Trade

Highlights Bad news is still looming in the trade war. Public opinion polling in the U.S. gives President Trump more leeway to push the envelope on tariffs and sanctions against China than the consensus recognizes. Trump’s tendency to push the envelope is forcing China into a corner in which structural concessions become too risky. Unrest in Hong Kong reveals the city-state’s political woes as well as the tail-risk of a geopolitical incident in Taiwan. Tariffs on Mexico are still possible. Close long MXN/BRL. Maintain tactical safe-haven plays. Feature Judging by the S&P 500, the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates and the G20 summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping has been a success (Chart 1). Chart 1Trade War? Who Cares! Trade War? Who Cares! Trade War? Who Cares! The problem is that there is not yet a compelling, positive, political catalyst on the trade front. And the Fed has an incentive to wait until after the June 28-29 G20 to make its decision on any cut. At least in the case of the December 1 G20 summit in Buenos Aires there was significant diplomatic preparation ahead of time. That is not yet the case for the summit in Osaka, Japan. And even Buenos Aires ended up being a flop given the subsequent tariff escalation. We are maintaining our tactical safe-haven recommendations – long gold, Swiss bonds, and Japanese yen – until we see a clearer pathway for the risk-on phase to resume amid a summer loaded with fair-probability geopolitical risks: Trump’s aggressive foreign policy, the Democratic primary, China’s domestic policy, the U.S. immigration crisis, and Brexit. Beyond this near-term caution, we agree with BCA’s House View in remaining overweight equities on a cyclical basis (12 months). China’s economic stimulus is likely to pick up further this summer and it still has the capacity to deliver positive surprises. Preparing For The G20 Over the course of this year we have argued for a 50% chance and then 40% chance that the U.S. and China would conclude a trade deal by the G20 summit. However, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other administration officials, including Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, have recently indicated that the best case at the G20 is for the leaders to have dinner and agree to a new timetable that aims to close the negotiations in the coming months. The Trump-Xi summit itself remains unconfirmed as we go to press. This suggests that we were too optimistic about even a barebones trade deal at the G20. We are now extending our time frame to the November 2020 election -- the only deadline that really matters. Diagram 1 presents a cogent and conservative decision tree that results in a 41% chance of a major, Cold War-style escalation in tensions; a 27% chance of a minor escalation that is contained but without a final trade agreement; and a 28% chance of a tenuous or short-term deal. It gives only a 4% chance of a “grand compromise” that initiates a new phase of re-engagement between the two economies. These outcomes clearly represent a large downside risk given where equities are positioned today. Diagram 1Trade War Decision Tree (Updated June 13, 2019) Another Phony G20? And A Word On Hong Kong Another Phony G20? And A Word On Hong Kong Why such gloom when the two sides may be on the brink of a new tariff ceasefire? First, delaying the talks beyond the G20 is disadvantageous for Trump and will make him angry sooner or later. The Trump administration, unlike its predecessors, has made a point of opposing China’s traditional playbook of drawing out negotiations. China benefits in talks over the long run because it gains economic and strategic leverage. This has been the case in every major round of dialogue since the 1980s and it is specifically the case today, as China gradually stimulates its way out of the slowdown that afflicted it at the time of the last G20 (Chart 2). Chart 2China's Bargaining Leverage To Improve On Stimulus China's Bargaining Leverage To Improve On Stimulus China's Bargaining Leverage To Improve On Stimulus Trump would not have called a ceasefire on Dec. 1, 2018 if the stock market had held up amid Fed rate hikes and the Sept. 24 implementation of the 10% tariff on $200 billion. This year the U.S. equity market has bounced back and the Fed has paused, but China’s economy has not yet fully recovered. This gives Trump an advantage that may not last if the talks extend through the rest of the year. And this reasoning explains why Trump raised the tariff rate and blacklisted China’s tech companies in May – to try to clinch a deal by the end of June. He is also threatening to impose tariffs on the remaining $300 billion worth of imports if Xi snubs him in Osaka. If the G20 fails to produce progress, we would bet that Trump will proceed with a sweeping tariff on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese imports, whether immediately after the summit or at some later point when he decides that the Chinese are indeed playing for time. How can we be confident of this? After all, Trump’s approval rating has fallen since he escalated the trade war in May and it remains well beneath the average post-World War II presidents at this stage in their first terms, including President Obama’s rating in the summer of 2011 (Chart 3). Recent opinion polls suggest that voters are getting wise to the negative impact of tariffs on their pocketbooks. The financial and political constraints on Trump are not very pressing. Chart 3 We are confident because the financial and political constraints on Trump are not very pressing, at least not at the moment. First, the stock market has risen despite the tariff hikes, so Trump is likely emboldened. Second, Trump is less constrained in the use of tariffs than in other areas. He is bogged down with a Democratic Congress, investigations, and scandals at home. He cannot pursue policy through legislation – he shifted to the threat of tariffs on Mexico because he could not build his border wall. By turbo-charging his trade policy and foreign policy – against China, Iran, Mexico, Russia, most recently Germany … basically everyone except North Korea – he creates the option of turning 2020 into a “foreign policy election” rather than an election about the economy or social policy. A strong economy has not enabled him to break through his ceiling in public opinion thus far and he will lose a social policy election easily (see health care). The risk of his aggressive foreign policy is that it triggers an international crisis. But that would likely benefit him in the polls, given the natural inclination to defend America against foreign enemies. See George W. Bush, 2004 (Chart 4). Third, popular opposition to Trump’s trade war is not clear-cut – voters are ambivalent. In the past we have shown that President Trump’s 2020 run still depends on his ability to increase voter turnout among whites, specifically white males, low-income whites, and whites without college degrees. Recent polls suggest that voters have turned against tariffs and the trade war – namely the Quinnipiac and Monmouth University polls released in late May after the latest tariff hike. But it is essential to dig beneath the surface. These polls reveal that the key voting groups look more favorably than the rest of the country upon Trump’s policies on both trade and China (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5 These voters’ assessment of Trump’s performance overall, across a range of policies, is not disapproving, despite all of the unorthodox and disruptive decisions that Trump has made in his presidency thus far (Chart 6). Chart 6 American voters are neither as enthusiastic about free trade nor as appalled by protectionism as the headline polling suggests. For instance, take the Monmouth University poll, which asked very specific questions about trade, tariffs, and retaliation. If we combine the group of voters who are clearly protectionist with those who are “not sure” or think the answer “depends,” the results do not suggest that Trump is heavily constrained (Table 1). Table 1Americans Are Not As Pro-Free Trade As It Seems Another Phony G20? And A Word On Hong Kong Another Phony G20? And A Word On Hong Kong In swing counties 51% of voters think that free trade is either a bad idea or are undecided. And even 57% percent of voters in counties that voted for Hillary Clinton by more than a 10% margin are in favor of tariffs or unsure. And a majority of voters in the most relevant categories – independents, moderates, non-college graduates, low-income earners – believe that Trump’s tariffs will bring manufacturing back, a highly relevant point for an election that will likely swing on the Rust Belt yet again. This includes Clinton’s most secure districts (Chart 7)! Chart 7 The point is not that Trump lacks political constraints on the trade war – after all, these voters are on the borderline in many cases and concerned about all-out trade war with China. Rather, his aggressive trade tactics enable him to reconnect with and energize his voter base at a time when his other signature policies are tied down. This is critical because his reelection prospects, which we have pegged at 55%, are in great peril, at least judging by his lag in the head-to-head polling against the top Democrats in swing states. Bottom Line: Going forward, Trump has more room to push the envelope than investors realize. A failed G20 summit poses the risk of another selloff in global equities. We are maintaining our tactical safe-haven trades.   What About Xi Jinping’s Constraints? Xi is president for life and must be attentive to long-term ramifications. Chart 8Xi Jinping's Immediate Constraint Xi Jinping's Immediate Constraint Xi Jinping's Immediate Constraint If Trump is tempted to continue pushing the envelope, will President Xi back down? While not constrained by the stock market or elections, he does face the prospect of instability in the manufacturing sector and large-scale unemployment (Chart 8), which Beijing has not had to deal with for 20 years. The point is not to claim that laid-off Chinese workers will turn around and protest against their own country in the face of gunboat diplomacy by capitalist imperialists – on the 70th anniversary of the regime, no less. Rather, Xi is president for life and must be attentive to the long-term ramifications of a disruptive transition in the excessively large manufacturing sector. This would cause economic and, yes, ultimately socio-political problems for him down the road. If Trump continues to move toward his 2016 campaign pledge of a 45% tariff on all Chinese imports, as the 2020 election approaches, China’s leaders have far less incentive to put their careers (and lives) on the line to produce structural concessions. A tariff covering all Chinese goods is an absolutist position that China can only address by doubling down on its demand for full tariff rollback. Yet Trump needs to retain some tariffs to enforce the implementation of any agreement. Thus slapping tariffs on all Chinese imports is almost, but not quite, an irreversible step. This is captured in Diagram 1 via the 29% chance that tensions are contained even if a deal falls through. Tensions are even less likely to be contained if the Trump administration follows through on its threats against China’s tech sector. On August 19, the Commerce Department will decide whether to renew the license for U.S. companies to sell key components to Huawei and other blacklisted companies. If the administration denies the license – and moves further ahead with export controls on emerging and foundational technologies – then Beijing faces an outright technological blockade. It will retaliate against U.S. companies – a process already beginning1 – and will likely act on other threats such as a rare earths embargo. In this case strategic tensions will escalate dramatically, including saber-rattling in the air, in cyberspace, or on the high seas. At the moment political frictions in Hong Kong are exacerbating U.S.-China distrust. Bottom Line: Since President Xi’s constraints are longer-term, he has the ability to deny structural concessions to Trump. But Trump’s ability to push the trade war further and further risks forcing China to a point of no return. There is not a clear basis for the geopolitical risk affecting the global trade and growth outlook to fall. Hong Kong: A New Front In The U.S.-China Struggle The large-scale protests that have erupted in Hong Kong – first on April 28 and most recently on June 9 –are important for several reasons: they highlight the immense geopolitical pressure in East Asia emanating from China’s “New Era” under Xi Jinping; they are rapidly becoming entangled in U.S.-China tensions, particularly over technological acquisition; and they foreshadow the political instability on the horizon in Taiwan. Tensions have been rising between Hong Kong and mainland China since the Great Recession and the shock to capitalist financial centers around the world. The tensions are symptomatic of the dramatic change in China over the past decade; the decline of the post-Cold War status quo; and the broader decline of the western world order (e.g. the British Empire). After all, the West is lacking tools to preserve the rights and privileges that Hong Kong was supposed to be guaranteed when the transfer of sovereignty occurred in 1997. More immediately, the current protests are part of a process going back to 2012 in which the disaffected and marginalized parts of Hong Kong society began speaking up against the political establishment. This emerged because of high income inequality (Chart 9), shortcomings in quality of life, excessive property prices (Chart 10), and the mainland’s reassertion of Communist Party rule and encroachments on Hong Kong’s autonomy. Chart 9 Chart 10Another Source Of Hong Kong's Unrest Another Source Of Hong Kong's Unrest Another Source Of Hong Kong's Unrest A simple comparison with Singapore, the other major East Asian city-state, shows that Hong Kong has trailed in GDP per capita and wage gains, while property price inflation has soared ahead (Chart 11). These structural economic factors contributed to the emergence of the “Occupy Central” protests in 2014, which were smaller than today’s protests but signaled the abrupt shift in the political sphere toward disenchantment and activism. Chart 11Why Hong Kong Is Not As Quiet As Singapore Why Hong Kong Is Not As Quiet As Singapore Why Hong Kong Is Not As Quiet As Singapore The 2016 elections for the Legislative Council (LegCo) resulted in a fiasco by which a number of pro-democracy activists, known as “localists,” were squeezed out of the legislature through a combination of juvenile mistakes and heavy-handed intervention by Beijing and the pro-mainland Hong Kong authorities (Chart 12 A&B). Beijing exploited the occasion to extend its legal writ over Hong Kong society and curb some of the city’s freedoms.2 The democratic opposition and dissidents have been sidelined or repressed — and now they face the prospect of being extradited, given that the LegCo is highly likely to pass the “Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters” bill that sparked the protests this year. Chart 12 Chart 12 The exclusion of the localists from power runs the risk of radicalizing them and increasing disaffection, making mass protests likely to recur both in the near term and in future. Hong Kongers are losing confidence in the “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement (Chart 13). They are similarly becoming more disillusioned with mainland China, adding fuel to the fire over time (Chart 14). However, in the specific case of the city-state, there is no alternative to Beijing’s ultimate say – and the older generations will continue to support the political establishment. Chart 13 Chart 14 Nevertheless Hong Kong’s discontents will become entangled in the broader Cold War emerging between the U.S. and China. Beijing is accusing the protesters of being lackeys of foreign powers. The U.S. