuts that he insists are necessary to increase his economic ability to drive a hard bargain with China? Why would he throw in the towel as the stock market soars? And if Trump concludes a China deal, and the market rises higher, will he not be emboldened to put more economic pressure on Mexico over border security … or even on Europe over trade? The paradox facing investors is that the shift toward more accommodative monetary policy (and in some cases fiscal policy) extends the business cycle and encourages political leaders to pursue their interests more intently. China is less likely to cave to Trump’s demands as it stimulates. The EU does not need to fear a U.K. crash Brexit if its economy rebounds. This increases rather than decreases the odds of geopolitical risks materializing as negative catalysts for the market. Similarly, if geopolitical risk falls then the need for stimulus falls and the market will be disappointed. The result is still more volatility – at least in the near term. The G20 And 2020 As we go to press the Democratic Party’s primary election debates are underway. The progressive wave on display highlights the overarching takeaway of the debates: the U.S. election is now an active political (and geopolitical) risk to the equity market. A truly positive surprise at the G20 would be a joint statement by Trump and Xi plus some tariff rollback. Whenever Trump’s odds of losing rise, the U.S. domestic economy faces higher odds of extreme policy discontinuity and uncertainty come 2021, with the potential for a populist-progressive agenda – a negative for financials, energy, and probably health care and tech. Chart 1 Yet whenever Trump’s odds of winning rise, the world faces higher odds of an unconstrained Trump second term focusing on foreign and trade policy – a potentially extreme increase in global policy uncertainty – without the fiscal and deregulatory positives of his first term. We still view Trump as the favored candidate in this race (at 55% chance of reelection), given that U.S. underlying domestic demand is holding up and the labor market has not been confirmed to be crumbling beneath the consumer’s feet. Still Chart 1 highlights that Trump’s shift to more aggressive foreign and trade policy this spring has not won him any additional support – his approval rating has been flat since then. And his polling is weak enough in general that we do not assign him as high of odds of reelection as would normally be afforded to a sitting president on the back of a resilient economy. This raises the question of whether the G20 will mark a turning point. Will Trump attempt to deescalate his foreign conflicts? Yes, and this is a tactical opportunity. But we see no final resolution at hand. With China, Trump’s only reason to sign a weak deal would be to stem a stock market collapse. With Iran, Trump is no longer in the driver’s seat but could be forced to react to Iranian provocations. Bottom Line: Trump’s polling has not improved – highlighting the election risk – but weak polling amid a growing economy and monetary easing is not a recipe for capitulating to foreign powers. The Trump-Xi Summit On China the consensus on the G20 has shifted toward expecting an extension of talks and another temporary tariff truce. If a new timetable is agreed, it may be a short-term boon for equities. But we will view it as unconvincing unless it is accompanied with a substantial softening on Huawei or a Trump-Xi joint statement outlining an agreement in principle along with some commitment of U.S. tariff rollback. Otherwise the structural dynamic is the same: Trump is coercing China with economic warfare amid a secular increase in U.S.-China animosity that is a headwind for trade and investment. Table 1 shows that throughout the modern history of U.S.-China presidential-level summits, the Great Recession marked a turning point: since then, bilateral relations have almost always deteriorated in the months after a summit, even if the optics around the summit were positive. Table 1U.S.-China Leaders Summits: A Chronology The G20 Catch-22 ... GeoRisk Indicators Update: June 28, 2019 The G20 Catch-22 ... GeoRisk Indicators Update: June 28, 2019 The last summit in Buenos Aires was no exception, given that the positive aura was ultimately followed by a tariff hike and technology-company blacklistings. Of course, the market rallied for five months in between. Why should this time be the same? First, the structural factors undermining Sino-American trust are worse, not better, with Trump’s latest threats to tech companies. Second, Trump will ultimately resent any decision to extend the negotiations. China’s economy is rebounding, which in the coming months will deprive Trump of much of the leverage he had in H2 2018 and H1 2019. He will be in a weaker position if they convene in three months to try to finalize a deal. Tariff rollback will be more difficult in that context given that China will be in better shape and that tariffs serve as the guarantee that any structural concessions will be implemented. Bottom Line: Our broader view regarding the “end game” of the talks – on the 2020 election horizon – remains that China has no reason to implement structural changes speedily for the United States until Trump can prove his resilience through reelection. Yet President Trump will suffer on the campaign trail if he accepts a deal that lacks structural concessions. Hence we expect further escalation from where we are today, knowing full well that the G20 could produce a temporary period of improvement just as occurred on December 1, 2018. The Iran Showdown Is Far From Over Disapproval of Trump’s handling of China and Iran is lower than his disapproval rating on trade policy and foreign policy overall, suggesting that despite the lack of a benefit to his polling, he does still have leeway to pursue his aggressive policies to a point. A breakdown of these opinions according to key voting blocs – a proxy for Trump’s ability to generate support in Midwestern swing states – illustrates that his political base is approving on the whole (Chart 2). Chart 2 Yet the conflict with Iran threatens Trump with a hard constraint – an oil price shock – that is fundamentally a threat to his reelection. Hence his decision, as we expected, to back away from the brink of war last week (he supposedly canceled air strikes on radar and missile installations at the last minute on June 21). He appears to be trying to control the damage that his policy has already done to the 2015 U.S.-Iran equilibrium. Trump has insisted he does not want war, has ruled out large deployments of boots on the ground, and has suggested twice this week that his only focus in trying to get Iran back into negotiations is nuclear weapons. This implies a watering down of negotiation demands to downplay Iran’s militant proxies in the region – it is a retreat from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s more sweeping 12 demands on Iran and a sign of Trump’s unwillingness to get embroiled in a regional conflict with a highly likely adverse economic blowback. The Iran confrontation is not over yet – policy-induced oil price volatility will continue. This retreat lacks substance if Trump does not at least secretly relax enforcement of the oil sanctions. Trump’s latest sanctions and reported cyberattacks are a sideshow in the context of an attempted oil embargo that could destabilize Iran’s entire economy (Charts 3 and 4). Similarly, Iran’s downing of a U.S. drone pales in comparison to the tanker attacks in Hormuz that threatened global oil shipments. What matters to investors is the oil: whether Iran is given breathing space or whether it is forced to escalate the conflict to try to win that breathing space. Chart 3 Chart 4Iran’s Rial Depreciated Sharply Iran's Rial Depreciated Sharply Iran's Rial Depreciated Sharply The latest data suggest that Iran’s exports have fallen to 300,000 barrels per day, a roughly 90% drop from 2018, when Trump walked away from the Iran deal. If this remains the case in the wake of the brinkmanship last week then it is clear that Iran is backed into a corner and could continue to snarl and snap at the U.S. and its regional allies, though it may pause after the tanker attacks. Chart 5More Oil Volatility To Come More Oil Volatility To Come More Oil Volatility To Come Tehran also has an incentive to dial up its nuclear program and activate its regional militant proxies in order to build up leverage for any future negotiation. It can continue to refuse entering into negotiations with Trump in order to embarrass him – and it can wait until Trump’s approach is validated by reelection before changing this stance. After all, judging by the first Democratic primary debate, biding time is the best strategy – the Democratic candidates want to restore the 2015 deal and a new Democratic administration would have to plead with Iran, even to get terms less demanding than those in 2015. Other players can also trigger an escalation even if Presidents Trump and Rouhani decide to take a breather in their conflict (which they have not clearly decided to do). The Houthi rebels based in Yemen have launched another missile at Abha airport in Saudi Arabia since Trump’s near-attack on Iran, an action that is provocative, easily replicable, and not necessarily directly under Tehran’s control. Meanwhile OPEC is still dragging its feet on oil production to compensate for the Iranian losses, implying that the cartel will react to price rises rather than preempt them. The Saudis could use production or other means to stoke conflict. Bottom Line: Given our view on the trade war, which dampens global oil demand, we expect still more policy-induced volatility (Chart 5). We do not see oil as a one-way bet … at least not until China’s shift to greater stimulus becomes unmistakable.   North Korea: The Hiccup Is Over Chart 6China Ostensibly Enforces North Korean Sanctions China Ostensibly Enforces North Korean Sanctions China Ostensibly Enforces North Korean Sanctions The single clearest reason to expect progress between the U.S. and China at the G20 is the fact that North Korea is getting back onto the diplomatic track. North Korea has consistently been shown to be part of the Trump-Xi negotiations, unlike Taiwan, the South China Sea, Xinjiang, and other points of disagreement. General Secretary Xi Jinping took his first trip to the North on June 20 – the first for a Chinese leader since 2005 – and emphasized the need for historic change, denuclearization, and economic development. Xi is pushing Kim to open up and reform the economy in exchange for a lasting peace process – an approach that is consistent with China’s past policy but also potentially complementary with Trump’s offer of industrialization in exchange for denuclearization. President Trump and Kim Jong Un have exchanged “beautiful” letters this month and re-entered into backchannel discussions. Trump’s visit to South Korea after the G20 will enable him and President Moon Jae-In to coordinate for a possible third summit between Trump and Kim. Progress on North Korea fits our view that the failed summit in Hanoi was merely a setback and that the diplomatic track is robust. Trump’s display of a credible military threat along with Chinese sanctions enforcement (Chart 6) has set in motion a significant process on the peninsula that we largely expect to succeed and go farther than the consensus expects. It is a long-term positive for the Korean peninsula’s economy. It is also a positive factor in the U.S.-China engagement based on China’s interest in ultimately avoiding war and removing U.S. troops from the peninsula. From an investment point of view, an end to a brief hiatus in U.S.-North Korean diplomacy is a very poor substitute for concrete signs of U.S.-China progress on the tech front or opening market access. There has been nothing substantial on these key issues since Trump hiked the tariff rate in May. As a result, it is perfectly possible for the G20 to be a “success” on North Korea but, like the Buenos Aires summit on December 1, for markets to sell the news (Chart 7). Chart 7The Last Trade Truce Didn't Stop The Selloff The Last Trade Truce Didn't Stop The Selloff The Last Trade Truce Didn't Stop The Selloff Chart 8China Needs A Final Deal To Solve This Problem China Needs A Final Deal To Solve This Problem China Needs A Final Deal To Solve This Problem Bottom Line: North Korea is not a basis in itself for tariff rollback, but only as part of a much more extensive U.S.-China agreement. And a final agreement is needed to improve China’s key trade indicators on a lasting basis, such as new export orders and manufacturing employment, which are suffering amid the trade war. We expect economic policy uncertainty to remain elevated given our pessimistic view of U.S.-China trade relations (Chart 8). What About Japan, The G20 Host? Chart 9 Japan faces underrated domestic political risk as Prime Minister Abe Shinzo approaches a critical period in his long premiership, after which he will almost certainly be rendered a “lame duck,” likely by the time of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The question is when will this process begin and what will the market impact be? If Abe loses his supermajority in the July House of Councillors election, then it could begin as early as next month. This is a real risk – because a two-thirds majority is always a tall order – but it is not extreme. Abe’s polling is historically remarkable (Chart 9). The Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner Komeito are also holding strong and remain miles away from competing parties (Chart 10). The economy is also holding up relatively well – real wages and incomes have improved under Abe’s watch (Chart 11). However, the recent global manufacturing slowdown and this year’s impending hike to the consumption tax in October from 8% to 10% are killing consumer confidence. Chart 10Japan's Ruling Coalition Is Strong Japan's Ruling Coalition Is Strong Japan's Ruling Coalition Is Strong The collapse in consumer confidence is a contrary indicator to the political opinion polling. The mixed picture suggests that after the election Abe could still backtrack on the tax hike, although it would require driving through surprise legislation. He can pull this off in light of global trade tensions and his main objective of passing a popular referendum to revise the constitution and remilitarize the country. Chart 11Japanese Wages Up, But Consumer Confidence Diving Japanese Wages Up, But Consumer Confidence Diving Japanese Wages Up, But Consumer Confidence Diving We would not be surprised if Japan secured a trade deal with the U.S. prior to China. Because Abe and the United States need to enhance their alliance, we continue to downplay the risk of a U.S.