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is threatening to declare that Hong Kong is no longer sufficiently autonomous from Beijing and therefore no longer eligible for special privileges. Hong Kong faces rising political dependency on China and the potential for special relations with the United States to decline. Chart 15 Part of Washington’s concern lies with Beijing’s aggressive technological acquisition program. Hong Kong has been able to import advanced dual-use technology products from the United States without Beijing’s restrictions. This is not apparent from the proportion of exports but it is important on the technological level (Chart 15). It introduces a backdoor for China to acquire these goods and has prompted a rethink in Washington. Hong Kong is also accused of facilitating the circumventing of sanctions on U.S. enemies. It thus faces rising political dependency on China and the potential for special relations with the United States to decline. These pressures also highlight why we view Taiwan as a potential “Black Swan.” Similar political fissures are emerging as Beijing expands its economic and military dominance over Taiwan. Of course, the political backlash against Beijing has recently been receding in Taiwanese opinion, due to the fact that the nominally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party has lost most of the momentum it gained after the large-scale “Sunflower” student protests of 2014 (Chart 16). But there are still several reasons that the January 2020 election could become a geopolitical flashpoint: namely the developments in Hong Kong, China’s handling of them, Beijing’s tensions with Washington, and the Trump administration’s temptation to achieve some key goals with the Tsai Ing-wen administration before it leaves office (including arms sales). Even if the Taiwanese political winds shift to become less confrontational toward Beijing after January, the time between now and then is ripe for an “incident” of some kind. Beyond that, the pro-independence opposition will begin activating and marching against the next government if it proves obsequious to the mainland. Chart 16Taiwan: Pro-Mainland Forces Revive Taiwan: Pro-Mainland Forces Revive Taiwan: Pro-Mainland Forces Revive Chart 17 Over the long run, Taiwan is far more autonomous than Hong Kong, harder for Beijing to control, and much more attractive for Beijing’s enemies to defend – namely the U.S. and Japan. Moreover, as the tech conflict with Washington heats up, Taiwan becomes vital for China’s technological self-sufficiency, putting it at higher risk (Chart 17). Beijing will also frown upon the role of Taiwanese companies like FoxConn for taking early steps to diversify the supply chain away from China. This regional strategic reality is not conducive to U.S.-China trade negotiations. And even aside from the U.S., Beijing’s growing power generates resistance from its periphery. This is true of Chinese ally North Korea, which is trying to broaden its options, as well as a historic enemy like Vietnam. Other countries at a bit more of a distance are trying to accommodate both Beijing and Washington, but are increasingly seeing their regimes vacillate based on their orientation toward China – this is true of Thailand in 2014, the Philippines in 2015, South Korea in 2017, and Malaysia in 2018. These changes inject economic policy uncertainty on the country level. Over the long run we see Southeast Asia as a beneficiary of the relocation of supply chains out of China. But at the moment, with the trade war escalating and unresolved and with China taking a heavier hand, we are only recommending holding relatively insulated countries like Thailand. Bottom Line: Our theme of U.S.-China conflict is intertwined with our theme of geopolitical risk rotation to East Asia. States that have domestic-oriented economies, limited exposure to China, or greater U.S. support – including Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia – face less geopolitical risk than those heavily exposed to China (Taiwan) or that lack U.S. security guarantees (Hong Kong, Vietnam). Investment Recommendations In addition to our safe-haven tactical trades – long spot gold, long Swiss bonds, and long JPY-USD – we are maintaining our long recommendation for a basket of companies in the MVIS global rare earth and strategic metals index. The basket includes companies not based in mainland China that have seen their stock prices appreciate this year yet have a P/E ratio under 35 (Chart 18). Chart 18Go Long Rare Earth Firms Ex-China Go Long Rare Earth Firms Ex-China Go Long Rare Earth Firms Ex-China We remain short the CNY-USD on the expectation that trade tensions will encourage Beijing to use depreciation as a countervailing tool, despite our expectation of increasing fiscal-and-credit stimulus. Over the long run, we would observe that trade escalation between the U.S. and China bodes poorly for China’s long-term productivity and efficiency. The basis for a reduction in trade tensions is a recommitment to the liberal structural reform agenda that Chinese state economists outlined at the beginning of Xi Jinping’s term in 2012-13. The current trajectory of “the New Long March,” in which Beijing pursues personalized power and uses stimulus to improve self-sufficiency and import-substitution, goes the opposite direction. It is not a pathway for innovation, openness, and technological progress. A simple comparison of China’s long-term equity total return highlights the market’s lack of enthusiasm about the current administration’s approach (Chart 19). The contexts were different, but the earlier outperformance grew from painful structural reforms and a grand compromise with the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Chart 19The Market Wants Reforms And Trade Deal The Market Wants Reforms And Trade Deal The Market Wants Reforms And Trade Deal We are closing our long MXN / short BRL trade for a gain of 4.6%. This trade has bounced back from the U.S.-Mexico deal to avert tariffs. The agreement was not entirely hollow compared to earlier agreements: it calls for Mexico to accelerate the deployment of the National Guard to stem the flow of refugees from Guatemala and central America and expand the Migrant Protection Protocols across the southern border. Trump’s reversal – under Senate pressure, entirely unlike the China dynamic – gave the peso a boost, benefiting our trade. However, one of the fundamental reasons for this trade – the improvement in Mexico’s relative current account balance – has now rolled over (Chart 20) and the tariff threat will reemerge if Mexico proves unable or unwilling to stem the inflow of asylum seekers into the United States (Chart 21). Chart 20Peso Has Outperformed The Real Peso Has Outperformed The Real Peso Has Outperformed The Real Chart 21   As we go to press, the attacks on tankers in Oman highlight our view that oil prices will witness policy-induced volatility and a rising geopolitical risk premium as “fire and fury” shifts to the U.S. and Iran in the near-term. Our expectation of increasing Chinese stimulus helps underpin the constructive view on oil and energy-producing emerging markets.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The American Chamber of Commerce in China and Shanghai released a survey on May 22, 2019 revealing that while 53% of companies have not yet experienced “non-tariff” retaliation by Chinese authorities, 47% had experienced it: 20.1% through increased inspections; 19.7% through slower customs clearance; 14.2% through slow license approvals; another 14.2% through bureaucratic and regulatory complications; and smaller numbers dealing with problems associated with American employees’ visas, increased difficulty closing investment deals, products rejected by customs, and rejections of licenses and applications. 2 We noted at the time, “Mainland forces will bring down the hammer on the pro-independence movement. The election of a new chief executive will appear to reinforce the status quo but in reality Beijing will tighten its legal, political, and security grip. Large protests are likely; political uncertainty will remain high.” See BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now,” December 14, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com.

Feature Markets have turned jittery in the past month. Global growth data have deteriorated further (Chart 1), with Korean exports, the German manufacturing PMI, and even U.S. industrial production weak. Moreover, trade negotiations between the U.S. and China appear to have broken down, with China threatening to retaliate against U.S. sanctions on Huawei by blocking sales of rare earths, and refusing to negotiate further unless the U.S. eases tariffs. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategists now give only a 40% probability of a trade deal by the time of the G20 summit at the end of June (Table 1). As a result, BCA alerted clients on 10 May to the risk of a further short-term 5% correction in global equities.1 Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update: China To The Rescue? Monthly Portfolio Update: China To The Rescue? Chart 1Worrying Signs? Worrying Signs? Worrying Signs? Table 1Chances Of A Trade Deal Fading Fast Monthly Portfolio Update: China To The Rescue? Monthly Portfolio Update: China To The Rescue? What is essentially behind the global slowdown, especially outside the U.S., is that both China and the U.S. last year were tightening monetary policy – China by slowing credit growth, the U.S. via Fed hikes. The U.S. economy was robust enough to withstand this, but economies in Europe, Asia, and Emerging Markets were not (Chart 2). The question now is whether the Chinese authorities and the Fed will come to the rescue and add stimulus that will cause a recovery in global growth. China has already triggered a rebound in credit growth since January (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S. Holding Up Better Than Elsewhere U.S. Holding Up Better Than Elsewhere U.S. Holding Up Better Than Elsewhere Chart 3China Stimulus Has Only Just Begun China Stimulus Has Only Just Begun China Stimulus Has Only Just Begun This has not come through clearly in Chinese – and other countries’ – activity data yet, partly because there is usually a lag of 3-12 months before this happens, and partly because Chinese authorities seemingly eased back somewhat on the gas pedal in April given rising expectations of a trade deal. But, judging by previous episodes such as 2009 and 2016, the Chinese will stimulate now based on the worst-case scenario. The risk is more that they overdo the stimulus than that they fail to do enough. Yes, China is worried about its excess debt situation. But this year they will prioritize growth – not least because of some sensitive anniversaries in the months ahead (for example, the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic on October 1), and because the government is falling behind on its promise to double per capita real income between 2010 and 2020 (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Communist Party Needs To Prioritize Growth Chinese Communist Party Needs To Prioritize Growth Chinese Communist Party Needs To Prioritize Growth Chart 5U.S. Consumers Look In Fine State U.S. Consumers Look In Fine State U.S. Consumers Look In Fine State     In the U.S., consumption is likely to continue to buoy the economy. Wages are growing 3.2% a year and set to accelerate further, and consumer confidence is close to a 50-year high (Chart 5). It is easy to exaggerate the impact of even an all-out trade war. For China, exports to the U.S. are only 3.4% of GDP. A hit to this could easily be offset by stimulus leading to greater capital expenditure. For the U.S, most academic studies show that the impact of tariffs will largely be passed on to the consumer via higher prices.2 But even if the U.S. imposes 25% tariffs on all Chinese exports and all is passed on to the consumer with no substitutions for goods from other countries the impact, about $130 billion, would represent only 1% of total U.S. consumption. The question now is whether the Chinese authorities and the Fed will come to the rescue and add stimulus that will cause a recovery in global growth. But if China will bail out the global economy, we are not so convinced that the Fed will cut rates any time soon. The market has priced in two Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 6). But we agree with comments from Fed officials that recent softness in inflation is transitory. For example, financial services inflation (mostly comprising financial advisor fees, linked to assets under management, and therefore very sensitive to the stock market) alone has deducted 0.4 percentage points from core PCE inflation over the past six months (Chart 7). The trimmed mean PCE (which cuts out other volatile items besides energy and food, which are excluded from the commonly used core PCE measure) is close to 2% and continues to drift up. Chart 6Will The Fed Really Cut Twice In 12 Months? Will The Fed Really Cut Twice In 12 Months? Will The Fed Really Cut Twice In 12 Months? Chart 7Soft Inflation Probably Is Transitory Soft Inflation Probably Is Transitory Soft Inflation Probably Is Transitory     Fed policy remains mildly accommodative: the current Fed Funds Rate is still two hikes below the neutral rate, as defined by the median terminal-rate dot in the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections (Chart 8). The market may be trying to push the Fed into cutting rates and could be disappointed if it does not. For now, we tend to agree with the Fed’s view that policy is about correct (Chart 9) but, if global growth does recover before the end of the year, one hike would be justified in early 2020 – before the upcoming Presidential election in November 2020 makes it less comfortable for the Fed to move. Chart 8Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative Chart 9Fed Doesn't Need To Move For Now Fed Doesn't Need To Move For Now Fed Doesn't Need To Move For Now     In this macro environment, we see global bond yields bottoming not far below their current (very depressed) levels, and equities eking out reasonable gains over the next 12 months. The risk of a global recession over the next year or so is not high, in our opinion. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on global equities and underweight on bonds over the cyclical horizon.  