-Japan trade war. Bloomberg recently reported that President Trump was threatening to downgrade the U.S.-Japan alliance, with a particular grievance over the ever-controversial issue of the relocation of troops on Okinawa. We view this as a transparent Trumpian negotiating tactic that has no applicability – indeed, American military and diplomatic officials quickly rejected the report. We do see a non-trivial risk that Trump’s rhetoric or actions will hurt Japanese equities at some point this year, either as Trump approaches his desired August deadline for a Japan trade deal or if negotiations drag on until closer to his decision about Section 232 tariffs on auto imports on November 14. But our base case is that there will be either no punitive measures or only a short time span before Abe succeeds in negotiating them away. We would not be surprised if the Japanese secured a deal prior to any China deal as a way for the Trump administration to try to pressure China and prove that it can get deals done. This can be done because it could be a thinly modified bilateral renegotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which had the U.S. and Japan at its center. Bottom Line: Given the combination of the upper house election, the tax hike and its possible consequences, a looming constitutional referendum which poses risks to Abe, and the ongoing external threat of trade war and China tensions, we continue to see risk-off sentiment driving Japanese and global investors to hold then yen. We maintain our long JPY/USD recommendation. The risk to this view is that Bank of Japan chief Haruhiko Kuroda follows other central banks and makes a surprisingly dovish move, but this is not warranted at the moment and is not the base case of our Foreign Exchange Strategy. GeoRisk Indicators Update: June 28, 2019 Our GeoRisk indicators are sending a highly complacent message given the above views on China and Iran. All of our risk measures, other than our German, Turkish, and Brazilian indicators, are signaling a decrease geopolitical tensions. Investors should nonetheless remain cautious: Our German indicator, which has proven to be a good measure of U.S.-EU trade tensions, has increased over the first half of June (Chart 12). We expect Germany to continue to be subject to risk because of Trump’s desire to pivot to European trade negotiations in the wake of any China deal. The auto tariff decision was pushed off until November. We assign a 45% subjective probability to auto tariffs on the EU if Trump seals a final China deal. The reason it is not our base case is because of a lack of congressional, corporate, or public support for a trade war with Europe as opposed to China or Mexico, which touch on larger issues of national interest (security, immigration). There is perhaps a 10% probability that Trump could impose car tariffs prior to securing a China deal. Chart 12U.S.-EU Trade Tensions Hit Germany U.S.-EU Trade Tensions Hit Germany U.S.-EU Trade Tensions Hit Germany Chart 13German Greens Overtaking Christian Democrats! German Greens Overtaking Christian Democrats! German Greens Overtaking Christian Democrats! Germany is also an outlier because it is experiencing an increase in domestic political uncertainty. Social Democrat leader Andrea Nahles’ resignation on June 2 opened the door to a leadership contest among the SPD’s membership. This will begin next week and conclude on October 26, or possibly in December. The result will have consequences for the survivability of Merkel’s Grand Coalition – in case the SPD drops out of it entirely. Both Merkel and her party have been losing support in recent months – for the first time in history the Greens have gained the leading position in the polls (Chart 13). If the coalition falls apart and Merkel cannot put another one together with the Greens and Free Democrats, she may be forced to resign ahead of her scheduled 2021 exit date. The implication of the events with Trump and Merkel is that Germany faces higher political risk this year, particularly in Q4 if tariff threats and coalition strains coincide. Meanwhile, Brazilian pension reform has been delayed due to an inevitable breakdown in the ability to pass major legislation without providing adequate pork barrel spending. As for the rest of Europe, since European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s dovish signal on June 18, all of our European risk indicators have dropped off. Markets rallied on the news of the ECB’s preparedness to launch another round of bond-buying monetary stimulus if needed, easing tensions in the region. Italian bond spreads plummeted, for instance. The Korean and Taiwanese GeoRisk indicators, our proxies for the U.S.-China trade war, are indicating a decrease in risk as the two sides moved to contain the spike in tensions in May. While Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin notes that the deal was 90% complete in May before the breakdown, there is little evidence yet that any of the sticking points have been removed over the past two weeks. These indicators can continue to improve on the back of any short-term trade truce at the G20. The Russian risk indicator has been hovering in the same range for the past two months. We expect this to break out on the back of increasing mutual threats between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. has recently agreed to send an additional 1000 rotating troops to Poland, a move that Russia obviously deems aggressive. The Russian upper chamber has also unanimously supported President Putin’s decree to suspend the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, in the wake of the U.S. decision to do so. This would open the door to developing and deploying 500-5500 km range land-based and ballistic missiles. According to the deputy foreign minister, any U.S. missile deployment in Europe will lead to a crisis on the level of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia has also sided with Iran in the latest U.S.-Iran tension escalation, denouncing U.S. plans to send an additional 1000 troops to the Middle East and claiming that the shot-down U.S. drone was indeed in Iranian airspace. We anticipate the Russian risk indicator to go up as we expect Russia to retaliate in some way to Poland and to take actions to encourage the U.S. to get entangled deeper into the Iranian imbroglio, which is ultimately a drain on the U.S. and a useful distraction that Russia can exploit. In Turkey, both domestic and foreign tensions are rising. First, the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election delivered a big defeat for Turkey’s President Erdogan on his home turf. Opposition representative Ekrem Imamoglu defeated former Prime Minister Binali Yildirim for a second time this year on June 23 – increasing his margin of victory to 9.2% from 0.2% in March. This was a stinging rebuke to Erdogan and his entire political system. It also reinforces the fact that Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) is not as popular as Erdogan himself, frequently falling short of the 50% line in the popular vote for elections not associated directly with Erdogan (Chart 14). This trend combined with his personal rebuke in the power base of Istanbul will leave him even more insecure and unpredictable. Chart 14 Second, the G20 summit is the last occasion for Erdogan and Trump to meet personally before the July 31 deadline on Erdogan’s planned purchase of S-400 missile defenses from Russia. Erdogan has a chance to delay the purchase as he contemplates cabinet and policy changes in the wake of this major domestic defeat. Yet if Erdogan does not back down or delay, the U.S. will remove Turkey from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, and may also impose sanctions over this purchase and possibly also Iranian trade. The result will hit the lira and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Geopolitically, it will create a wedge within NATO that Russia could exploit, creating more opportunities for market-negative surprises in this area. Finally, we expect our U.K. risk indicator to perk up, as the odds of a no-deal Brexit are rising. Boris Johnson will likely assume Conservative Party leadership and the party is moving closer to attempting a no-deal exit. We assign a 21% probability to this kind of Brexit, up from our previous estimate of 14%. It is more likely that Johnson will get a deal similar to Theresa May’s deal passed or that he will be forced to extend negotiations beyond October.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Chart 25 Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights U.S. consumption remains robust despite the recent intensification of global growth headwinds. The G-20 meeting will not result in an escalation nor a major resolution of Sino-U.S. tensions. Kicking the can down the road is the most likely outcome. China’s reflationary efforts will intensify, impacting global growth in the second half of 2019. Fearful of collapsing inflation expectations, global central banks are easing policy, which is supporting global liquidity conditions and growth prospects. Bond yields have upside, especially inflation expectations. Equities have some short-term downside, but the cyclical peak still lies ahead. The equity rally will leave stocks vulnerable to the inevitable pick-up in interest rates later this cycle. Gold stocks may provide an attractive hedge for now. A spike in oil prices creates a major risk to our view. Stay overweight oil plays. Feature Global growth has clearly deteriorated this year, and bond yields around the world have cratered. German yields have plunged below -0.3% and U.S. yields briefly dipped below 2%. Even if the S&P 500 remains near all-time highs, the performance of cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones is corroborating the message from the bond market. Bonds and stocks are therefore not as much in disagreement as appears at first glance. To devise an appropriate strategy, now more than ever investors must decide whether or not a recession is on the near-term horizon. Answering yes to this question means bond prices will continue to rise, the dollar will rally further, stocks will weaken, and defensive stocks will keep outperforming cyclical ones. Answering no, one should sell bonds, sell the dollar, buy stocks, and overweight cyclical sectors. The weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy. We stand in the ‘no’ camp: We do not believe a recession is in the offing and, while the current growth slowdown has been painful, it is not the end of the business cycle. Logically, we are selling bonds, selling the dollar and maintaining a positive cyclical stance on stocks. We also expect international equities to outperform U.S. ones, and we are becoming particularly positive on gold stocks. Oil prices should also benefit from the upcoming improvement in global growth. Has The U.S. Economy Met Its Iceberg? Investors betting on a recession often point to the inversion of the 3-month/10-year yield curve and the performance of cyclical stocks. However, we must also remember Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that “markets have predicted nine of the five previous recessions.” In any case, these market moves tell us what we already know: growth has weakened. We must decide whether it will weaken further. A simple probit model based on the yield curve slope and the new orders component of the ISM Manufacturing Index shows that there is a 40% probability of recession over the next 12 months. We need to keep in mind that in 1966 and 1998, this model was flagging a similar message, yet no recession followed over the course of the next year (Chart I-1). This means we must go back and study the fundamentals of U.S. growth. Chart I-1The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer Chart I-2Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment On the purely domestic front, the U.S. economy is not showing major stresses. Last month, we argued that we are not seeing the key symptoms of tight monetary policy: Homebuilders remain confident, mortgage applications for purchases are near cyclical highs, homebuilder stocks have been outperforming the broad market for three quarters, and lumber prices are rebounding.1 Moreover, the previous fall in mortgage yields is already lifting existing home sales, and it is only a matter of time before residential investment follows (Chart I-2). Households remain in fine form. Real consumer spending is growing at a 2.8% pace, and despite rising economic uncertainty, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model expects real household spending to expand at a 3.9% rate in the second quarter (Chart I-3). This is key, as consumers’ spending and investment patterns drive the larger trends in the economy.2 Chart I-3Consumers Are Spending Consumers Are Spending Consumers Are Spending Chart I-4The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... Going forward, we expect consumption to stay the course. Despite its latest dip, consumer confidence remains elevated, household debt levels have fallen from 134% of disposable income in 2007 to 99% today, and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.9% of