We see global bond yields bottoming not far below their current (very depressed) levels, and equities eking out reasonable gains over the next 12 months. Fixed Income: Government bond yields have fallen sharply over the past eight months (by 110 basis points for the U.S. 10-year, for example) because of 1) falling inflation expectations, caused mostly by a weak oil price, 2) expectations of Fed rate cuts, 3) especially weak growth in Europe, which pulled German yields down to -20 basis points in May, and 4) global risk aversion which pushed asset allocators into government bonds, and lowered the term premium to near record low levels (Chart 10). If Brent crude rises to $80 a barrel this year as we forecast, the Fed does not cut rates, and European growth rebounds because of Chinese stimulus, we find it highly improbable that yields will fall much further. Ultimately, the global risk-free rate is driven by global growth (Chart 11). Investors are already positioned very aggressively for a further fall in yields (Chart 12). We would expect the U.S. 10-year yield to move back towards 3% over the next 12 months. We remain moderately positive on credit, which should also benefit from a growth rebound: U.S. high-yield spreads are still around 70 basis points for Ba-rated bonds, and 110 basis points for B-rated ones, above the levels at which they typically bottom in expansions; investment-grade bonds, though, have less room for spread contraction (Chart 13). Chart 10Term Premium Near Record Low Term Premium Near Record Low Term Premium Near Record Low Chart 11Global Rebound Would Push Up Yields Global Rebound Would Push Up Yields Global Rebound Would Push Up Yields   Chart 12Investors Very Long Duration Investors Very Long Duration Investors Very Long Duration Chart 13Credit Spreads Can Tighten Further Credit Spreads Can Tighten Further Credit Spreads Can Tighten Further     Equities:  We remain overweight U.S. equities, partly as a hedge against our overweight on the equity asset class, since the U.S. remains a relatively low beta market. Our call for the second half will be 1) when will Chinese stimulus start to boost growth disproportionately for commodity and capital-goods exporters, and 2) does that justify a shift out of the U.S. (which may be somewhat hurt short term by the Trade War) and into euro zone and Emerging Markets equities. Given the structural headwinds in both (the chronically weak banking system and political issues in Europe; high debt and lack of structural reforms in EM), we want clear evidence that the Chinese stimulus is working before making this call. We are likely to remain more cautious on Japan, even though it is a clear beneficiary of Chinese growth, because of the risk presented by the rise in the consumption tax in October: after previous such hikes, consumption not only slumped immediately afterwards but remained depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14Japan's Sales Tax Hike Is A Worry Japan's Sales Tax Hike Is A Worry Japan's Sales Tax Hike Is A Worry Chart 15Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency   Currencies:  Again, China is the key. The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, and a pickup in global growth would weaken it (Chart 15). Any further easing by the ECB – for example, significantly easier terms on the next Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTRO) – might actually be positive for the euro since it would augur stronger growth in the euro area. Moreover, long dollar is a clear consensus view, with very skewed market positioning (Chart 16). Also, on a fundamental basis, compared to Purchasing Power Parity, the dollar is around 15% overvalued versus the euro and 11% versus the yen. Chart 16 Chart 17Industrial Metals Driven By China Too Industrial Metals Driven By China Too Industrial Metals Driven By China Too Commodities: Industrial metals prices have generally been weak in recent months with copper, for example, falling by 10% since mid-April. It will require a sustained rebound in Chinese infrastructure spending to push prices back up (Chart 17). Oil continues to be driven by supply-side factors, not demand. With OPEC discipline holding, Iran sanctions about to be reimposed, political turmoil in Libya and Venezuela, BCA’s energy strategists continue to see inventories drawing down this year, and therefore forecast Brent crude to reach $80 during 2019 (Chart 18). Chart 18Oil Supply Remains Tight Oil Supply Remains Tight Oil Supply Remains Tight Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1       Please see Global Investment Strategy, Special Report, “Stay Cyclically Overweight Global Equities, But Hedge Near-Term Downside Risks From An Escalation Of A Trade War,” dated May 10, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see, for example, Mary Amiti, Sebastian Heise, and Noah Kwicklis, “The Impact of Import Tariffs on U.S. Domestic Prices,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, dated 4 January 2019. Recommended Asset Allocation  

Highlights Global equities face near-term downside risks from the trade war, but should be higher in 12 months’ time. Its claims to novelty notwithstanding, Modern Monetary Theory is basically indistinguishable from standard Keynesian economics except that MMT assumes that changes in interest rates have no discernible effect on aggregate demand. This straightforward but unrealistic assumption allows MMT’s proponents to argue that the neutral rate of interest does not exist, that crowding out is impossible, and that while fiscal deficits do matter (because too much government spending can stoke inflation), debt levels do not. Despite its many shortcomings, MMT’s focus on financial balances and the role of sovereign-issued money is laudable. A better understanding of these concepts would have made investors a lot of money during the past decade. Today, most economies are still running large private-sector financial surpluses. This surplus of desired savings relative to investment has kept interest rates low, which have allowed governments to finance their budgets at favorable terms. As these surpluses decline, inflation will rise. Feature Greetings From Down Under I have been meeting clients in Australia and New Zealand this week. The mood has been generally negative on the outlook for both the domestic and global economies. As one might imagine, the brewing China-U.S. trade war has been a hot topic of discussion. We went tactically short the S&P 500 on May 10th, a move that for the time being effectively neutralizes our structurally overweight stance on global equities. As we indicated when we initiated the hedge, we will take profits on the position if the S&P 500 drops below 2711. Despite the darkening clouds hanging over the trade war, we still expect a detente to be reached that prevents a further escalation of the conflict. Both sides would suffer from an extended trade war. For China, it is no longer just about losing access to the vast U.S. market. It is also about losing access to vital technology. The blacklisting of Huawei deprives China of critical components needed to realize its dream of becoming a world leader in AI and robotics. The trade war will not harm the U.S. as much as it will China, but it has still raised prices for American consumers, while lowering the prices of key agricultural exports such as soybeans. It has also hurt the stock market, which Trump seems to view as a barometer for his own success as president. If a trade detente is eventually reached, market attention will shift back to the outlook for global growth. We expect the combination of aggressive Chinese fiscal/credit stimulus and the palliative effects of falling global bond yields over the past seven months to lift growth in the back half of the year. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar is likely to weaken when global growth starts to strengthen. This will provide an opportune time to go overweight EM and European equities as well as the more cyclical sectors of the stock market. Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been A Member Of The MMT Movement? Last week’s report1 argued that a global deflationary ice age is unlikely to transpire because politicians will pursue large-scale fiscal stimulus to preclude this outcome. We noted that many countries are easing fiscal policy at the margin, partly in response to populist pressures. Even in Japan, the likelihood that the government will raise the sales tax this year has diminished, while structural forces will continue to drain savings for years to come. This will set the stage for higher inflation in Japan, something the market is not at all anticipating. Somewhat controversially, we contended that larger budget deficits are unlikely to imperil debt sustainability, at least for countries that are able to issue debt in their own currencies. This implies that any government with its own printing press should simply ease fiscal policy until long-term inflation expectations reach their target level. MMT can best be thought of as a special case of Keynesian economic theory where monetary policy is not just relegated to the back burner, but banished from the kitchen altogether. A number of readers pointed out that our analysis sounded suspiciously supportive of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Are we really closet MMT devotees? No, we are not. Our approach shares some commonalities with MMT (so if you want to call me a “MMT sympathizer,” go ahead). However, it also differs from MMT in a number of important respects. As we discuss below, these differences have significant implications for market outcomes, particularly one’s views about the long-term direction of government bond yields. MMT: A “Special Case” Of Keynesian Economics Chart 1 Modern Monetary Theory is not nearly as novel as its backers claim. In fact, MMT can best be thought of as a special case of Keynesian economic theory where monetary policy is not just relegated to the back burner, but banished from the kitchen altogether. Outside of liquidity trap conditions, most economists believe that monetary policy is an effective aggregate demand management tool. MMT’s supporters reject this. In their view, changes in interest rates have no impact on spending. In the technical parlance of economics, MMT is basically the Hicksian IS/LM model but with a vertical IS curve and an LM curve that intersects the IS curve at an interest rate of zero (Chart 1). This seemingly small variation on the traditional Keynesian framework has far-reaching consequences. For one thing, it renders meaningless the entire concept of the neutral rate of interest. If changes in interest rates have no effect on aggregate demand, then one cannot identify an equilibrium level of interest rates that is consistent with full employment and stable inflation. Given their leftist roots, it is not surprising that most MMTers favor keeping rates low, preferably near zero. Higher rates shift income from borrowers to lenders. The latter tend to be richer than the former. Why reward fat cats when you don’t have to? Low rates also allow the government to spend more without putting the debt-to-GDP ratio on an unsustainable trajectory. If the interest rate at which the government borrows stays below the growth rate of the economy, the government can run a stable Ponzi scheme, perpetually issuing new debt to pay the interest on existing debt (Chart 2). In such a world, budget deficits only matter to the extent that too much fiscal stimulus can stoke inflation. The level of debt, in contrast, never matters. Chart 2 Interest Rates Do Affect Aggregate Demand Chart 3Mortgage Rate Swings Matter For The Housing Market Mortgage Rate Swings Matter For The Housing Market Mortgage Rate Swings Matter For The Housing Market Despite MMT’s efforts to deny any role for monetary policy in stabilizing the economy, the empirical evidence clearly shows that changes in interest rates do affect consumption and investment decisions. Housing activity, in particular, is very sensitive to movements in mortgage rates. The recent drop in mortgage rates bodes well for U.S. housing activity during the remainder of the year (Chart 3). The dollar, like most currencies, is also influenced by shifts in interest rate differentials (Chart 4). Changes in the dollar affect net exports, and hence overall employment. Once we acknowledge that interest rates affect aggregate demand, we are back in a world of trade-offs between monetary and fiscal policy. One can have easy monetary policy and tight fiscal policy, or tight monetary policy and easy fiscal policy. But outside of liquidity trap conditions, one cannot have both easy monetary and fiscal policies for a prolonged period of time without tolerating higher and rising inflation.   Chart 4Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials The Perils Of Accounting Identities MMT proponents love accounting identities. They are particularly fond of saying that government deficits endow the private sector with additional wealth in the form of government bonds or cash. Unfortunately, the penchant to “argue by accounting identity” is almost always a recipe for disaster since such arguments usually fail to identify the causal forces by which one thing affects the other. For example, no competent economist would deny that an increase in the fiscal deficit must tautologically imply an increase in the private sector’s financial balance (the difference between the private sector’s income and spending). What MMT adherents fail to appreciate is that private-sector savings can increase either if incomes rise or spending falls. Ironically, what often gets overlooked is that the predictions made by standard Keynesian economic theory over the past decade have proven to be broadly accurate. When an economy is depressed, fiscal stimulus is likely to increase employment. In such a setting, rising payrolls will boost incomes, leading to a larger private-sector surplus. In contrast, when the economy is operating at full employment, any increase in the private-sector surplus must come about through a decline in private-sector spending. That is to say, if the government consumes more of the economy’s output, the private sector has to consume less.  There is a huge difference between the two cases. MMTers tend to gloss over this distinction because they do not really have a theory for why the private-sector financial balance moves around in the first place. To them, private-sector spending is completely exogenous. It is determined by such things as animal spirits that the government has no control over. The government’s only job is to adjust the fiscal balance to ensure that it is the mirror image of the private-sector’s balance. Budget deficits cannot crowd out private-sector spending in this context because the government plays no role in determining how much the private sector wishes to spend. Investment Conclusions Economics gets a bad rap these days. Although most people would not go as far as Nassim Taleb who once mused about running over economists in his Lexus, it is fair to say that there is a lot of disillusionment towards the economics profession. Ostensibly heterodox theories like MMT help fill an intellectual void for those hoping to rewrite the economics textbooks for the 21st century. Ironically, what often gets overlooked is that the predictions made by standard Keynesian economic theory over the past decade have proven to be broadly accurate. Shortly after the financial crisis, when the world was still mired in a deep slump, Keynesian economics predicted that large budget deficits would not push up interest rates and that QE would not lead to runaway inflation. In contrast, Taleb said in early February 2010, when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at around 3.6%, that Ben Bernanke was “immoral” and that “Every single human being should short Treasury bonds. It’s a no-brainer.” The study of financial balances is not unique to MMT, nor is MMT’s approach to thinking about financial balances the best one. Even so, a basic understanding of the concept would have prevented Taleb and countless others from making the mistakes they did. The fact that MMT has brought the discussion of financial balances, along with related concepts such as the role of sovereign-issued money in an economy, back into the spotlight is its greatest virtue. Today, most economies are still running large private-sector financial surpluses (Chart 5). Given that interest rates are so low, it is difficult to argue that budget deficits are crowding out private spending. This may change over time, however. Falling unemployment is boosting consumer confidence, which will bolster spending. U.S. wage growth has already accelerated sharply among workers at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 6). These are the workers with the highest marginal propensity to consume. Chart 5AMost Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (I) Most Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (I) Most Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (I) Chart 5BMost Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (II) Most Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (II) Most Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (II) Meanwhile, baby boomers are leaving the labor force. More retirees means less production, but not necessarily less consumption. Once health care spending is added to the tally, consumption actually increases in old age (Chart 7). If production falls in relation to consumption, excess savings will decline and the neutral rate of interest will rise. Chart 6 Chart 7Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle When this happens, will governments tighten fiscal policy, as the MMT prescription requires? In a world where entitlement programs are politically sacrosanct, that seems unlikely. The end result is that economies will overheat and inflation will rise. Will central banks tighten monetary policy in response to higher inflation? That depends on what one means by tighten. Central banks will undoubtedly raise rates, but in a world of high debt levels, they will be loath to push interest rates above the growth rate of the economy. Interest rates will rise in nominal terms, but probably very little or not at all in real terms. In such an environment, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in their fixed-income portfolios, while favouring inflation-linked bonds over nominal bonds. Owning traditional inflation hedges such as gold would also make sense.    Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1          Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Ice Age Cometh?” dated May 24, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Chart 8 Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights So What? U.S.-China relations are still in free fall as we go to press. Why? The trade war will elicit Chinese stimulus but downside risks to markets are front-loaded. The oil risk premium will remain elevated as Iran tensions will not abate any time soon. The odds of a no-deal Brexit are rising. Our GeoRisk Indicators show that Turkish and Brazilian risks have subsided, albeit only temporarily. Maintain safe-haven trades. Short the CNY-USD and go long non-Chinese rare earth providers. Feature The single-greatest reason for the increase in geopolitical risk remains the United States. The Democratic Primary race will heat up in June and President Trump, while favored in 2020 barring a recession, is currently lagging both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in the head-to-head polling. Trump’s legislative initiatives are bogged down in gridlock and scandal. The remaining avenue for him to achieve policy victories is foreign policy – hence his increasing aggressiveness on both China and Iran. The result is negative for global risk assets on a tactical horizon and possibly also on a cyclical horizon. A positive catalyst is badly needed in the form of greater Chinese stimulus, which we expect, and progress toward a trade agreement. Brexit, Italy, and European risks pale by comparison to what we have called “Cold War 2.0” since 2012. Nevertheless, the odds of Brexit actually happening are increasing. The uncertainty will weigh on sentiment in Europe through October even if it does not ultimately conclude in a no-deal shock that prevents the European economy from bouncing back. Yet the risk of a no-deal shock is higher than it was just weeks ago. We discuss these three headline geopolitical risks below: China, Iran, and the U.K. No End In Sight For U.S.-China Trade Tensions U.S.-China negotiations are in free fall, with no date set for another round of talks. On March 6 we argued that a deal had a 50% chance of getting settled by the June 28-29 G20 summit in Japan, with a 30% chance talks would totally collapse. Since then, we have reduced the odds of a deal to 40%, with a collapse at 50%, and a further downgrade on the horizon if a positive intervention is not forthcoming producing trade talks in early or mid-June (Table 1). Table 1U.S.-China Trade War: Probabilities Of A Deal By End Of June 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 We illustrate the difficulties of agreeing to a deal through the concept of a “two-level game.” In a theoretical two-level game, each country strives to find overlap between its international interests and its rival’s interests and must also seek overlap in such a way that the agreement can be sold to a domestic audience at home. The reason why the “win-win scenario” is so remote in the U.S.-China trade conflict is because although China has a relatively large win set – it can easily sell a deal at home due to its authoritarian control – the U.S. win set is small (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Tiny Win-Win Scenario In U.S.-China Trade Conflict GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 The Democrats will attack any deal that Trump negotiates, making him look weak on his own pet issue of trade with China. This is especially the case if a stock market selloff forces Trump to accept small concessions. His international interest might overlap with China’s interest in minimizing concessions on foreign trade and investment access while maximizing technological acquisition from foreign companies. He would not be able to sell such a deal – focused on large-scale commodity purchases as a sop to farm states – on the campaign trail. Democrats will attack any deal that Trump negotiates. While it is still possible for both sides to reach an agreement, this Diagram highlights the limitations faced by both players. Meanwhile China is threatening to restrict exports of rare earths – minerals which are critical to the economy and national defense. China dominates global production and export markets (Chart 1), so this would be a serious disruption in the near term. Global sentiment would worsen, weighing on all risk assets, and tech companies and manufacturers that rely on rare earth inputs from China would face a hit to their bottom lines. Chart 1China Dominates Rare Earths Supply France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Over the long haul, this form of retaliation is self-defeating. First, China would presumably have to embargo all exports of rare earths to the world to prevent countries and companies from re-exporting to the United States. Second, rare earths are not actually rare in terms of quantity: they simply occur in low concentrations. As the world learned when China cut off rare earths to Japan for two months in 2010 over their conflict in the East China Sea, a rare earths ban will push up prices and incentivize production and processing in other regions. It will also create rapid substitution effects, recycling, and the use of stockpiles. Ultimately demand for Chinese rare earths exports would fall. Over the nine years since the Japan conflict, China’s share of global production has fallen by 19%, mostly at the expense of rising output from Australia. A survey of American companies suggests that they have diversified their sources more than import statistics suggest (Chart 2). Chart 2Import Stats May Be Overstating China’s Dominance U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator The risk of a rare earths embargo is high – it fits with our 30% scenario of a major escalation in the conflict. It would clearly be a negative catalyst for companies and share prices. But as with China’s implicit threat of selling U.S. Treasuries, it is not a threat that will cause Trump to halt the trade war. The costs of conflict are not prohibitive and there are some political gains. Bottome Line: The S&P 500 is down 3.4% since our Global Investment Strategists initiated their tactical short on May 10. This is nearly equal to the weighted average impact on the S&P 500 that they have estimated using our probabilities. Obviously the selloff can overshoot this target. As it does, the chances of the two sides attempting to contain the tensions will rise. If we do not witness a positive intervention in the coming weeks, it will be too late to salvage the G20 and the risk of a major escalation will go way up. We recommend going short CNY-USD as a strategic play despite China’s recent assurances that the currency can be adequately defended. Our negative structural view of China’s economy now coincides with our tactical view that escalation is more likely than de-escalation. We also recommend going long a basket of companies in the MVIS global rare earth and strategic metals index – specifically those companies not based in China that have seen share prices appreciate this year but have a P/E ratio under 35. U.S.-Iran: An Unintentional War With Unintentional Consequences? “I really believe that Iran would like to make a deal, and I think that’s very smart of them, and I think that’s a possibility to happen.” -President Donald Trump, May 27, 2019 … We currently see no prospect of negotiations with America ... Iran pays no attention to words; what matters to us is a change of approach and behavior.” -Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi, May 28, 2019 The U.S. decision not to extend sanction waivers on Iran multiplied geopolitical risks at a time of already heightened uncertainty. Elevated tensions surrounding major producers in the Middle East could impact oil production and flows. In energy markets, this is reflected in the elevated risk premium – represented by the residuals in the price decompositions that include both supply and demand factors (Chart 3). Chart 3The Risk Premium Is Rising In Brent Crude Oil Prices Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Tensions surrounding major oil producers ... are reflected in the elevated risk premium – represented by the residuals in the Brent price decomposition. Already Iranian exports are down 500k b/d in April relative to March – the U.S. is acting on its threat to bring Iran’s exports to zero and corporations are complying (Chart 4). Chart 4Iran Oil Exports Collapsing Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator What is more, the U.S. is taking a more hawkish military stance towards Iran – recently deploying a carrier strike group and bombers, partially evacuating American personnel from Iraq, and announcing plans to send 1,500 troops to the Middle East. The result of all these actions is not only to reduce Iranian oil exports, but also to imperil supplies of neighboring oil producers such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia which may become the victims of retaliation by an incandescent Iran. Our expectation of Iranian retaliation is already taking shape. The missile strike on Saudi facilities and the drone attack on four tankers near the UAE are just a preview of what is to come. Although Iran has not claimed responsibility for the acts, its location and extensive network of militant proxies affords it the ability to threaten oil supplies coming out of the region. Iran has also revived its doomsday threat of closing down the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of global oil supplies transit – which becomes a much fatter tail-risk if Iran comes to believe that the U.S. is genuinely pursuing immediate regime change, since the first-mover advantage in the strait is critical. This will keep markets jittery. Current OPEC spare capacity would allow the coalition to raise production to offset losses from Venezuela and Iran. Yet any additional losses – potentially from already unstable regions such as Libya, Algeria, or Nigeria – will raise the probability that global supplies are unable to cover demand. Going into the OPEC meeting in Vienna in late June, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects OPEC 2.0 to relax supply cuts implemented since the beginning of the year. They expect production to be raised by 0.9mm b/d in 2H2019 vs. 1H2019.1 Nevertheless, oil producers will likely adopt a cautious approach when bringing supplies back online, wary of letting prices fall too far. This was expressed at the May Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee meeting in Jeddah, which also highlighted the growing divergence of interests within the group. Russia is in support of raising production at a faster pace than Saudi Arabia, which favors a gradual increase (conditional on U.S. sanctions enforcement). Both the Iranians and Americans claim that they do not want the current standoff to escalate to war. On the American side, Trump is encouraging Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to try his hand as a mediator in a possible visit to Tehran in June. We would not dismiss this possibility since it could produce a badly needed “off ramp” for tensions to de-escalate when all other trends point toward a summer and fall of “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran. If forced to make a call, we think President Trump’s foreign policy priority will center on China, not Iran. But this does not mean that downside risks to oil prices will prevail. China will stimulate more aggressively in June and subsequent months. And regardless of Washington’s and Tehran’s intentions, a wrong move in an already heated part of the world can turn ugly very quickly. Bottom Line: President Trump’s foreign policy priority is China, not Iran. Nevertheless, a wrong move can trigger a nasty escalation in the current standoff, jeopardizing oil supplies coming out of the Gulf region. In response to this risk, OPEC 2.0 will likely move to cautiously raise production at the next meeting in late June. Meanwhile China’s stimulus overshoot in the midst of trade war will most likely shore up demand over the course of the year. Can A New Prime Minister Break The Deadlock In Westminster? “There is a limited appetite for change in the EU, and negotiating it won’t be easy.” - Outgoing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May Prime Minister Theresa May’s resignation has hurled the Conservative Party into a scramble to select her successor. While the timeline for this process is straightforward,2 the impact on the Brexit process is not. The odds of a “no-deal Brexit” have increased but so has the prospect of parliament passing a soft Brexit prior to any new election or second referendum. The odds of a “no-deal Brexit” have increased. Eleven candidates have declared their entry to the race and the vast majority are “hard Brexiters” willing to sacrifice market access on the continent (Table 2). Prominent contenders such as Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab have stated that they are willing to exit the EU without a deal. Table 2“Hard Brexiters” Dominate The Tory Race GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 Given that the average Tory MP is more Euroskeptic than the average non-conservative voter or Brit, the final two contenders left standing at the end of June are likely to shift to a more aggressive Brexit stance. They will say they are willing to deliver Brexit at all costs and will avoid repeating Theresa May’s mistakes. This means at the very least the rhetoric will be negative for the pound in the coming months. A clear constraint on the U.K. in trying to negotiate a new withdrawal agreement is that the EU has the upper hand. It is the larger economy and less exposed to the ramifications of a no-deal exit (though still exposed). This puts it in a position of relative strength – exemplified by the European Commission’s