after-tax income, a multi-generational low. In this context, stronger household income growth should support spending. The May payrolls report is likely to have been an anomaly. Layoffs are still minimal, initial jobless claims continue to flirt near 50-year lows, the Conference Board’s Leading Credit index shows no stress, and the employment components of both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM are at elevated levels (Chart I-4). If these leading indicators of employment are correct, both the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers and salaries have upside (Chart I-5), especially as productivity growth is accelerating. Despite these positives, the weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy, and force the ISM non-manufacturing PMI to converge toward the manufacturing index. If global growth worsens, the dollar will strengthen, quality spreads will widen and stocks will weaken, resulting in tighter financial conditions. Since economic and trade uncertainty is still high, further deterioration in external conditions will cause U.S. capex to collapse. Employment would follow, confidence suffer and consumption fall. Global growth still holds the key to the future. Chart I-5 Following The Chinese Impulse As the world’s foremost trading nation, Chinese activity lies at the center of the global growth equation. The China-U.S. trade war remains at the forefront of investors’ minds. The meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping over the next two days is important. It implies a thawing of Sino-U.S. trade negotiations. However, an overall truce is unlikely. An agreement to resume the talks is the most likely outcome. No additional tariffs will be levied on the remaining $300 billion of untaxed Chinese exports to the U.S., but the previous levies will not be meaningfully changed. Removing this $300 billion Damocles sword hanging over global growth is a positive at the margin. However, it also means that the can has been kicked down the road and that trade will remain a source of headline risk, at least until the end of the year. Chart I-6The Rubicon Has Been Crossed The Rubicon Has Been Crossed The Rubicon Has Been Crossed Trade uncertainty will nudge Chinese policymakers to ease policy further. In previous speeches, Premier Li Keqiang set the labor market as a line in the sand. If it were to deteriorate, the deleveraging campaign could be put on the backburner. Today, the employment component of the Chinese PMI is at its lowest level since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart I-6). This alone warrants more reflationary efforts by Beijing. Adding trade uncertainty to this mix guarantees additional credit and fiscal stimulus. More Chinese stimulus will be crucial for Chinese and global growth. Historically, it has taken approximatively nine months for previous credit and fiscal expansions to lift economic activity. We therefore expect that over the course of the summer, the imports component of the Chinese PMI should improve further, and the overall EM Manufacturing PMI should begin to rebound (Chart I-7, top and second panel). More generally, this summer should witness the bottom in global trade, as exemplified by Asian or European export growth (Chart I-7, third and fourth panel). The prospect for additional Chinese stimulus means that the associated pick-up in industrial activity should have longevity. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. We are already seeing one traditional signpost that Chinese stimulus is having an impact on growth. Within the real estate investment component of GDP, equipment purchases are growing at a 30% annual rate, a development that normally precedes a rebound in manufacturing activity (Chart I-8, top panel). We are also keeping an eye out for the growth of M1 relative to M2. When Chinese M1 outperforms M2, it implies that demand deposits are growing faster than savings deposits. The inference is that the money injected in the economy is not being saved, but is ready to be deployed. Historically, a rebounding Chinese M1 to M2 ratio accompanies improvements in global trade, commodities prices, and industrial production (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World Chart I-8China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact   To be sure, China is not worry free. Auto sales are still soft, global semiconductor shipments remain weak, and capex has yet to turn the corner. But the turnaround in credit and in the key indicators listed above suggests the slowdown is long in the tooth. In the second half of 2019, China will begin to add to global growth once again. Advanced Economies’ Central Banks: A Brave New World Chart I-9The Inflation Expectations Panic The Inflation Expectations Panic The Inflation Expectations Panic While China is important, it is not the only game in town. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. It seems they have stopped targeting realized inflation and are increasingly focused on inflation expectations. The collapse in inflation expectations is worrying central bankers (Chart I-9). Falling anticipated inflation can anchor actual inflation at lower levels than would have otherwise been the case. It also limits the downside to real rates when growth slows, and therefore, the capacity of monetary policy to support economic activity. Essentially, central banks fear that permanently depressed inflation expectations renders them impotent. The change in policy focus is evident for anyone to see. As recently as January 2019, 52% of global central banks were lifting interest rates. Now that inflation expectations are collapsing, other than the Norges Bank, none are doing so (Chart I-10). Instead, the opposite is happening and the RBA, RBNZ and RBI are cutting rates. Moreover, as investors are pricing in lower policy rates around the world, G-10 bond yields are collapsing, which is easing global liquidity conditions. Indeed, as Chart I-11 illustrates, when the share of economies with falling 2-year forward rates is as high as it is today, the BCA Global Leading Indicator rebounds three months later. Chart I-10Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere The European Central Bank stands at the vanguard of this fight. As we argued two months ago, deflationary pressures in Europe are intact and are likely to be a problem for years to come.3 The ECB is aware of this headwind and knows it needs to act pre-emptively. Four months ago, it announced a new TLRTO-III package to provide plentiful funding for stressed banks in the European periphery. On June 6th, ECB President Mario Draghi unveiled very generous financing terms for the TLTRO-III. Last week, at the ECB’s Sintra conference in Portugal, ECB Vice President Luis de Guindos professed that the ECB could cut rates if inflation expectations weaken. The following day, Draghi himself strongly hinted at an upcoming rate cut in Europe and a potential resumption of the ECB QE program. These measures are starting to ease financial conditions where Europe needs it most: Italy. An important contributor to the contraction in the European credit impulse over the past 21 months was the rapid tightening in Italian financial conditions that followed the surge in BTP yields from May 2018. Now that the ECB is becoming increasingly dovish, Italian yields have fallen to 2.1%, and are finally below the neutral rate of interest for Europe. BTP yields are again at accommodative levels. Chart I-11This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects With financial conditions in Europe easing and exports set to pick up in response to Chinese growth, European loan demand should regain some vigor. Meanwhile, the TLTRO-III measures, which are easing bank funding costs, should boost banks’ willingness to lend. The European credit impulse is therefore set to move back into positive territory this fall. European growth will rebound, and contribute to improving global growth conditions. The Fed’s Patience Is Running Out Chart I-12 The Federal Reserve did not cut interest rates last week, but its intentions to do so next month were clear. First, the language of the statement changed drastically. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” Second, the fed funds rate projections from the Summary of Economic Projections were meaningfully revised down. In March, 17 FOMC participants expected the Fed to stay on hold for the remainder of 2019, while six foresaw hikes. Today, eight expect a steady fed funds rate, but seven are calling for two rate cuts this year. Only one member is still penciling in a hike. Moreover, nine out of 17 participants anticipate that rates will be lower in 2020 than today (Chart I-12). The FOMC’s unwillingness to push back very dovish market expectations signals an imminent interest rate cut. Like other advanced economy central banks, the Fed’s sudden dovish turn is aimed at reviving moribund inflation expectations (Chart I-13). In order to do so, the Fed will have to keep real interest rates at low levels, at least relative to real GDP growth. Even if the real policy rate goes up, so long as it increases more slowly than GDP growth, it will signify that money supply is growing faster than money demand.4 TIPS yields are anticipating these dynamics and will likely remain soft relative to nominal interest rates. Chart I-13...As Inflation Expectations Plunge ...As Inflation Expectations Plunge ...As Inflation Expectations Plunge Since the Fed intends to conduct easy monetary policy until inflation expectations have normalized to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, our liquidity gauges will become more supportive of economic activity and asset prices over the coming two to three quarters: Our BCA Monetary indicator has not only clearly hooked up, it is now above the zero line, in expansionary territory (see Section III, page 41). Excess money growth, defined as money-of-zero-maturity over loan growth, is once again accelerating. This cycle, global growth variables such as our Global Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, or worldwide export prices have all reliably followed this variable (Chart I-14). After collapsing through 2018, our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is rebounding sharply, and the imminent end of the Fed’s balance sheet runoff will only solidify this progress. This indicator gauges how cheap and plentiful high-powered money is for global markets. Its recovery suggests that commodities, globally-traded goods prices, and economic activity are all set to improve (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Excess Money Has Turned Up Excess Money Has Turned Up Excess Money Has Turned Up Chart I-15Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up... Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up... Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up...   The dollar is losing momentum and should soon fall, which will reinforce the improvement in global liquidity conditions. A trough in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is often followed by a weakening dollar (Chart I-16). Moreover, the Greenback’s strength has been turbocharged by exceptional repatriations of funds by U.S. economic agents (Chart I-17). The end of the repatriation holiday along with a more dovish Fed and the completion of the balance sheet runoff will likely weigh on the dollar. Once the Greenback depreciates, the cost of borrowing for foreign issuers of dollar-denominated debt will decline, along with the cost of liquidity, especially if the massive U.S. repatriation flows are staunched. This will further support global growth conditions. Chart I-16...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... ...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... ...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... Trade relations are unlikely to deteriorate further, China is likely to stimulate more aggressively; and easing central banks around the world, including the Fed, are responding to falling inflation expectations. This backdrop points to a rebound in global growth in the second half of the year. As a corollary, the deflationary patch currently engulfing the world should end soon after. As a result, this growing reflationary mindset should delay any recession until late 2021 if not 2022. However, as the business cycle extends further, greater inflationary pressures will build down the road and force the Fed to lift rates – even more than it would have done prior to this wave of easing. Chart I-17...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow ...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow ...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow Investment Implications Bonds BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy service relies on the Golden Rule of Treasury Investing. This simple rule states that when the Fed turns out to be more dovish than anticipated by interest rate markets 12 months prior, Treasurys outperform cash. If the Fed is more hawkish than was expected by market participants, Treasurys underperform (Chart I-18). Today, the Treasury market’s outperformance is already consistent with a Fed generating a very dovish surprise over the next 12 months. However, the interest rate market is already pricing in a 98% probability of two rates cuts this year, and the December 2020 fed funds rate futures imply a halving of the policy rate. The Fed is unlikely to clear these very tall dovish hurdles as global growth is set to rebound, the fed funds rate is not meaningfully above neutral and the household sector remains resilient. Chart I-18Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Reflecting elevated pessimism toward global growth, the performance of transport relative to utilities stocks is as oversold as it gets. The likely rebound in this ratio should push yields higher, especially as foreign private investors are already aggressively buying U.S. government securities (Chart I-19). As occurred in 1998, Treasury yields should rebound soon after the Fed begins cutting rates. Moreover, with all the major central banks focusing on keeping rates at accommodative levels, the selloff in bonds should be led by inflation breakevens, also as occurred in 1998 (Chart I-20), especially if the dollar weakens. Chart I-19Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Chart I-201998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting 1998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting 1998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting     Equities A global economic rebound should provide support for equities on a cyclical horizon. The tactical picture remains murky as the stock market may have become too optimistic that Osaka will deliver an all-encompassing deal. However, this short-term downside is likely to prove limited compared to the cyclical strength lying ahead. This is particularly true for global equities, where valuations are more attractive than in the U.S. Chart I-21Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Even if the S&P 500 isn’t the prime beneficiary of the recovery in global growth, it should nonetheless generate positive absolute returns on a cyclical horizon. As Chart I-21 illustrates, a pickup in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index often precedes a rally in U.S. stocks. Since the U.S. Financial Liquidity Index has done a superb job of forecasting the weakness in stocks over the past 18 months, it is likely to track the upcoming strength as well. A weaker dollar should provide an additional tailwind to boost profit growth, especially as U.S. productivity is accelerating. This view is problematic for long-term investors. The cheapness of stocks relative to bonds is the only reason why our long-term valuation index is not yet at nosebleed levels Chart I-22). If we are correct that the current global reflationary push will build greater inflationary pressures down the road and will ultimately result in even higher interest rates, this relative undervaluation of equities will vanish. The overall valuation index will then hit near-record highs, leaving the stock market vulnerable to a very sharp pullback. Long-term investors should use this rally to lighten their strategic exposure to stocks, especially when taking into account the risk that populism will force a retrenchment in corporate market power, an issue discussed in Section II. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” In this environment, gold stocks are particularly attractive. Central banks are targeting very accommodative policy settings, which will limit the upside for real rates. Moreover, generous liquidity conditions and a falling dollar should prove to be great friends to gold. These fundamentals are being amplified by a supportive technical backdrop, as gold prices have broken out and the gold A/D line keeps making new highs (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Chart I-23Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold   Structural forces reinforce these positives for gold. EM reserve managers are increasingly diversifying into gold, fearful of growing geopolitical tensions with the U.S. (Chart I-24). Meanwhile, G-10 central banks are not selling the yellow metal anymore. This positive demand backdrop is materializing as global gold producers have been focused on returning cash to shareholders instead of pouring funds into capex. This lack of investment will weigh on output growth going forward. Chart I-24EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold This emphasis on returning cash to shareholders makes gold stocks particularly attractive. Gold producers are trading at a large discount to the market and to gold itself as investors remain concerned by the historical lack of management discipline. However, boosting dividends, curtailing debt levels and only focusing on the most productive projects ultimately creates value for shareholders. A wave of consolidation will only amplify these tailwinds. Our overall investment recommendation is to overweight stocks over bonds on a cyclical horizon while building an overweight position in gold equities. Our inclination to buy gold stocks transcends our long-term concerns for equities, as rising long-term inflation should favor gold as well. The Key Risk: Iran The biggest risk to our view remains the growing stress in the Middle East. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team assigns a less than 40% chance that tensions between the U.S. and Iran will deteriorate into a full-fledged military conflict. The U.S.’s reluctance to respond with force to recent Iranian provocations may even argue that this probability could be too high. Nonetheless, if a military conflict were to happen, it would involve a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a bottleneck through which more than 20% of global oil production transits. In such a scenario, Brent prices could easily cross above US$150/bbl. Chart I-25Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline To mitigate this risk, we recommend overweighting oil plays in global portfolios. Not only would such an allocation benefit in the event of a blow-up in the Persian Gulf, oil is supported by positive supply/demand fundamentals and Brent should end the year $75/bbl. After five years of limited oil capex, Wood Mackenzie estimates that the supply of oil will be close to 5 million barrels per day smaller than would have otherwise been the case. Moreover, OPEC and Russia remain disciplined oil producers, which is limiting growth in crude output today. Meanwhile, in light of the global growth deceleration, demand for oil has proved surprisingly robust. Demand is likely to pick up further when global growth reaccelerates in the second half of the year. As a result, BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy currently expects additional inventory drawdowns that will only push oil prices higher in an environment of growing global reflation (Chart I-25). A falling dollar would accentuate these developments.   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 27, 2019 Next Report: July 25, 2019   II. The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient Productivity growth is experiencing a cyclical rebound, but remains structurally weak. The end of the deepening of globalization, statistical hurdles, and the possibility that today’s technological advances may not be as revolutionary as past ones all hamper productivity. On the back of rising market power and concentration, companies are increasing markups instead of production. This is depressing productivity and lowering the neutral rate of interest. For now, investors can generate alpha by focusing on consolidating industries. Growing market power cannot last forever and will meet a political wall. Structurally, this will hurt asset prices.   “We don’t have a free market; don’t kid yourself. (…) Businesspeople are enemies of free markets, not friends (…) businesspeople are all in favor of freedom for everybody else (…) but when it comes to their own business, they want to go to Washington to protect their businesses.” Milton Friedman, January 1991. Despite the explosion of applications of growing computing power, U.S. productivity growth has been lacking this cycle. This incapacity to do more with less has weighed on trend growth and on the neutral rate of interest, and has been a powerful force behind the low level of yields at home and abroad. In this report, we look at the different factors and theories advanced to explain the structural decline in productivity. Among them, a steady increase in corporate market power not only goes a long way in explaining the lack of productivity in the U.S., but also the high level of profit margins along with the depressed level of investment and real neutral rates. A Simple Cyclical Explanation The decline in productivity growth is both a structural and cyclical story. Historically, productivity growth has followed economic activity. When demand is strong, businesses can generate more revenue and therefore produce more. The historical correlation between U.S. nonfarm business productivity and the ISM manufacturing index illustrates this relationship (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity Chart II-2Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Since 2008, as households worked off their previous over-indebtedness, the U.S. private sector has experienced its longest deleveraging period since the Great Depression. This frugality has depressed demand and contributed to lower growth this cycle. Since productivity is measured as output generated by unit of input, weak demand growth has depressed productivity statistics. On this dimension, the brief deleveraging experience of the early 1990s is instructive: productivity picked up only after 1993, once the private sector began to accumulate debt faster than the pace of GDP growth (Chart II-2). The recent pick-up in productivity reflects these debt dynamics. Since 2009, the U.S. non-financial private sector has stopped deleveraging, removing one anchor on demand, allowing productivity to blossom. Moreover, the pick-up in capex from 2017 to present is also helping productivity by raising the capital-to-workers ratio. While this is a positive development for the U.S. economy, the decline in productivity nonetheless seems structural, as the five-year moving average of labor productivity growth remains near its early 1980s nadir (Chart II-3). Something else is at play. Chart II-3 The Usual Suspects Three major forces are often used to explain why observed productivity growth is currently in decline: A slowdown in global trade penetration, the fact that statisticians do not have a good grasp on productivity growth in a service-based economy, and innovation that simply isn’t what it used to be. Slowdown In Global Trade Penetration Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo argued that due to competitive advantages, countries should always engage in trade to increase their economic welfare. This insight has laid the foundation of the argument that exchanges between nations maximizes the utilization of resources domestically and around the world. Rarely was this argument more relevant than over the past 40 years. On the heels of the supply-side revolution of the early 1980s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization took off. The share of the world's population participating in the global capitalist system rose from 30% in 1985 to nearly 100% today. The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development. Generating elevated productivity gains is simpler when a country’s capital stock is underdeveloped: each unit of investment grows the capital-to-labor ratio by a greater proportion. As a result, productivity – which reflects the capital-to-worker ratio – can grow quickly. As more poor countries have joined the global economy and benefitted from FDI and other capital inflows, their productivity has flourished. Consequently, even if productivity growth has been poor in advanced economies over the past 10 years, global productivity has remained high and has tracked the share of exports in global GDP (Chart II-4). Chart II-4The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth This globalization tailwind to global productivity growth is dissipating. First, following an investment boom where poor decisions were made, EM productivity growth has been declining. Second, with nearly 100% of the world’s labor supply already participating in the global economy, it is increasingly difficult to expand the share of global trade in global GDP and increase the benefit of cross-border specialization. Finally, the popular backlash in advanced economies against globalization could force global trade into reverse. As economic nationalism takes hold, cross-border investments could decline, moving the world economy further away from an optimal allocation of capital. These forces may explain why global productivity peaked earlier this decade. Productivity Is Mismeasured Recently deceased luminary Martin Feldstein argued that the structural decline in productivity is an illusion. As the argument goes, productivity is not weak; it is only underestimated. This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity. A parallel with the introduction of electricity in the late 19th century often comes to mind. Back then, U.S. statistical agencies found it difficult to disentangle price changes from quantity changes in the quickly growing revenues of electrical utilities. As a result, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics overestimated price changes in the early 20th century, which depressed the estimated output growth of utilities by a similar factor. Since productivity is measured as output per unit of labor, this also understated actual productivity growth – not just for utilities but for the economy as a whole. Ultimately, overall productivity growth was revised upward. Chart II-5Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth In today’s economy, this could be a larger problem, as 70% of output is generated in the service sector. Estimating productivity growth is much harder in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector, as there is no actual countable output to measure. Thus, distinguishing price increases from quantity or quality improvements is challenging. Adding to this difficulty, the service sector is one of the main beneficiaries of the increase in computational power currently disrupting industries around the world. The growing share of components of the consumer price index subject to hedonic adjustments highlight this challenge (Chart II-5). Estimating quality changes is hard and may bias the increase in prices in the economy. If prices are unreliably measured, so will output and productivity. Chart II-6A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity Pushing The Production Frontier Is Increasingly Hard Another school of thought simply accepts that productivity growth has declined in a structural fashion. It is far from clear that the current technological revolution is much more productivity-enhancing than the introduction of electricity 140 years ago, the development of the internal combustion engine in the late 19th century, the adoption of indoor plumbing, or the discovery of penicillin in 1928. It is easy to overestimate the economic impact of new technologies. At first, like their predecessors, the microprocessor and the internet created entirely new industries. But this is not the case anymore. For all its virtues, e-commerce is only a new method of selling goods and services. Cloud computing is mainly a way to outsource hardware spending. Social media’s main economic value has been to gather more information on consumers, allowing sellers to reach potential buyers in a more targeted way. Without creating entirely new industries, spending on new technologies often ends up cannibalizing spending on older technologies. For example, while Google captures 32.4% of global ad revenues, similar revenues for the print industry have fallen by 70% since their apex in 2000. If new technologies are not as accretive to production as the introduction of previous ones were, productivity growth remains constrained by the same old economic forces of capex, human capital growth and resource utilization. And as Chart II-6 shows, labor input, the utilization of capital and multifactor productivity have all weakened. Some key drivers help understand why productivity growth has downshifted structurally. Chart II-7 Chart II-8Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Let’s look at human capital. It is much easier to grow human capital when very few people have a high-school diploma: just make a larger share of your population finish high school, or even better, complete a university degree. But once the share of university-educated citizens has risen, building human capital further becomes increasingly difficult. Chart II-7 illustrates this problem. Growth in educational achievement has been slowing since 1995 in both advanced and developing economies. This means that the growth of human capital is slowing. This is without even wading into whether or not the quality of education has remained constant. Human capital is also negatively impacted by demographic trends. Workers in their forties tend to be at the peak of their careers, with the highest accumulated job know-how. Problematically, these workers represent a shrinking share of the labor force, which is hurting productivity trends (Chart II-8). The capital stock too is experiencing its own headwinds. While Moore’s Law seems more or less intact, the decline in the cost of storing information is clearly decelerating (Chart II-9). Today, quality adjusted IT prices are contracting at a pace of 2.3% per annum, compared to annual declines of 14% at the turn of the millennium. Thus, even if nominal spending in IT investment had remained constant, real investment growth would have sharply decelerated (Chart II-10). But since nominal spending has decelerated greatly from its late 1990s pace, real investment in IT has fallen substantially. The growth of the capital stock is therefore lagging its previous pace, which is hurting productivity growth. Chart II-9 Chart II-10The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation Chart II-11A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses   The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development (Chart II-11). New businesses are a large source of productivity gains. Ultimately, 20% of productivity gains have come from small businesses becoming large ones. Think Apple in 1977 versus Apple today. A large decline in the pace of new business formation suggests that fewer seeds have been planted over the past 20 years to generate those enormous productivity explosions than was the case in the previous 50 years. The X Factor: Growing Market Concentration Chart II-12Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor The three aforementioned explanations for the decline in productivity are all appealing, but they generally leave investors looking for more. Why are companies investing less, especially when profit margins are near record highs? Why is inflation low? Why has the pace of new business formation collapsed? These are all somewhat paradoxical. This is where a growing body of works comes in. Our economy is moving away from the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Industry concentration has progressively risen, and few companies dominate their line of business and control both their selling prices and input costs. They behave as monopolies and monopsonies, all at once.1 This helps explain why selling prices have been able to rise relative to unit labor costs, raising margins in the process (Chart II-12). Let’s start by looking at the concept of market concentration. According to Grullon, Larkin and Michaely, sales of the median publicly traded firms, expressed in constant dollars, have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, while real GDP has only increased 70% (Chart II-13).2 The escalation in market concentration is also vividly demonstrated in Chart II-14. The top panel shows that since 1997, most U.S. industries have experienced sharp increases in their Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI),3 a measure of concentration. In fact, more than half of U.S. industries have experienced concentration increases of more than 40%, and as a corollary, more than 75% of industries have seen the number of firms decline by more than 40%. The last panel of the chart also highlights that this increase in concentration has been top-heavy, with a third of industries seeing the market share of their four biggest players rise by more than 40%. Rising market concentration is therefore a broad phenomenon – not one unique to the tech sector. Chart II-13 Chart II-14     This rising market concentration has also happened on the employment front. In 1995, less than 24% of U.S. private sector employees worked for firms with 10,000 or more employees, versus nearly 28% today. This does not seem particularly dramatic. However, at the local level, the number of regions where employment is concentrated with one or two large employers has risen. Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum developed Map II-1, which shows that 75% of non-metropolitan areas now have high or extreme levels of employment concentration.4 Chart II- Chart II-15The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains This growing market power of companies on employment can have a large impact on wages. Chart II-15 shows that real wages have lagged productivity since the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, Chart II-16 plots real wages on the y-axis versus the HHI of applications (top panel) and vacancies (bottom panel). This chart shows that for any given industry, if applicants in a geographical area do not have many options where to apply – i.e. a few dominant employers provide most of the jobs in the region – real wages lag the national average. The more concentrated vacancies as well as applications are with one employer, the greater the discount to national wages in that industry.5 This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity as well as the widening gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan household incomes. Chart II-16 Growing market power and concentration do not only compress labor costs, they also result in higher prices for consumers. This seems paradoxical in a world of low inflation. But inflation could have been even lower if market concentration had remained at pre-2000s levels. In 2009, Matthew Weinberg showed that over the previous 22 years, horizontal mergers within an industry resulted in higher prices.6 In a 2014 meta-study conducted by Weinberg along with Orley Ashenfelter and Daniel Hosken, the authors showed that across 49 studies ranging across 21 industries, 36 showed that horizontal mergers resulted in higher prices for consumers.7 While today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins. In a low-inflation environment, the only way for companies to garner pricing power is to decrease competition, and M&As are the quickest way to achieve this goal. After examining nearly 50 merger and antitrust studies spanning more than 3,000 merger cases, John Kwoka found that, following mergers that augmented an industry’s concentration, prices increased in 95% of cases, and on average by 4.5%.8 In no industry is this effect more vividly demonstrated than in the healthcare field, an industry that has undergone a massive wave of consolidation – from hospitals, to pharmacies to drug manufacturers. As Chart II-17 illustrates, between 1980 and 2016, healthcare costs have increased at a much faster pace in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. However, life expectancy increased much less than in other advanced economies. Chart II-17 In this context of growing market concentration, it is easy to see why, as De Loecker and Eeckhout have argued, markups have been rising steadily since the 1980s (Chart II-18, top panel) and have tracked M&A activity (Chart II-18, bottom panel).9 In essence, mergers and acquisitions have been the main tool used by firms to increase their concentration. Another tool at their disposal has been the increase in patents. The top panel of Chart II-19 shows that the total number of patent applications in the U.S. has increased by 3.6-fold since the 1980s, but most interestingly, the share of patents coming from large, dominant players within each industry has risen by 10% over the same timeframe (Chart II-19, bottom panel). To use Warren Buffet’s terminology, M&A and patents have been how firms build large “moats” to limit competition and protect their businesses. Chart II-18Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Chart II-19How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat?   Why is this rise in market concentration affecting productivity? First, from an empirical perspective, rising markups and concentration tend to lead to lower levels of capex. A recent IMF study shows that the more concentrated industries become, the higher the corporate savings rate goes (Chart II-20, top panel).10 These elevated savings reflect wider markups, but also firms with markups in the top decile of the distribution display significantly lower investment rates (Chart II-20, bottom panel). If more of the U.S. output is generated by larger, more concentrated firms, this leads to a lower pace of increase in the capital stock, which hurts productivity. Chart II-20 Chart II-   Second, downward pressure on real wages is also linked to a drag on productivity. Monopolies and oligopolies are not incentivized to maximize output. In fact, for any market, a monopoly should lead to lower production than perfect competition would. Diagram II-I from De Loecker and Eeckhout shows that moving from perfect competition to a monopoly results in a steeper labor demand curve as the monopolist produces less. As a result, real wages move downward and the labor participation force declines. Does this sound familiar? The rise of market power might mean that in some way Martin Feldstein was right about productivity being mismeasured – just not the way he anticipated. In a June 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, Peter Berezin showed that labor-saving technologies like AI and robotics, which are increasingly being deployed today, could lead to lower wages (Chart II-21).11 For a given level of technology in the economy, productivity is positively linked to real wages but inversely linked to markups – especially if the technology is of the labor-saving kind. So, if markups rise on the back of firms’ growing market power, the ensuing labor savings will not be used to increase actual input. Rather, corporate savings will rise. Thus, while today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins.12 Unsurprisingly, return on assets and market concentration are positively correlated (Chart II-22). Chart II-21 Chart II-22     Finally, market power and concentration weighing on capex, wages and productivity are fully consistent with higher returns of cash to shareholders and lower interest rates. The higher profits and lower capex liberate cash flows available to be redistributed to shareholders. Moreover, lower capex also depresses demand for savings in the economy, while weak wages depress middle-class incomes, which hurts aggregate demand. Additionally, higher corporate savings increases the wealth of the richest households, who have a high marginal propensity to save. This results in higher savings for the economy. With a greater supply of savings and lower demand for those savings, the neutral rate of interest has been depressed. Investment Implications First, in an environment of low inflation, investors should continue to favor businesses that can generate higher markups via pricing power. Equity investors should therefore continue to prefer industries where horizontal mergers are still increasing market concentration. Second, so long as the status quo continues, wages will have a natural cap, and so will the neutral rate of interest. This does not mean that wage growth cannot increase further on a cyclical basis, but it means that wages are unlikely to blossom as they did in the late 1960s, even within a very tight labor market. Without too-severe an inflation push from wages, the business cycle could remain intact even longer, keeping a window open for risk assets to rise further on a cyclical basis. Third, long-term investors need to keep a keen eye on the political sphere. A much more laissez-faire approach to regulation, a push toward self-regulation, and a much laxer enforcement of antitrust laws and merger rules were behind the rise in market power and concentration.13 The particularly sharp ascent of populism in Anglo-Saxon economies, where market power increased by the greatest extent, is not surprising. So far, populists have not blamed the corporate sector, but if the recent antitrust noise toward the Silicon Valley behemoths is any indication, the clock is ticking. On a structural basis, this could be very negative for asset prices. An end to this rise in market power would force profit margins to mean-revert toward their long-term trend, which is 4.7 percentage-points below current levels. This will require discounting much lower cash flows in the future. Additionally, by raising wages and capex, more competition would increase aggregate demand and lift real interest rates. Higher wages and aggregate demand could also structurally lift inflation. Thus, not only will investors need to discount lower cash flows, they will have to do so at higher discount rates. As a result, this cycle will likely witness both a generational peak in equity valuations as well as structural lows in bond yields. As we mentioned, these changes are political in nature. We will look forward to studying the political angle of this thesis to get a better handle on when these turning points will likely emerge. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Over the past two weeks, the ECB has made a dovish pivot, President Trump announced he would meet President Xi, and the Fed telegraphed a rate cut for July. In response, the S&P 500 made marginal new highs before softening anew. This lack of continuation after such an incredible alignment of stars shows that the bulls lack conviction. These dynamics increase the probability that the market sells off after the G-20 meeting, as we saw last December following the supposed truce in Buenos Aires. The short-term outlook remains dangerous. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) confirms this intuition. 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 readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if stong market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Cheaper valuations, a pick-up in global growth or an actual policy easing is required before stocks can resume their ascent. The cyclical outlook is brighter than the tactical one. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan continues to improve. However, it remains flat in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. In aggregate, the WTP currently suggests that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Hence, we expect global investors will continue to buy the dips. Our Monetary Indicator is moving deeper into stimulative territory, supporting our cyclically constructive equity view. The Fed and the ECB are set to cut rates while other global central banks have been opening the monetary spigots. This will support global monetary conditions. The BCA Composite Valuation Indicator, an amalgamation of 11 measures, is in overvalued territory, but it is not high enough to negate the positive message from our Monetary Indicator, especially as our Composite Technical Indicator remains above its 9-month moving average. These dynamics confirm that despite the near-term downside, equities have more cyclical upside. According to our model, 10-year Treasurys are now expensive. Moreover, our technical indicator is increasingly overbought while the CRB Raw Industrials is oversold, a combination that often heralds the end of bond rallies. Additionally, duration surveys show that investors have very elevated portfolio duration, and both the term premium and Fed expectations are very depressed. Considering this technical backdrop, BCA’s economic view implies minimal short-term downside for yields, but significant downside for Treasury prices over the upcoming year. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar remains very expensive. Additionally, after forming a negative divergence with prices, our Composite Technical Indicator is falling quickly. Being a momentum currency, the dollar could suffer significant downside if this indicator falls below zero. Monitor these developments closely. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Give Credit Where Credit Is Due," dated November 27, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Europe: Here I Am, Stuck In A Liquidity Trap," dated April 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4       Money demand is mostly driven by the level of activity and wealth. If the price of money – interest rates – is growing more slowly than money demand, the most likely cause is that money supply is increasing faster than money demand and policy is accommodative. 5       A monopsony is a firm that controls the price of its input because it is the dominant, if not unique, buyer of said input. 6       G. Grullon, Y. Larkin and R. Michaely, “Are Us Industries Becoming More Concentrated?,” April 2017. 7       The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is calculated by taking the market share of each firm in the industry, squaring them, and summing the result. Consider a hypothetical industry with four total firm where firm1, firm2, firm3 and firm4 has 40%, 30%, 15% and 15% of market share, respectively. Then HHI is 402+302+152+152 = 2,950. 8       J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 9     J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 10     M. Weinberg, “The Price Effects Of Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 433–447. 11     O. Ashenfelter, D. Hosken, M. Weinberg, "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages S67 - S100. 12    J. Kwoka, “Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: A Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Policy,” MIT Press, 2015. 13     J. De Loecker, J. Eeckhout, G. Unger, "The Rise Of Market Power And The Macroeconomic Implications," Mimeo 2018. 14     “Chapter 2: The Rise of Corporate Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Effects,” World Economic Outlook, April 2019. 15     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?"dated May 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16     Productivity can be written as: Image 17     J. Tepper, D. Hearn, “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Wiley, November 2018. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights When it comes to policy easing, the euro area 5-year yield at -0.15 percent is running out of road, while the U.S. 5-year yield is still at the dizzying heights of 1.8 percent. Hence, the ECB is likely to come out the loser in any ‘battle of the doves’ with the Federal Reserve. German bunds will continue to underperform U.S. T-bonds Take profits in the overweighting to Spanish Bonos and Portuguese bonds. Equity investors should go underweight European industrials and switch to the less economically-sensitive and price-sensitive healthcare sector. Feature The German 5-year bund yield recently plunged to -0.7 percent – significantly below even the -0.25 percent yield on the Japanese 5-year government bond (JGB) (Chart of the Week). This has left many people scratching their heads and wondering: is the bond market signalling that Europe is on the cusp of a vicious deflationary vortex? Chart I-1Bund Yield, How Low Can You Go? Bund Yield, How Low Can You Go? Bund Yield, How Low Can You Go? The answer is, not necessarily. The head-to-head comparison of the yields on German bunds and JGBs is misleading, because the German bund yield includes a significant discount for the possibility of currency redenomination to a new ‘super deutschmark’ (Chart I-2) while the JGB yield does not, and cannot, have such a redenomination discount given that the yen cannot break up. Chart I-2The German 5-Year Bund Yield Carries A Redenomination Discount The German 5-Year Bund Yield Carries A Redenomination Discount The German 5-Year Bund Yield Carries A Redenomination Discount Why The German Bund Yield Can Go Deeply Negative The German bund yield can drop to deeply negative levels, even when the policy interest rate is, and expected to remain, close to zero. This is because a negative yield on the German bund is rational if investors anticipate an equal and opposite currency gain in the event that the euro broke up. A negative yield on the German bund is rational if investors anticipate an equal and opposite currency gain. For example, if you were certain that the bund was going to deliver you deutschmarks worth 20 percent more than euros, you would accept a symmetrically negative yield near -20 percent; if you were sure of a 10 percent redenomination gain, you would accept a yield near -10 percent; and even if you expected a relatively low one-in-twenty likelihood of the 10 percent redenomination gain, this would equate to an expected gain of 0.5 percent, so you would accept a negative yield near -0.5 percent.1   Hence, an individual euro area bond yield is made up of three components: The interest rate term-structure. The likely size and direction of a currency redenomination. The likelihood of such a currency redenomination event. Chart I-3The Euro Area Term-Structure Is Much Lower Than In The U.S., But Not Quite As Low As In Japan The Euro Area Term-Structure Is Much Lower Than In The U.S., But Not Quite As Low As In Japan The Euro Area Term-Structure Is Much Lower Than In The U.S., But Not Quite As Low As In Japan By contrast, the yield on the JGB, U.S. T-bond and U.K. gilt is made up of just the first component, the interest rate term-structure. So, unlike the JGB, T-bond, or gilt, we cannot get information about the euro area’s interest rate term-structure from the German bund yield – or any other euro area bond yield – by itself. Fortunately, we can derive the euro area interest rate term-structure from the average euro area bond yield because, at the aggregate level, the expected currency redenomination must sum to zero.2 Understanding the components of the German 5-year bund yield enables us to decompose its current -0.7 percent yield into two parts: -0.15 percent is from the interest rate term-structure – which is low but not quite as low as Japan (Chart I-3) – while the lion’s share, -0.55 percent, is from the redenomination discount. A Strategy For Bonds Turning to the decline in the yield through the past nine months, the lion’s share has not come from a widening redenomination discount. It has come from a collapse in the global interest rate term-structure, during which the redenomination discount has actually narrowed by 0.2 percent. One important consequence is that German bunds have underperformed their peers as their yield shortfall versus both U.S. T-bonds and Italian BTPs has narrowed (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Can the trend continue? Chart I-4The German 5-Year Bund's Yield Shortfall Has Narrowed Versus Both U.S. T-Bonds And Italian BTPs The German 5-Year Bund's Yield Shortfall Has Narrowed Versus Both U.S. T-Bonds And Italian BTPs The German 5-Year Bund's Yield Shortfall Has Narrowed Versus Both U.S. T-Bonds And Italian BTPs Chart I-5The German 10-Year Bund's Yield Shortfall Has Narrowed Versus Both U.S. T-Bonds And Italian BTPs The German 10-Year Bund's Yield Shortfall Has Narrowed Versus Both U.S. T-Bonds And Italian BTPs The German 10-Year Bund's Yield Shortfall Has Narrowed Versus Both U.S. T-Bonds And Italian BTPs The answer is yes. When it comes to policy easing, the euro area 5-year yield at -0.15 percent is running out of road, compared with the U.S. 5-year yield at the dizzying heights of 1.8 percent. Put bluntly, from these levels of yields the ECB is likely to come out the loser in any ‘battle of the doves’ with the Federal Reserve and bunds will underperform T-bonds – exactly as we witnessed last week. Meanwhile, as absolute yields have declined euro redenomination (break-up) risk has actually diminished (Chart I-6). This makes perfect sense because solvency is an absolute concept, and the solvency of fragile Italian banks has improved in line with the higher capital values of their Italian BTP holdings. Many euro area ‘periphery’ yield spreads have already compressed to wafer-thin levels. That said, many euro area ‘periphery’ yield spreads have already compressed to wafer-thin levels. Hence, we are pleased to report that our overweighting to Spanish Bonos (versus French OATS) is now up 10 percent while our long-standing overweighting to Portuguese bonds is up 50 percent. Given that most of the yield spread compression for Spain and Portugal is now over, we are closing these positions and taking the healthy profits (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Euro Break-Up Risk Has Diminished Recently Euro Break-Up Risk Has Diminished Recently Euro Break-Up Risk Has Diminished Recently Chart I-7For Spain, Most Of The Yield Spread Compression Has Already Happened For Spain, Most Of The Yield Spread Compression Has Already Happened For Spain, Most Of The Yield Spread Compression Has Already Happened Where President Trump Is Right About Europe President Trump and the ECB might be like chalk and cheese, but they do agree on one thing. The ECB’s own analysis – available at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats – shows that the trade-weighted euro needs to appreciate by at least 10 percent to cancel the euro area’s competitive advantage versus its major trading partners including the United States (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Euro Needs To Appreciate By 10 Percent To Cancel The Euro Area’s ##br##Over-Competitiveness The Euro Needs To Appreciate By 10 Percent To Cancel The Euro Area's Over-Competitiveness The Euro Needs To Appreciate By 10 Percent To Cancel The Euro Area's Over-Competitiveness Even more controversially, the central bank’s own analysis shows that the ECB itself is to blame for the euro area’s significant competitive advantage. Prior to the ECB’s extreme and unprecedented policy easing, the euro area’s competitiveness was exactly in line with its trading partners. The ECB does not explicitly target the exchange rate, but it is fully aware that extremely accommodative monetary policy, and especially relative monetary policy, will boost the euro area’s competitiveness and thereby create trade imbalances. On this point, President Trump is spot on (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Relative Monetary Policy Has Created The Huge Trade Imbalance Between The Euro Area And The U.S. Relative Monetary Policy Has Created The Huge Trade Imbalance Between The Euro Area And The U.S. Relative Monetary Policy Has Created The Huge Trade Imbalance Between The Euro Area And The U.S. Even if the ECB feels justified in its policy, it is now running out of road. To reiterate, in the coming months the ECB is likely to come out second best in any ‘battle of the doves’ with the Federal Reserve. Any resulting yield spread compression between the euro area and U.S. will lift the euro and start to correct the euro area’s massive trade surplus with the U.S. The euro needs to appreciate by 10 percent to cancel the euro area’s competitive advantage. Another development is that the up-oscillation in growth that has benefited the euro area, and world, economy over the past two or three quarters is about to end and flip into a down-oscillation. We will expand on this crucial issue in next week’s report, so don’t miss it! Putting this all together, euro area firms exporting price-elastic discretionary goods and services are likely to get hurt. For the second half of the year, equity investors should go underweight European industrials and switch to the less economically-sensitive and price-sensitive healthcare sector. Finally, following the dovish surprises from central banks in recent weeks, our short 30:60:10 portfolio of equities, bonds and oil reached its 3 percent technical stop-loss. However, we are maintaining the short portfolio for the time being, in the belief that a continued synchronized rally across all asset-classes is now harder to deliver.  