insistence on keeping the current Withdrawal Agreement. Whoever the new prime minister is, it is unlikely that he or she will be able to negotiate a more palatable deal with the EU. Rather, the new leader will lead a fractured Conservative Party that still lacks a strong majority in parliament. The no-deal option is the default scenario if an agreement is not finalized by the Halloween deadline and no further extension is granted. However, Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow recently stated that the prime minister will be unable to deliver a no-deal Brexit without parliamentary support. This will likely manifest in the form of a bill to block a no-deal Brexit. Alternatively, an attempt to force a no-deal exit could prompt a vote of no confidence in the government, most likely resulting in a general election.3 Chart 5British Euroskeptics Made Gains In EP Election Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator While the Brexit Party amassed the largest number of seats in the European Parliament elections at the expense of the Labour, Conservative, and UKIP parties (Chart 5), the results do not suggest that British voters have generally shifted back toward Brexit. In fact, if we group parties according to their stance, the Bremain camp has a slight lead over the Brexit camp (Chart 6). Thus, it is not remotely apparent that a hard Brexiter can succeed in parliament; that a new election can be forestalled if a no-deal exit is attempted; or that a second referendum will repeat the earlier referendum’s outcome. Chart 6Bremain Camp Still Dominates Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: While the new Tory leader is likely to be more on the hard Brexit end of the spectrum than Theresa May, this does not change the position of either the European Commission or the British MPs and voters on Brexit. The median voter both within parliament and the British electorate remains tilted towards a softer exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on the likes of Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab if they take the helm of the Tory Party. These leaders may ultimately be forced to try to push through something a lot like Theresa May’s plan, or risk a total collapse of their party and control of government. Still, the odds of a no-deal exit – the default option if no agreement is reached by the October 31 deadline – have gone up. In the meantime, the GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. GeoRisk Indicators Update – May 31, 2019 Last month BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy introduced ten indicators to measure geopolitical risk implied by the market. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. A currency or bourse that falls faster than it should fall, as implied by key explanatory variables, indicates increasing geopolitical risk. All ten indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. We will continue to highlight key developments on a monthly basis. This month, our GeoRisk indicators are picking up the following developments: Trade war: Our Korean and Taiwanese risk indicators are currently the best proxies to measure geopolitical risk implications of the U.S.-China trade war, as they are both based on trade data. Both measures, as expected, have increased more than our other indicators over the past month on the back of a sharp spike in tensions between the U.S. and China. Currently, the moves are largely due to depreciation in currencies, as trade is only beginning to feel the impact. We believe that we will see trade decline in the upcoming months. Brexit: While it is still too early to see the full effect of Prime Minister May’s resignation captured in our U.K. indicator, it has increased in recent days. We expect risk to continue to increase as a leadership race is beginning among the Conservatives that will raise the odds of a “no-deal exit” relative to “no exit.” EU elections: The EU elections did not register as a risk on our indicators. In fact, risk decreased slightly in France and Germany during the past few weeks, while it has steadily fallen in Spain and Italy. Moreover, the results of the election were largely in line with expectations – there was not a surprising wave of Euroskepticism. The real risks will emerge as the election results feed back into political risks in certain European countries, namely the U.K., where the hardline Conservatives will be emboldened, and Italy, where the anti-establishment League will also be emboldened. In both countries a new election could drastically increase uncertainty, but even without new elections the respective clashes with Brussels over Brexit and Italian fiscal policy will increase geopolitical risk. Emerging Markets: The largest positive moves in geopolitical risk were in Brazil and Turkey, where our indicators plunged to their lowest levels since late 2017 and early 2018. Brazilian risk has been steadily declining since pension reform – the most important element of Bolsonaro’s reform agenda – cleared an initial hurdle in Congress. While we would expect Bolsonaro to face many more ups and downs in the process of getting his reform bill passed, we have a high conviction view that the decrease in our Turkish risk indicator is unwarranted. This decrease can be attributed to the fact that the lira’s depreciation in recent weeks is slowing, which our model picks up as a decrease in risk. Nonetheless, uncertainty will prevail as a result of deepening political divisions (e.g. the ruling party’s attempt to overturn the Istanbul election), poor governance, ongoing clashes with the West, and an inability to defend the lira while also pursuing populist monetary policy. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy roukayai@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   France: GeoRisk Indicator Image U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Image Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Image Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Image Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Image Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Image Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Image Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Image Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Image Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Image What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Image Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Policy Risk Sustains Oil’s Unstable Equilibrium,” dated May 23, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 The long list of candidates will be whittled down to two by the end of June through a series of votes by Tory MPs. Conservative Party members will then cast their votes via a postal ballot with the final result announced by the end of July, before the Parliament’s summer recess. 3 A vote of no confidence would trigger a 14-day period for someone else to form a government, otherwise it will result in a general election. Geopolitical Calendar

We remain structurally overweight global equities, but hedged our long exposure on May 10th following what we regarded as an overly complacent reaction by investors to President Trump’s decision to further raise tariffs on Chinese imports. Last night’s announcement that the U.S. will increase tariffs on Mexican imports represents a further escalation of the trade war. About two-thirds of U.S.-Mexican cross-border trade is between the same companies. Higher tariffs and increased operating inefficiencies will eat into the profits of U.S.-listed firms. Accordingly, we are reducing the profit target on our short S&P 500 trade from 2711 to 2650.  Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy  peterb@bcaresearch.com

Highlights In the political economy of oil, an awareness of the speed at which policy in systematically important states can change can restrain risk taking and investment. This can keep markets in an agitated state of anticipation, awaiting the next policy shift – or the fallout from earlier decisions – and can separate prices from fundamentals. Crude oil markets are in such an agitated state. Fundamentally, oil markets are tight and likely will get tighter, as backwardations in benchmark forward curves indicate (Chart 1). Oil demand continues to grow, with EM growth offsetting DM declines (Chart 2). Production is being restrained by OPEC 2.0, and could remain so in 2H19. U.S. shale-oil producers appear to be taking capital discipline seriously, and prioritizing shareholder interests, which likely will keep production growth within the limits dictated by free cash flow. Chart of the WeekBackwardations In Brent & WTI: Evidence Of Tight Oil Markets Backwardations In Brent & WTI: Evidence Of Tight Oil Markets Backwardations In Brent & WTI: Evidence Of Tight Oil Markets Chart 2EM Continues To Lead Global Oil Demand Growth EM Continues To Lead Global Oil Demand Growth EM Continues To Lead Global Oil Demand Growth   The combination of these fundamentals will keep supply growth below demand growth this year, which means balances will remain tight (Table 1 below). This will drain inventories and keep forward curves backwardated (Chart 3). Globally, monetary policy will remain largely accommodative. However, policy risks – chiefly Sino – U.S. trade tensions and rising U.S. – Iran tensions – are taking their toll, increasing uncertainty re demand growth, and raising concerns over the security of oil supply from the Persian Gulf, which accounts for ~ 20% of global output. The combination of these policy-risk factors is putting a bid under the USD, which creates a demand headwind by raising the cost of oil ex-U.S.1 This is, in our view, keeping Brent prices below $70/bbl, vs. the $75/bbl we expect this year. Chart 3Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton declared Iran was responsible for naval mines attached to oil tankers off the coast of the UAE earlier this month, which damaged four ships, two of them belonging to Saudi Arabia. Bolton also said the Iranian naval operation was connected to a drone attack on the Saudi East – West pipeline two days later, and an unsuccessful attack on the Saudi Red Sea port of Yanbu.2 Base Metals: Neutral. Global copper markets continue to tighten: Fastmarkets MB’s Asian treatment and refining charges (TC/RC) weekly index dropped to its lowest level since it was launched June 2013 at the end of last week – to $58.30/MT, $0.0583/lb. Lower TC/RC charges reflect lower raw ore supplies available for refining. Global inventories remain low – down 22% y/y at the LME, COMEX, SHFE and Chinese bonded warehouses – and a threatened strike at on of Codelco's Chilean mines could tighten supplies further. We are re-establishing our tactical long July $3.00/lb Comex copper vs. short $3.30/lb Comex copper call spread at tonight’s close, expecting continued tightening in markets. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices appear supported on either side of $1,280/oz, as trade, foreign and monetary policy risks remain elevated. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Heavier-than-expected rains are hampering plantings in the U.S. Midwest, which is driving grain prices higher. Corn, wheat, oats and beans surged Tuesday as markets re-opened from a long holiday weekend in the U.S. Feature Within the context of the political-economy framework we use to frame our analysis of oil markets, foreign policy and trade policy – particularly in the U.S. and China – are dominating fundamentals. Indeed, absent the threat of war in the Persian Gulf between Iran and the U.S., and their respective allies, and an uncertainty surrounding an expanded Sino – U.S. trade war, Brent crude oil would be trading above $75/bbl in 2H19, based on our modeling. As things stand now, we believe markets are under-pricing the risk of war in the Persian Gulf, and are over-estimating the short-term effects of the Sino – U.S. trade war. The longer-term consequences of a deeper and more protracted Sino – U.S. trade war, however, continue to be under-estimated. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Policy Risk Restrains Oil Prices Policy Risk Restrains Oil Prices U.S. – Iran War Risk Is Under-priced We have noted in the past the risk of an escalation in the military confrontation in the Persian Gulf remains acute for global oil markets, most recently in our latest balances report.3 In particular, we believe the risk of this scenario is not fully priced, given market participants’ mark-down of the probability of the price of Brent for December 2019 delivery exceeding $75/bbl and $80/bbl from 39% to 26% and 25% to 16% over the past month in options markets. The probability of Brent for March 2020 delivery exceeding $75/bbl and $80/bbl has similarly been marked down from 38% to 28% and 26% to 19% (Chart 4). Chart 4 An escalation of attacks on soft targets – specifically Saudi and UAE oil shipping and pipeline networks, as occurred earlier this month – likely would provoke a U.S. response against Iran or its proxies, given U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton’s declaration this week re Iran, which we noted above. A direct attack on the U.S. military presence in the Gulf would be met with extreme force, according to U.S. President Donald Trump.4 A shooting war in the Gulf would, once again, raise the odds of a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been threatened in the past by Iran. Some 20% of the world’s oil supply transits the Strait daily.5 A credible attack against shipping in the Strait would send oil prices sharply higher. If Iran were to succeed in blocking transit through the Gulf, an even sharper move in prices – above $150/bbl – could be expected. Markets Too Sanguine Re Sino – U.S. Trade War Commodity markets are not fully pricing the recent escalation of Sino – U.S. trade war, which were dialled up recently when Chinese President Xi Jinping declared China is embarking on a “New Long March” at a domestic political visit.6 The size of the tariffs thus far imposed by the U.S. against China and the EU are trivial in the context of global trade flows of ~ $19.5 trillion this year (Chart 5).7 According to the WTO, the USD value of merchandise trade rose 10% last year to $19.5 trillion, partly on the back of higher energy prices, while the value of services increased to $5.8 trillion, an 8% gain. Against this, U.S. tariffs of 25% on $250 billion worth of goods imported from China remain trivial. U.S. tariffs so far on EU imports by the U.S. are de minimis. Trade concerns do matter, however, in the longer run. Our geopolitical strategists make the odds of a no-deal outcome 50%, vs. a 40% chance of a deal being reached, and a 10% chance trade talks extend beyond the G20 talks scheduled for June. Chart 5 If markets become convinced the current Sino – U.S. trade war will evolve into a larger standoff between the U.S. and China – military or economic – capex and global supply chains will undergo profound changes. Globally, states likely will find themselves in the orbit of one of these powers, which will fundamentally alter investment flows and, ultimately, the profitability of global businesses. A full-blown trade war could become a Cold War, in other words, which would re-order global supply chains.8 Should this occur, an increase in demand for oil, bulks like iron ore, and base metals could ensue, as China ramps its fiscal and monetary stimulus, and the U.S. and others in its sphere of influence bid up commodity prices as they are forced to pay for other higher-cost alternatives for once-cheaper goods and services.9 USD Will Remain A Short-Term Headwind Globally, central banks remain accommodative, which will support aggregate demand domestically. However, the combination of rising U.S. – Iran tensions and the prospect of a widening Sino – U.S. trade war have put a bid under the USD in the short term. Our FX strategists expect the USD will appreciate another 2 – 3% before cresting and heading lower later in the year. In the short term, USD strengthening is a headwind for oil prices. A stronger dollar translates into higher prices in local currencies ex U.S., which reduces demand, all else equal. On the supply side, a stronger dollar lowers local production costs, which stimulates supply ex U.S. at the margin. Together, these militate against higher oil prices. Assuming the USD does weaken later in the year, as our FX strategists expect, oil prices could pick up a slight tailwind. However, policy risk and supply-demand fundamentals will continue to drive oil prices for the balance of the year. Bottom Line: Oil prices are being restrained by policy risk – particularly U.S. and Chinese trade policy and U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf. We believe markets are under-estimating the odds of Brent prices being above $75/bbl for barrels delivering in December 2019, and in March 2020. A resolution of Sino – U.S. trade tensions is less likely than a no-deal outcome (40% vs. 50%), with the odds of trade talks continuing beyond next month’s G20 meeting being very slim (10%). A deepening of the Sino – U.S. trade war will have longer-term consequences for commodity demand – possibly positive in the wake of Chinese fiscal and monetary stimulus.