Fractal Trading System*  Supporting the fundamental argument in the main body of the report, the fractal trading system highlights that the 6-month outperformance of euro area industrials is now technically extended and vulnerable to a trend-reversal. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short euro area industrials versus the market. The tickers are EXH4 versus EXSA, and the profit target is 2 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short bitcoin reached its stop-loss and is now closed. The other trades are all in profit.  For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10Euro Area Industrials Vs. Market Euro Area Industrials Vs. Market Euro Area Industrials Vs. Market The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The numbers quoted are for a simplified example. Consider a zero-coupon German bund redeeming at 100 a year from now. If the interest rate was zero, then you would pay 100 for it today, meaning the bund yield would be zero. But if you were certain that the bund would redeem not in euros, but in deutschmarks which would appreciate 20 percent versus the euro, you would pay 120 for the bund, meaning it would yield -17 percent. If the certain redenomination was a 10 percent appreciation, you would pay 110, and the yield would be -9 percent. But if this 10 percent redenomination was uncertain with a probability of 5 percent, your expected gain would be 0.5, you would pay 100.5, and the yield would be -0.5 percent. 2 Effectively, we can think of the euro as the sum of its strong and weak ‘component’ currencies. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights So What? Geopolitical risks are not about to ease. Why? Fiscal policy becomes less accommodative next year unless politicians act. Financial conditions give President Trump room to expand his tariff onslaught. Our Iran view is confirmed by rapid escalation of tensions – war risk is high. The odds of a no-deal Brexit have risen. Feature The AUD-JPY cross and copper-to-gold ratio – two market indicators that flag global growth and risk-on sentiment – are hovering over critical points at which a further breakdown would catalyze a renewed flight to quality (Chart 1). Chart 1Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Global sentiment remains depressed amid a rash of negative economic surprises and bonds continue to rally despite a more dovish outlook from the Fed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Sentiment Remains Depressed Global Sentiment Remains Depressed Global Sentiment Remains Depressed The cavalry is on the way: European Central Bank President Mario Draghi oversaw a dramatic easing of monetary policy on June 18, driving the Italian-German sovereign bond spread down to levels not seen since before the populist election outcome of March 2018 (Chart 2, bottom panel). The Federal Reserve adjusted its policy rate projections to countenance an interest rate cut in the not-too-distant future. More needs to be done, however, to sustain the optimism that has propelled the S&P 500 and global equities upward since the volatility catalyzed by President Donald Trump’s announcement of a tariff rate hike on May 6. Political and geopolitical risks are higher, not lower, since that time as market-negative scenarios are playing out with U.S. policy, Iran, and Brexit, while we take a dim view of the end-game of the U.S.-China negotiations despite recent improvements. Fiscal And Trade Uncertainties This year’s growth wobbles have occurred in the context of expansive fiscal policy in the developed markets. Next year, however, the fiscal thrust (the change in the cyclically adjusted budget balance) is projected to decline in the U.S. and Japan and nearly to do so in Europe (Chart 3). We expect President Trump and the House Democrats to raise spending caps (or at least keep spending at current levels) and thus prevent the budget deficit from contracting in FY2020 – this is their only substantial point of agreement. But this at best neutralizes what would otherwise be a negative fiscal backdrop. Meanwhile it is not at all clear that Brussels will relax its scrutiny of member states seeking to cut taxes and boost spending, such as Italy. Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo would need to arrange for the Diet to pass a new law to avoid the consumption tax hike from 8% to 10% on October 1. He can pull this off, especially if the U.S. trade war escalates – or if he decides to turn next month’s upper house election into a general election and needs to boost his popularity. But as things currently stand in law, the world’s third biggest economy will face a deep fiscal pullback next year (Chart 3, bottom panel). In short, DM fiscal policy will not really become contractionary in 2020, but this is a view and not yet a reality (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Chart 4Only The U.S. Is Profligate Only The U.S. Is Profligate Only The U.S. Is Profligate Meanwhile China’s stimulus is still in question – in fact it remains the major macro question this year. The efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining ... An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems.  Since February we have argued that the Xi administration has shifted to sweeping fiscal-and-credit stimulus in the face of the unprecedented external threat posed by the Trump administration (Charts 5A and 5B). We expect China’s credit growth to continue its upturn in June and in H2. Ultimately, we think the whole package will be comparable to 2015-16 – and anything even close to that will prolong the global economic expansion. We do not see a massive 2008-style stimulus occurring unless relations with the U.S. completely collapse and a global recession occurs. Chart 5AStimulus Amid The Trade War Stimulus Amid The Trade War Stimulus Amid The Trade War Chart 5 The catch – as we have shown – is that the efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining over time because of over-indebtedness and bearish sentiment in China’s private sector. These tepid animal spirits stem from epochal changes: Xi’s reassertion of communism and America’s withdrawal of strategic support for China’s rise. An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems. The magnitude of the tariffs that President Trump is threatening to impose on China, Mexico, the EU, and Japan is mind-boggling. We illustrate this with a simple simulation of duties collected as a share of total imports under different scenarios (Chart 6). Chart 6 China and Mexico are fundamentally different from the EU and Japan and hence the threat of tariffs will continue to weigh on markets for Trump’s time in office – China because of a national security consensus and Mexico because of the Trump administration’s existential emphasis on curbing illegal immigration. But we still put the risk of auto tariffs (or other punitive measures) on Europe at 45% if Trump seals a China deal. The odds are lower for Japan but it is still at risk. Global supply chains are shifting – a new source of costs and uncertainty for companies – as a slew of recent news has highlighted. Already 40% of companies surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce in China say they are relocating to Southeast Asia, Mexico, and elsewhere (Chart 7). If the G20 is a flop – or results in nothing more than a pause in tariffs for another three-month dialogue – relocations will gain steam, forcing companies’ bottom lines to take a hit. Chart 7 Even in the best case, in which the Trump-Xi summit produces a joint statement outlining a “deal in principle” accompanied by a rollback of the May 10 tariff hike, uncertainty will persist due to President Trump’s unpredictability, China’s incentive to wait until after the U.S. election, and Trump’s incentive to corner the “China hawk” platform prior to the election. We maintain that, by November 2020, there is a roughly 70% chance of further escalation. At least the U.S.-China conflict is nominally improving. The same cannot be said for other geopolitical risks discussed below: the U.S. and Iran are flirting with war; the U.S. presidential election is injecting a steady trickle of market-negative news; the chances of a no-deal Brexit are rising; and Trump may turn on Europe at a moment when it lacks leadership. This list assumes that Russia takes advantage of American distraction by improving domestic policy rather than launching into a new foreign adventure – say in Ukraine or Kaliningrad. If there is any doubt as to whether political risk can outweigh more accommodative monetary policy, remember that President Trump actually can remove Chairman Jerome Powell. Legally he is only allowed to do so “for cause” as opposed to “at will.” But the meaning of this term is a debate that would go to the Supreme Court in the event of a controversial decision. Meanwhile the stock market would dive. Now, this is precisely why Trump will not try. But the implication, as with Congress and the border wall, is that Trump is constrained on domestic policy and hence tariffs are his most effective tool to try to achieve policy victories. With an ebullient stock market and a Fed that is adjusting its position, Trump can try to kill two birds with one stone: wring concessions from trade partners while forcing the FOMC to keep responding to rising external risks. Bottom Line: Central banks are riding to the rescue, but there is only so much they can do if global leaders are tightening budgets and imposing barriers on immigration and trade. We remain tactically cautious. Oh Man, Oh Man, Oman Iran has swiftly responded to the Trump administration’s imposition of “maximum pressure” on oil exports. The shooting down of an American drone that Tehran claims violated its airspace on June 20 is the latest in a spate of incidents, including a Houthi first-ever cruise missile attack on Abha airport in Saudi Arabia. Two separate attacks on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) demonstrate that Iran is threatening to play its most devastating card in the renewed conflict with the U.S. Chart Chart 8 Hormuz ushers through a substantial share of global oil demand and liquefied natural gas demand (Chart 8). The amount of spare pipeline capacity that the Gulf Arab states could activate in the event of a disruption is merely 3.9 million barrels per day, or 6 million if questionable pipelines like the outdated Iraqi pipeline in Saudi Arabia prove functional (Table 1). Table 1No Sufficient Alternatives To Hormuz Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere A conflict with Iran could cause the biggest oil shock of all time. Even if this spare capacity were immediately utilized, a conflict could cause the biggest oil shock of all time – considerably bigger than that of the Iranian Revolution (Chart 9). Chart 9 We have shown in the past that Iran has the military capability of interrupting the flow of traffic in Hormuz for anywhere from 10 days to four months. A preemptive strike by Iran would be most effective, whereas a preemptive American attack would include targets to reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate via Hormuz. The impact on oil prices ranges from significant to devastating. Needless to say, blocking the Strait of Hormuz would initiate a war so Iran is attempting to achieve diplomatic goals with the threats themselves – it will only block the strait as a last resort, say if it is convinced that the U.S. is about to attack anyway. As the experience of President Jimmy Carter shows, Americans may rally around the flag during a crisis but they will also kick a president out of office for higher prices and an economic slowdown. President Trump cannot be unaware of this precedent. The intention of his Iran policy is to negotiate a “better deal” than the 2015 one – a deal that includes Iran’s regional power projection and ballistic missile capabilities as well as its nuclear program. The problem is that Trump has already been forced to deploy a range of forces to the region, including