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled“President Trump And The Dollar”, dated May 9, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see “Iranian naval mines likely used in UAE tankers attacks: Bolton,” published by reuters.com on May 29, 2019.  See also BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity”, dated October 25, 2018, and BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report “U.S.-Iran: This Means War?”, dated May 3, 2019, both available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled“Policy Risk Sustains Oil’s Unstable Equilibrium” , dated May 23, 2019, available at cesbcaresearch.com. 4      Please see Trump issues harsh warning to Iran, tweeting it would meet its "official end" if it fights U.S. posted by cbsnews.com on May 20, 2019. 5      Please see BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report titled “U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic”, dated July 19, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6      For an excellent discussion of these developments, please see BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled “Is Trump Ready For The New Long March?”, dated May 24, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. The “New Long March” is a reference to the 8,000-mile retreat of Chinese Communist Party fighters so they could regroup and ultimately prevail in their civil war in 1934-35. In recalling the Long March, “President Xi … told President Trump to ‘bring it on,’ as he apparently believes that a conflict with the U.S. will strengthen his rule,” according to Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist. 7      Please see “Global trade growth loses momentum as trade tensions persist,” published by the WTO April 2, 2019. The World Trade Organization expects the growth in merchandise trade volume to drop from 3% last year to 2.6% in 2019, with a slight improvement next year back to 3% growth. Importantly, the WTO notes this is “dependent on an easing of trade tensions.” 8      The odds of a “hot war” between the U.S. and China also are rising, particularly in the South China Sea, according to Adm. James Stavridis (USN, Retired). Please see Collision course in the South China Sea published by the Nikkei Asian Review May 22, 2019. 9      Please see BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled“Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals” dated May 9, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy stance is slightly accommodative for the U.S., but it is too tight for the rest of the world. Inflation is likely to slow further before making a durable bottom toward year-end. The Fed will remain on an extended pause, maybe all the way through to December 2020. The trade war is not going away, and investors should not be complacent. However, it also guarantees that Chinese policymakers will redouble on their reflationary efforts. As a result, global growth is still set to improve in the second half of 2019. The dollar rally is in its last innings; the greenback will depreciate in the second half of this year. Treasury yields have limited downside and their recent breakdown is likely to be a fake-out. Use any strength in bond prices to further curtail portfolio duration. The correction in stocks is not over. However, the cycle’s highs still lie ahead. Feature Ongoing Sino-U.S. tensions and weakness in global growth are taking their toll. The S&P 500 has broken below its crucial 2,800 level, EM equities are quickly approaching their fourth-quarter 2018 lows, U.S. bond yields have fallen to their lowest readings since 2017, copper has erased all of its 2019 gains and the dollar is attempting to break out. In response, futures markets are now pricing in interest rate cuts by the Fed of 54 bps and 64 bps, over the next 12 and 24 months, respectively. Will the Fed ratify these expectations? Last week’s release of the most recent Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting minutes, as well as comments from FOMC members ranging from Jerome Powell to Richard Clarida, are all adamantly clear: U.S. monetary policy is appropriate, and a rate cut is not on the table for now. However, the avowed data-dependency of the Fed implies that if economic conditions warrant, the FOMC will capitulate and cut rates. Even as U.S. inflation slows, a recession is unlikely. Moreover, the Sino-U.S. trade war will catalyze additional reflationary policy from China, putting a floor under global growth. In this context, the Fed is likely to stay put for an extended period, but will not cut rates. While the S&P 500 is likely to fall toward 2,600, the high for the cycle is still ahead. We therefore maintain our positive cyclical equity view, especially relative to government bonds, but we are hedging tactical risk. Fed Policy Is Neutral For The U.S…. If the fed funds rate was above the neutral rate – the so-called R-star – we would be more inclined to agree with interest rate markets and bet on a lower fed funds rate this year. However, it is not clear that this is the case. Chart I-1Mixed Message From The R-Star Indicator Mixed Message From The R-Star Indicator Mixed Message From The R-Star Indicator Admittedly, the inversion of the 10-year/3-month yield curve is worrisome, but other key variables are not validating this message. Currently, our R-star indicator, based on M1, bank liquidity, consumer credit, and the BCA Fed monitor, is only in neutral territory (Chart I-1). Moreover, we built a model based on the behavior of the dollar, yield curve, S&P homebuilding relative to the broad market and initial UI claims that gauges the probability that the fed funds rate is above R-star. Currently, the model gives a roughly 40% chance that U.S. monetary policy is tight (Chart I-2). Historically, such a reading was consistent with a neutral policy stance.   Chart I-2Today, Fed Policy Is At Neutral Today, Fed Policy Is At Neutral Today, Fed Policy Is At Neutral Models can be deceiving, so it is important to ensure that facts on the ground match their insights. Historically, housing is the sector most sensitive to monetary policy.1 Key forward-looking activity measures are not showing signs of stress: mortgage applications for purchases have jumped to new cyclical highs, and the NAHB homebuilders confidence index has smartly rebounded after weakening last year (Chart I-3). Also, homebuilder stocks have been in a steady uptrend relative to the S&P 500 since last October (Chart I-3, bottom panel). These three developments are not consistent with tight monetary policy. Chart I-3This Would Not Happen If Policy Were Tight This Would Not Happen If Policy Were Tight This Would Not Happen If Policy Were Tight The corporate sector confirms the message from the housing sector. While capex intentions have weakened, they remain at elevated levels, despite slowing profit growth and elevated global uncertainty. Moreover, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that banks have again eased credit standards for commercial and industrial loans. Netting out all these factors, we are inclined to agree with the Fed that monetary policy in the U.S. is broadly neutral. If anything, the rebound in leading indicators of residential activity would argue that policy is even slightly accommodative. … But Not For The Rest Of The World Congress gave the Fed a U.S.-only mandate, but the U.S. dollar is the global reserve currency. Because the dollar is the keystone of the global financial architecture, between US$12 trillion and US$14 trillion of foreign-currency debt is issued in USDs, and the greenback is used as a medium of exchange in roughly US$800 trillion worth of transaction per year.2 Therefore, the Fed may target U.S. monetary conditions, but it sets the cost of money for the entire world. While U.S. monetary conditions may be appropriate for the U.S., they are not entirely appropriate for the world as a whole. Indeed, the green shoots of growth we highlighted two months ago are rapidly turning brown: Korean and Taiwanese exports, which are highly sensitive to the global and Asian business cycles, are still contracting at a brisk pace (Chart I-4, top panel). Japan, an economy whose variance in GDP mostly reflects global gyrations, is weakening. Exports are contracting at a 4.3% yearly pace, machine tool orders are plunging at a 33% annual rate and the coincident indicator is below 100 – a sign of shrinking activity. The semiconductor space is plunging (Chart I-4, second panel). Our EM Asia diffusion index, which tallies 23 variables, is near record lows (Chart I-4, third panel). Europe too is feeling the pain, led by Germany, another economy deeply dependent on global activity. The flash estimate for the euro area manufacturing PMI fell to 47.7 and plunged to 44.3 in Germany, its lowest level since July 2012 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). These developments show that the world economy remains weak, in part because the Chinese economy has yet to meaningfully regain any traction. The rebound in Chinese PMI in March proved short lived; in April, both the NBS and Caixin measures fell back to near the 50 boom/bust line. Since inflation lags real activity and global growth has yet to bottom, it could take some time before inflation finds a floor. A strong dollar is a natural consequence of an outperforming U.S. economy, especially when global growth weakens. Thus, the rally in the Fed’s nominal trade-weighted dollar to its highest level since March 2002 is unsurprising (Chart I-5). A strong Greenback will have implications for inflation, and thus the Fed. Chart I-4Global Growth: No Green Shoots Here Global Growth: No Green Shoots Here Global Growth: No Green Shoots Here Chart I-5A Strong Dollar Is A Natural Consequence Of Weak Growth A Strong Dollar Is A Natural Consequence Of Weak Growth A Strong Dollar Is A Natural Consequence Of Weak Growth   Transitory Inflation Weakness Is Not Over The Fed believes the current inflation slowdown is transitory. We agree. With a tight labor market and rising wages, the question is not if inflation will rise, but when. In the current context, it could take some time. As Chart I-6 shows, inflation has been stable for more than 20 years. From 1996 to today, core PCE has oscillated between 0.9% and 2.6%, while core CPI has hovered between 0.6% and 2.9%, with the peaks and troughs determined by the ebbs and flows of global growth. Since inflation lags real activity and global growth has yet to bottom, it could take some time before inflation finds a floor, likely around 1.3% and 1.5% for core PCE and core CPI, respectively. Chart I-6Stable U.S. Inflation Since 1996 Stable U.S. Inflation Since 1996 Stable U.S. Inflation Since 1996 A few dynamics strengthen this judgment: The strength in the dollar is deflationary (Chart I-7, top panel). Not only does an appreciating greenback depress import prices, it tightens U.S. and global financial conditions. It also undermines dollar-based liquidity, especially if EM central banks try to fight weakness in their own currencies. All these forces harm growth, commodity prices and ultimately, inflation. Chart I-7More Downside Ahead In Inflation For Now More Downside Ahead In Inflation For Now More Downside Ahead In Inflation For Now After adjusting for their disparate variance, the performance of EM stocks relative to EM bonds is an excellent leading indicator of global core inflation (Chart I-7, second panel). This ratio is impacted by EM financial conditions, explaining its forecasting power for prices. Since goods inflation – which disproportionally contributes to overall variations in core CPI – is globally determined, U.S. inflation will suffer as well. U.S. capacity utilization is declining (Chart I-7, third panel). The U.S. just underwent a mini inventory cycle. The 12-month moving averages of the Philadelphia Fed and Empire State surveys’ inventory indexes still stand above their long-term averages. U.S. firms will likely use discounts to entice customers, especially as a strong dollar and weak global growth point to limited foreign outlets for this excess capacity. Finally, the growth in U.S. unit labor costs is slowing sharply, which normally leads inflation lower (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Average hourly earnings may now be growing at a 3.2% annual pace, but productivity rebounded to a 2.4% year-on-year rate in the first quarter, damping the impact of higher salaries on costs. If global growth is weak and U.S. inflation decelerates further, the Fed is unlikely to raise interest rates anytime soon. As the Fed policy remains modestly accommodative and the labor market is at full employment, the balance of probability favors an extended pause over a cut. But keep in mind, next year’s elections may mean this pause could last all the way to December 2020. How Does The Trade War Fit In? An additional irritant has been added to the mix: the growing trade tensions between the U.S. and China. The trade war has resurrected fears of a repeat of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which prompted a wave of retaliatory actions, worsening the massive economic contraction of the Great Depression. There is indeed plenty to worry about. Today, global trade represents 25% of global GDP, compared to 12% in the late 1920s. Global growth would be highly vulnerable to a freeze in world trade. Besides, global supply chains are extremely integrated, with intra-company exports having grown from 7% of global GDP to 16% between 1993 and 2013. If a full-blown trade war were to flare up, much of the capital invested abroad by large multinationals might become uneconomic. As markets price in this probability, stock prices would be dragged down. Chart I-8Trade Uncertainty Alone Will Delay The Recovery Trade Uncertainty Alone Will Delay The Recovery Trade Uncertainty Alone Will Delay The Recovery The fear of a full-fledged trade war is already affecting the global economy. The fall in asset prices to reflect the risk of stranded capital is tightening financial conditions and hurting growth. Moreover, the rise in U.S. and global economic uncertainty is depressing capex intentions (Chart I-8). Since capex intentions are a leading variable for actual capex, global exports and manufacturing activity, the trade war is deepening and lengthening the current soft patch. Markets need to be wary of pricing in a quick end to the Sino-U.S. trade conflict. Table I-1 presents BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken’s odds of various outcomes to the trade negotiations and their implications for stocks. Matt assigns only a 5% probability to a grand compromise between the U.S. and China on trade and tech. He also foresees a 35% chance that a deal on trade excluding an agreement on tech will be reached this year. This leaves 10% odds that the two sides agree to extend the negotiation deadline beyond June, 20% odds of no deal at all and a minor escalation, and 30% odds of a major escalation. In other words, BCA is currently assigning 60% odds of a market-unfriendly outcome, and only a 40% chance of a genuinely market-friendly one.3 Chart I- Chart I-9 Why the gloom? The U.S. and China are geopolitical rivals in a deadlock. Moreover, both parties are feeling increasingly emboldened to play hardball. On the U.S. side, President Donald Trump has threatened to expand his tariffs to all of China’s exports to the U.S., which would represent a major escalation in both the conflict and its cost (Chart I-9). However, despite the scale of the threat, even if it were fully borne by U.S. households, its impact should be kept in perspective. Imports of consumer goods from China only represent 2% of total household spending (Chart I-10, top panel). Moreover, households are not currently overly concerned with inflation, as goods prices are already muted (Chart I-10, middle panel) and family income is still growing (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Finally, a weak deal could easily be decried as a failure in the 2020 election. On the Chinese side, the 9.5% fall in the yuan is already absorbing some of the costs of the tariffs, and the RMB will depreciate further if the trade war escalates. Additionally, Chinese exports to the U.S. represent 3.4% of GDP, while household and capital spending equals 81% of output. China can support its domestic economy via fiscal and credit policy, greatly mitigating the blow from the trade war. The outlook for Chinese reflationary efforts is therefore paramount. In sharp contrast to its limited upside, the dollar’s downside will be much more significant once global growth improves. Not only do Chinese policymakers have the room to stimulate, they also have the will. In the first four months of 2019, Chinese total social financing flows have amounted to CNY 9.6 trillion, which compares favorably to the same period during the 2016 reflation campaign. Yet, the economy has not fully responded to the injection of credit and previously implemented tax cuts amounting to CNY 1.3 trillion or 1.4% of GDP. Consequently, GDP per capita is now lagging well behind the required path to hit the government’s 2020 development targets (Chart I-11). Moreover, Chinese policymakers’ recent comments have increasingly emphasized protecting employment. This combination raises the likelihood of additional stimulus in the months ahead. Chart I-10...But Do Not Overstate Trump's Constraints ...But Do Not Overstate Trump's Constraints ...But Do Not Overstate Trump's Constraints Chart I-11Chinese Stimulus: Scope And Willingness Chinese Stimulus: Scope And Willingness Chinese Stimulus: Scope And Willingness   Therein lies the paradox of the trade war. While its immediate effect on world growth is negative, it also increases the chance that Chinese authorities pull all the levers to support domestic growth. A greater reflationary push would thus address the strongest headwind shaking the global economy. It could take two to six more months before the Chinese economy fully responds and lifts global growth. Ultimately, it will. Hence, even as the trade war continues, we remain skeptical that the Fed will cut interest rates as the market is discounting. We are therefore sticking to our call that the Fed will not cut rates over the next 12 months and will instead stay on an extended pause. Investment Conclusions The Dollar So long as global growth remains soft, the dollar is likely to rally further. That being said, the pace of the decline in global growth is decelerating. As a corollary, the fastest pace of appreciation for the greenback is behind us (see Chart I-5 on page 6). The risk to this view is that the previous strength in the dollar has already unleashed a vicious cycle whereby global financial conditions have tightened enough to cause another precipitous fall in world growth. The dollar’s strong sensitivity to momentum would then kick in, fomenting additional dollar strength in response to the greater growth slowdown. In this environment, the Fed would have no choice but to cut interest rates. However, growing reflationary efforts around the world currently confine this scenario to being a risk, not a central case. Additional factors also limit how far the dollar can rally. Speculators have already aggressively bought the greenback (Chart I-12). The implication is that buyers have moved in to take advantage of the dollar-friendly fundamentals. When looking at the euro, which can be thought of as the anti-dollar, investors are imputing a large discount in euro area stocks relative to U.S. ones, pointing to elevated pessimism on non-U.S. growth (Chart I-13). It would therefore require a much graver outcome in global growth to cause investors to further downgrade the outlook for the rest of the world relative to the U.S. and bring in new buyers of greenbacks. Chart I-12USD: Supportive Fundamentals Are Already Reflected USD: Supportive Fundamentals Are Already Reflected USD: Supportive Fundamentals Are Already Reflected Chart I-13Plenty Of Pessimism In European Assets... Plenty Of Pessimism In European Assets... Plenty Of Pessimism In European Assets...   In sharp contrast to its limited upside, the dollar’s downside will be much more significant once global growth improves. The same factors that are currently putting the brakes on the dollar’s rise will fuel its eventual downturn. As global growth bounces, a liquidation of stale long-dollar bets will ensue. European growth will also rebound (Chart I-14), and euro pessimism will turn into positive surprises. European assets will be bought, and the euro will rise, deepening the dollar’s demise. We are closely following the Chinese and global manufacturing PMIs to gauge when global growth exits its funk. At this point, it will be time to sell the USD. Government Bonds Bonds are caught between strong crosscurrents. On the one hand, rising economic uncertainty caused by the trade war, slowing global economic activity and decelerating inflation are all bond-bullish. On the other hand, bond prices already reflect these tailwinds. The OIS curve is baking in 54 basis points of Fed cuts over the next 12 months, as well as a further 10 basis points over the following 12 months (Chart I-15, top panel). Meanwhile, term premia across many major bond markets are very negative (Chart I-15, middle panel). Finally, fixed-income investors have pushed their portfolio duration to extremely high levels relative to their benchmark (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Chart I-14...Creates Scope For Positive Surprises ...Creates Scope For Positive Surprises ...Creates Scope For Positive Surprises Chart I-15Fade The Treasury Rally Fade The Treasury Rally Fade The Treasury Rally   Last week, Treasury yields broke down below 2.34%. For this technical break to trigger a new down-leg in yields, investors must curtail their already-depressed expectations of the fed funds rate in 12-months’ time. However, the fed funds rate is not yet restrictive, and global growth should soon find a floor in response to expanding Chinese stimulus. Under these circumstances, the Fed is unlikely to cut rates, and will continue to telegraph its intentions not to do so. Hence, unless the S&P 500 or the ISM manufacturing fall below 2,500 and 50, respectively, any move lower in yields is likely to be transitory and shallow. Cyclically, yields should instead move higher. Our Global Fixed Income Strategy service’s duration indicator has already turned the corner (Chart I-16). Moreover, in the post-war period, Treasury yields have, on average, bottomed a year before inflation. Expecting an inflation trough in late 2019 or even early 2020 is therefore consistent with higher yields by year-end. Finally, when the Fed does not cut interest rates as much as the markets had been anticipating 12-months’ prior, Treasurys underperform cash. This is exactly BCA’s current Fed forecast. Chart I-16Global Yields Now Have More Upside Than Downside Global Yields Now Have More Upside Than Downside Global Yields Now Have More Upside Than Downside While we expect the bond-bearish forces to emerge victorious, yields may only rise slowly. The list of aforementioned supports for Treasury prices is long, the equity market will remain volatile and has yet to trough, and the trade war is likely to linger. We continue to closely monitor the AUD, the SEK versus the EUR, and copper to gauge if our view is wrong. These three markets are tightly linked to Chinese growth. If China’s stimulus is working, these three variables will rebound, and our bond view will be validated. If these three variables fall much further, U.S. yields could experience significantly more downside. Equities Equities are at a difficult juncture. The trade war is a bigger problem for Wall Street than for Main Street, as 43.6% sales of the S&P 500’s are sourced abroad. Moreover, the main mechanism through which trade tensions impact the stock market is through the threat that capital will be stranded – and thus worthless. This is a direct hit to the S&P 500, especially as global growth has yet to clearly stabilize and the Chinese are only beginning to make clearer retaliatory threats. Oil could also hurt stocks. Energy prices have proven resilient, despite weaker global economic activity. OPEC and Russia have been laser-focused on curtailing global crude inventories; even after the U.S. declined to extend waivers on Iranian exports, the swing oil producers have not meaningfully increased supply. Problems in Venezuela, Libya, and potential Iranian adventurism in Iraq could easily send oil prices sharply higher, especially as the U.S. does not have the export capacity to fulfill foreign demand. Thus, the oil market could suddenly tighten and create a large drag on global growth. This backdrop also warrants remaining overweight the energy sector. Stocks remain technically vulnerable. Global and U.S. stock market breadth has deteriorated significantly, as shown by the number of countries and stocks above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-17). Moreover, since March, the strength in the S&P 500 has been very narrow, as shown by the very poor performance of the Value Line Geometric Average Index (Chart I-18). Meanwhile, the poor relative performance of small-cap stocks in an environment where the dollar is strong, where U.S. growth is holding steady compared to the rest of the world and where multinationals have the most to lose from a trade war, is perplexing. Chart I-17Stocks Remain Technically Fragile Stocks Remain Technically Fragile Stocks Remain Technically Fragile Chart I-18Dangerous Internal Dynamics Dangerous Internal Dynamics Dangerous Internal Dynamics   The U.S. stock market has the most downside potential in the weeks ahead. Like last summer, U.S. equity prices remain near record highs while EM and European stocks, many commodities and bond yields have been very weak. Moreover, the broad tech sector, the U.S.’s largest overweight, has defied gravity, despite weakness in the semiconductor sector, the entire industry’s large exposure to foreign markets, and the consequential slowdown in our U.S. Equity Strategy service's EPS model (Chart I-19).4 Thus, any bad news on the trade front or any additional strength in the dollar could prove especially painful for tech. This would handicap U.S. equities more than their already beaten-up foreign counterparts. Chart I-19The Tech Sector Profit Outlook Remains Poor The Tech Sector Profit Outlook Remains Poor The Tech Sector Profit Outlook Remains Poor These forces mean that the global equity correction will last longer, and that U.S. equities could suffer more than other DM markets. However, we do not see the S&P falling much beyond the 2,700 to 2,600 zone. Again, the fed funds rate is slightly accommodative and a U.S. recession – a prerequisite for a bear market (Chart I-20) – is unlikely over the coming 12 months. Moreover, global growth should soon recover, especially if China’s reflationary push gathers force. Additionally, an end to the dollar’s rally would create another welcomed relief valve for stocks. Chart I-20The Absence Of A Recession Means This Is A Correction, Not A Bear Market The Absence Of A Recession Means This Is A Correction, Not A Bear Market The Absence Of A Recession Means This Is A Correction, Not A Bear Market In this context, we recommend investors keep a cyclical overweight stance on stocks. Balanced portfolios should also overweight stocks relative to government bonds. However, the near-term risks highlighted above remain significant. Consequently, we also recommend investors hedge tactical equity risks, a position implemented by BCA’s Global Investment Strategy service three weeks ago.5 As a corollary, if stocks correct sharply, the associated rise in implied volatility will also cause a violent but short-lived pick up in credit spreads. In Section II, we look beyond the short-term gyrations. One of BCA’s long-term views is that inflation is slowly embarking on a structural uptrend. An environment of rising long-term inflation is unfamiliar to the vast majority of investors. In this piece, Juan-Manuel Correa, of our Global Asset Allocation team, shows which assets offer the best inflation protection under various states of rising consumer and producer prices. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 30, 2019 Next Report: June 27, 2019 II. Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises U.S. inflation is on a structural uptrend. Monetary and fiscal policy, populism, and demographics will tend to push inflation higher over the coming decade. How can investors protect portfolios against inflation risk? We look at periods of rising inflation to determine which assets were the best inflation hedge. We find that the level of inflation is very important in determining which assets work best. When inflation is rising and high, or very high, the best inflation hedges at the asset class level are commodities and U.S. TIPS. When inflation is very high, gold is the best commodity to hold and defensive sectors will minimize losses in an equity portfolio. However, hedges have a cost. Allocating a large percentage of a portfolio to inflation hedges will be a drag on returns. Investors should opt for a low allocation to hedges now, and increase to a medium level when inflation rises further. Some 38 years have passed since the last time the U.S. suffered from double-digit inflation. The Federal Reserve reform of 1979, championed by Paul Volcker, changed the way the Fed approached monetary policy by putting a focus on controlling money growth.1 The reform gave way to almost four decades of relatively controlled inflation, which persists today. But times are changing. While most of today’s investors have never experienced anything other than periods of tame inflation, BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.2 The main reasons behind this view are the following: 1. A rethink in the monetary policy framework: At its most recent meeting, the FOMC openly discussed the idea of a price-level target, implying that it would be open to the economy running hot to compensate for the past 10 years of below-target inflation (Chart II-1.1A, top panel). Chart II-1.1AStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Chart II-1.1BStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I)   2. Procyclical fiscal policy: The U.S. is conducting expansionary fiscal policy while the economy is at near-full employment (Chart II-1.1A, middle panel). The last time this happened in the U.S., during the 1960s, high inflation followed, as the fiscal boost made the economy run substantially above capacity. 