additional troops (albeit so far symbolic at 2,500) (Chart 10). He is also sending Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, to the region to rally support among Gulf Cooperation Council. The week after Hook will court Britain, Germany, and France, three of the signatories of the 2015 deal. Trump ran on a campaign of eschewing gratuitous wars in the Middle East – a popular stance among war-weary Americans (Chart 11) – but there is a substantial risk that he could get entangled in the region. First, he is adopting a more aggressive foreign policy to attempt to compensate for the lack of payoff in public opinion from the strong economy. Second, Iran is not shrinking from the fight, which could draw him deeper into conflict. Third, there is always a high risk of miscalculation when nations engage in such brinkmanship. Chart 10Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Chart 11 The Iranian response has been, first, to reject negotiations. When Trump sent a letter to Rouhani via Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, Abe was rebuffed – and one of the tankers attacked near Oman was a Japanese flagged vessel, the Kokuka Courageous. This is a posture, not a permanent position, as the Iranian release of an American prisoner demonstrates. But the posture can and will be maintained in the near term – with escalation as the result. Second, Iran is increasing its own leverage in any future negotiation by demonstrating that it can sow instability across the region and bring the global economy grinding to a halt. Iran cannot assume that Trump means what he says about avoiding war but must focus on the United States’ actions and capabilities. Cutting off all oil exports is a recipe for extreme stress within the Iranian regime – it is an existential threat. Therefore, the Iranians have signaled that the cost of a total cutoff will be a war that will cause a global oil price shock. The Iranian leaders are also announcing that they are edging closer to walking away from the 2015 nuclear pact (Table 2). If so, they could quickly approach “breakout” capacity in the uranium enrichment – meaning that they could enrich to 20% and then in short order enrich to 90% and amass enough of this fuel to make a nuclear device one year thereafter. The Trump administration has reportedly reiterated that this one-year limit is the U.S. government’s “red line,” just as the Obama administration had done. Table 2Iran Threatens To Walk Away From 2015 Nuclear Deal Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere This Iranian threat is a direct reaction to Trump’s decision in May not to renew the oil sanction waivers. Previously the Iranians had sought to preserve the 2015 deal, along with the Europeans, in order to wait out Trump’s first term. These developments push us to the brink of war. Iran is retaliating with both military force and a nuclear restart. This comes very close to meeting our conditions for an American (and Israeli) retaliation that is military in nature. Diagram 1 is an update of our decision tree that we have published since last year when Trump reneged on the 2015 deal. The window to de-escalate is closing rapidly. The Appendix provides a checklist for air strikes and/or the closure of Hormuz. Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere At very least we expect to see the U.S. attempt to create a large international fleet to assert freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. While Iran may lay low during a large show of force, it will later want to demonstrate that it has not been cowed. And it has the capacity to retaliate elsewhere, including in Iraq, an area we have highlighted as a major geopolitical risk to oil supply. The U.S. government has already reacted to recent threats there from Iranian proxies by pulling non-essential personnel. Iran has several incentives to test the limits of conflict if the U.S. insists on the oil embargo. First, tactically, it seeks to deter President Trump, take advantage of American war-weariness, drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, and force a relaxation of the sanctions. This would also demonstrate to the region that Iran has greater resolve than the United States of America. This goal has not been achieved by the recent spate of actions, so there is likely more conflict to come. Second, President Hassan Rouhani’s government is also likely to maintain a belligerent posture – at least in the near term – to compensate for its loss of face upon the American betrayal of the 2015 nuclear deal. Rouhani negotiated the deal against the warnings of hardline revolutionaries. The 2020 majlis elections make this an important political goal for his more reform-oriented faction. Negotiations with Trump can only occur if Rouhani has resoundingly demonstrated his superiority in the clash of wills. Structurally, Iran faces tremendous regime pressures in the coming years and decades because of its large youth population, struggling economy, and impending power transition from the 80 year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. A patriotic war against America and its allies – while not desirable – is a risk that Khamenei can take, as an air war is less likely to trigger regime change than it is to galvanize a new generation in support of the Islamic revolution. For oil markets the outcome is volatility in the near term – reflecting the contrary winds of trade war and global growth fears with rising supply risks. Because we expect more Chinese stimulus, both as the trade talks extend and especially if they collapse, we ultimately share BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy view that the path of least resistance for oil prices is higher on a cyclical horizon, as demand exceeds supply (Chart 12). We remain long EM energy producers relative to EM ex-China. Chart 12Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Bottom Line: The risk of military conflict has risen materially. This also drastically elevates the risk of a supply shock in oil prices that would kill global demand. The U.S. Election Adds To Geopolitical Risk The 2020 U.S. election poses another political risk for the rising equity market. The Democratic Party’s first debate will be held on June 26-27. The leftward shift in the party will be on full display, portending a possible 180-degree reversal in U.S. policy if the Democrats should win the election, with the prospect of a rollback of Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation of health, finance, and energy. The uncertainty and negative impact on animal spirits will be modest if current trends persist through the debates. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner despite having naturally lost the bump to his polling support after announcing his official candidacy (Chart 13). Biden is a known quantity and a centrist, especially compared to the farther left candidates ranked second and third in popular support– Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Chart 13 Chart 14 Biden is not only beating Sanders in South Carolina, which underscores the fact that he is competitive in the South and hence has a broader path to the White House, but also in New Hampshire, where the Vermont native should be ahead (Chart 14). These states hold the early primaries and caucuses and if Biden maintains his large lead then he will start to appear inevitable very early in the primary campaign next year. Hence a poor showing in the debate on June 27 is a major risk to Biden – he should be expected to be eschew the limelight and play the long game. Elizabeth Warren, by contrast, has the most to gain as she appears on the first night and does not share a stage with the other heavy hitters. If she or other progressive candidates outperform then the market will be spooked. The market could begin to trade off the polls. All of these candidates are beating Trump in current head-to-head polling – Biden is even ahead in Texas (Chart 15). This means that any weakness from Biden does not necessarily offer the promise of a Trump victory and policy continuity. Chart 15 The Democrats also have a powerful demographic tailwind. The just-released projections from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal how Trump’s narrow margins of victory in the swing states in 2016 are in serious jeopardy in 2020 as a result of demographics if he does not improve his polling among the general public (Chart 16). Chart 16 We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt as the incumbent president amid an expanding economy, but it is essential to recognize that his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession – i.e. one who is about to lose the White House for his party (Chart 17). Chart 17 Even if there is not a recession, an increase in unemployment is likely to cost him the election – and even a further decrease in unemployment cannot guarantee victory (Chart 18). This is why we see Trump making a bid to become a foreign policy president and seek reelection on the basis that it is unwise to change leaders amid an international crisis. Chart 18 We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt ... but his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession. The race for the U.S. senate is extremely important for the policy setting from 2021. If Republicans maintain control, they will be able to block sweeping Democratic legislation – which is particularly relevant if a progressive candidate should win the White House. However, if Democrats can muster enough votes to remove a sitting president with a strong economy – including a strong economy in the key senate swing races (Chart 19) – then they will likely win over the senate as well. Chart 19Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Bottom Line: The 2020 election poses a double risk to the bull market. First, the Democratic primary campaign threatens sharp policy discontinuity, especially if and when developments cause Biden to drop in the polls (dealing a blow to centrism or the political establishment). Second, Trump’s vulnerability makes him more likely to act aggressive on the international stage, whether on trade, immigration, or national security, reinforcing the risks outlined above with regard to China, Iran, Mexico, and even Europe. Rising Odds Of A No-Deal Brexit Former Mayor of London and former foreign secretary Boris Johnson looks increasingly likely to seal the Conservative Party leadership contest in the United Kingdom. It is not yet a done deal, but the shift within the party in favor of accepting a “no deal” exit is clear. None of the remaining candidates is willing to forgo that option. The newest development advances us along our decision tree in Diagram 2, altering the conditional probabilities for this year’s events. We expect the next prime minister to try to push a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May before attempting any kamikaze run as the October 31 deadline approaches. The attempt to leverage the EU’s economic weakness will not produce a fundamental renegotiation of the exit deal, but some element of diplomatic accommodation is possible as the EU seeks to maintain overall stability and a smooth exit if that is what the U.K. is determined to accomplish. Diagram 2Brexit Decision Tree Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere Hence the prospect of passing a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal is about 30%, roughly equal to the chance of a delay (28%). These options are believable as the new leader will have precious little time between taking the reins and Brexit day. The EU can accept a delay because it ultimately has an interest in keeping the U.K. bound into the union. Public opinion polling is not conducive to the new prime minister seeking a new election unless the change of face creates a massive shift in support for the Conservatives, both by swallowing the Brexit Party and outpacing Labour. If the purpose is to deliver Brexit, then the risk of a repeat of the June 2017 snap election would seem excessive. Nevertheless, the Tories’ working majority in parliament is vanishingly small, at five MPs, so a shift in polling could change the thinking on this front. The pursuit of a no-deal exit would create a backlash in parliament that we reckon has a 21% chance of ending in a no-confidence motion and new election. Bottom Line: The odds of a crash Brexit have moved up from 14% to 21% as a result of the leadership contest. The threat that the U.K. will crash out of the EU is not merely a negotiating ploy, although it will be a last resort even for the new hard-Brexit prime minister. Public opinion is against a no-deal Brexit, as is the majority of parliament, but the risk to the U.K. and EU economies will loom large over global risk assets in the coming months. Investment Conclusions Political and geopolitical risks to the late-cycle expansion are rising, not falling. U.S. foreign policy remains the dominant risk but U.S. domestic policy pre-2020 is an aggravating factor. Easing financial conditions give President Trump more ammunition to use tariffs and sanctions. Meanwhile our view that this summer will feature “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran has been confirmed by the tanker attacks in Oman. Tensions will likely escalate from here. Ultimately, we believe Trump is more likely to back off from the Iran conflict than the China conflict. This is part of our long-term theme that the U.S. really is pivoting to China and geopolitical risk will rotate from the Middle East to East Asia. But as highlighted above, the risk of entanglement is very high due to Trump’s approach and Iran’s incentives to raise the stakes. Oil prices will not resume their upward drift until Chinese stimulus is reconfirmed – and even then they will continue to be volatile. We remain cautious and are maintaining our safe-haven tactical trades of long gold and long JPY/USD.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Image