3. Waning Fed independence: President Trump has openly questioned the hiking campaign undertaken by the Fed. Moreover, he has tried to nominate Fed governors with dovish tendencies. Historically around the world, a lack of central bank independence has often led to higher inflation rates (Chart II-1.1A, bottom panel). 4. Peak in globalization: Globalization accelerated significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, flooding the global economy with cheap labor (Chart II-1.1B, top panel). However, we believe that globalization has peaked. Instead, populism and protectionism will be the dominant paradigms for years to come, reducing the cheap pool of workers and goods previously available. 5. Demographics: The population in the U.S. is set to age in coming years (Chart II-1.1B, middle panel). As the percentage of U.S. retirees increases, the number of spenders relative to savers will begin to rise (Chart II-1.1B, bottom panel). Higher spending and lower savings in the economy should create upward pressure on inflation. If our view is correct, how should investors allocate their money? We attempt to answer this question by evaluating the performance of five major asset classes during periods when inflation was rising. Furthermore, we look into sub-asset class performance to determine how investors should position themselves within each asset class to take advantage of an inflationary environment. In our asset-class analysis, we use a data sample starting in 1973 and we limit ourselves to five publicly traded assets that have adequate history: global equities, U.S. Treasuries, U.S. real estate (REITs), U.S. inflation-linked bonds,3 and commodities. We compare asset classes according to their Sharpe ratios: average annualized excess returns divided by annualized volatilities.4  BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade. In our sub-asset class analysis, we analyze global equity sectors, international vs U.S. equities, and individual commodities. In some of the sections in our sub-asset class analysis, our sample is slightly reduced due to lack of historical data. Moreover, since in some instances all sectors have negative returns, we compare sub-asset classes according to their excess returns only. We base our analysis on the U.S. Consumer Price Index, given that most of the assets in our sample are U.S. based. We opt for this measure because it tends to track the living expenses for most U.S. citizens and it is the preferred measure to index defined-benefit payments. Finally, we decompose the periods of rising inflation into four quartiles in order to examine whether the level of inflation has any impact on the performance of each asset. Chart II-1.2 and Table II-1.1 show the different ranges we use for our analysis as well as a description of the typical economic and monetary policy environments in each of them. Chart II-1 Chart II- Summary Of Results Table II-1.2 shows the summary of our results. For a detailed explanation on how each asset class and sub-asset class behaves as inflation rises, please see the Asset Class section and the Sub-Asset Class section below. Chart II- Which assets perform best when inflation is rising? Rising inflation affects assets very differently, and is especially dependent on how high inflation is. Global equities performed positively when inflation was rising and low or mild, but they were one of the worst-performing assets when inflation was rising and high or very high. Importantly, equities underperformed U.S. Treasuries in periods of both high and very high inflation. Commodities and U.S. TIPS were the best performers when inflation was high or very high. U.S. REITs were not a good inflation hedge. Which global equity sectors perform best when inflation is rising? Energy and materials outperformed when inflation was high. Every single sector had negative excess returns when inflation was very high, but defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications5 minimized losses. Which commodities perform best when inflation is rising? With the exception of energy, most commodities had subpar excess returns when inflation was in the first two quartiles. Industrial metals outperformed when inflation was high. Gold and silver outperformed when inflation was very high. Additionally, gold had consistent returns and low volatility. Chart II-1 What is the cost of inflation hedging? To answer this question, we construct four portfolios with different levels of inflation hedging: 1. Benchmark (no inflation hedging): 60% equities/40% bonds. 2. Low Inflation Hedging: 50% equities/40% bonds/5% TIPS/5% commodities 3. Medium Inflation Hedging: 40% equities/30% bonds/15% TIPS/15 % commodities 4. Pure Inflation Hedging: 50% TIPS/50% commodities. While increased inflation hedging provides better performance when inflation is high and rising, these hedges are costly to hold when inflation is at lower ranges or when it is falling (Chart II-1.3, panels 1 & 2). However, adding moderate inflation hedging (low or medium) to a portfolio achieved the right balance between cost and protection, and ultimately improved risk-adjusted returns over the whole sample (Chart II-1.3, panel 3). What about absolute returns? The benchmark outperformed over the whole sample. However, the low and medium inflation hedging did not lag far behind, while avoiding the big drawdowns of high inflation periods (Chart II-1.3, panel 4). Investment Implications High inflation may return to the U.S. over the next decade. Therefore, inflation hedging should be a key consideration when constructing a portfolio. Based on our results, our recommendations are the following: 1. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. 2.  However, these hedges are costly to hold as they will create a drag on returns in periods when inflation is not high or very high. Therefore, a low allocation to inflation hedges is warranted now. 3.   Inflation will probably start to pick up in the 2020s. A medium allocation to inflation hedges will then be appropriate. 4.   When inflation is high (3.3%-4.9%), investors should overweight energy and materials in their equity portfolios. Likewise, they should overweight industrial metals and energy within a commodity portfolio. 5.   When inflation is very high (4.9% or more), investors should overweight defensive sectors in their equity portfolio to minimize losses. Moreover, investors should overweight gold within a commodity portfolio. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. Asset Classes Global Equities Chart II-2 The relationship between equity returns and rising inflation depends on how high inflation is, with outstanding performance when inflation is rising but low or mild, and poor performance as it gets higher (Chart II-2.1, top panel). This relationship can be explained by the interaction between interest rates, inflation, earnings, and valuations: Earnings growth was usually slightly negative when inflation was recovering from low levels. However, given that interest rates were very low in this environment and growth expectations were high, multiple expansion boosted equity returns (Chart II-2.1, bottom panel). When inflation was mild, the Fed typically started to raise rates, resulting in a declining multiple. However, equities had the best performance in this range thanks to very high earnings growth – a result of the economy growing strongly due to a healthy level of inflation. When inflation climbed into the high or very high range, earnings growth was usually positive but beginning to slow, as high inflation weighed on growth. Meanwhile the multiple started to decline rapidly due to rising interest rates and declining growth expectations. With the exception of the mild inflation range, the return profile of equities during inflationary periods was similar to its normal profile: negative skew and excess kurtosis (Table II-2.1). However, the consistency of returns decreased at higher levels of inflation, with only 45% of months with positive returns when inflation was rising and in its highest quartile. Chart II- U.S. Treasuries Chart II-2 U.S. Treasuries reacted in a similar fashion to equities when inflation was rising (Chart II-2.2). However, while Treasuries underperformed equities when inflation was low or mild, they actually outperformed equities when inflation was high or very high. This was in part due to the fact that at higher inflation ranges, U.S. Treasuries offer a higher coupon return when rates are high, at least partially counteracting losses from falling prices. The steady stream of cash flows from the coupons helped Treasuries achieve positive returns roughly two-thirds of the time at the highest levels of inflation (Table II-2.2). However, this consistency in returns came at a cost: very high inflation resulted in negative skew and high excess kurtosis. Therefore, while Treasuries provided frequent positive returns when inflation was very high, they were prone to violent selloffs. Chart II- U.S. REITs Chart II-2 While REITs had high risk-adjusted returns when inflation was rising but mild, much like equities they had subpar performance in every other quartile and particularly poor performance when inflation was high or very high (Chart II-2.3). These results confirm our previous research showing that REITs performance is very similar to that of equities.6 The return consistency for REITs was generally poor in inflationary periods, with the second-lowest percentage of positive return of any asset class (Table II-2.3). Moreover, REIT returns had excess kurtosis and negative skew throughout all inflation quartiles. Chart II- Commodity Futures Chart II-2 Commodities performed positively in every quartile, and did particularly well when inflation was mild (Chart II-2.4, top panel). However, total return and price return were very different due to the behavior of the roll and collateral return: Total risk-adjusted returns were lower than spot risk-adjusted returns when inflation was low and rising. This happened because during these periods, commodity supply was high relative to demand, as the economy was recovering from a deflationary shock. Thus, there was an incentive for producers to conserve inventories, making the futures curve upward-sloping (contango). Thus, roll return was negative (Chart II-2.4, bottom panel). When inflation was in the upper two quartiles, total risk-adjusted returns were much higher than risk-adjusted spot returns. This was because high inflation was the product of supply shocks. These supply shocks resulted in a downward-sloping futures curve (backwardation), which, in turn, resulted in a positive roll return. Additionally, high rates during these regimes contributed to a high collateral return. Commodities provided good return consistency during inflationary periods, with roughly 60% of positive return months in the upper two inflation quartiles (Table II-2.4). The skew of returns was neutral or positive in the top two quartiles. This means that although volatility was high for commodities, extreme return movements were normally positive. Chart II- U.S. Inflation-Protected Bonds Chart II-2 While inflation-protected bonds provided meager returns when inflation was rising but in the mild range, they provided excellent performance at the highest levels of inflation (Chart II-2.5). Moreover, this high Sharpe ratio was not just simply the result of low volatility, since U.S. TIPS had excess returns of 4.6% when inflation was high and 5.7% when inflation was very high.7 The return profile of inflation-protected bonds during inflationary periods was also attractive in our testing period. Average skew was positive, while kurtosis was relatively low (Table II-2.5). The percentage of positive months across all quartiles was also the highest of all asset classes, with a particularly high share of positive returns in the periods of highest inflation. Chart II- Sub-Asset Classes Global Equity Sectors Chart II-3 For the sector analysis, we looked at information technology, financials, energy, materials, utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications. We excluded industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples given that they do not have adequate back data. Once again, we separate rising inflation periods into four quartiles, arriving at the following results: When inflation was low, information technology had the best excess returns while utilities had the worst (Chart II-3.1, panel 1). This matches our observations at the asset class level, as IT is highly responsive to changes in the valuation multiple. When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance, followed by information technology (Chart II-3.1, panel 2). Meanwhile, financials had the worst performance, as rates were normally rising in these periods. When inflation was high, sectors highly correlated with commodity prices such as energy and materials outperformed. Meanwhile, IT was the worst performer (Chart II-3.1, panel 3). When inflation was very high, every sector had negative excess returns. Overall, investing in energy minimized losses (Chart II-3.1, panel 4). However, this performance was in part attributable to the oil spikes of the 1970s. Alternatively, defensive sectors such as utilities, telecommunications, and healthcare also minimized losses. International vs U.S. Equities Chart II-3 How do equities outside of the U.S. behave when inflation is rising? While the high share of U.S. equities in the global index causes U.S. equities to be the main driver of global stock prices, is it possible to improve returns in inflationary environments by overweighting international equities? The answer once again depends on the level of inflation. When inflation was rising but low, U.S. stocks outperformed global ex-U.S. equities in both common currency and local currency terms (Chart II-3.2, panel 1). This was in part due to the inherent tech bias in U.S. stocks. Additionally, the low level of inflation was often accompanied by slowing global growth in our sample, helping the U.S. dollar. When inflation was mild, U.S. stocks once again outperformed international stocks in both local and common currency terms, though to a lesser degree (Chart II-3.2, panel 2). The dollar was roughly flat in this environment. U.S. stocks started to have negative excess returns when inflation was high (Chart II-3.2, panel 3). On the other hand international equities had positive excess returns in dollar terms, partly because of their energy and material bias and partly because the dollar was generally weak in this period. U.S. equities outperformed global ex-U.S. equities by a small margin when inflation was very high, given that defensive sectors such as telecommunication were over-represented in the U.S. index (Chart II-3.2, panel 4). The dollar was roughly flat in this period. Individual Commodities Chart II-3 Our analysis above confirmed that commodities were one of the best assets to hold when inflation was rising. However, which commodity performed best?8 Total return for every commodity was lower than spot return when inflation was low (Chart II-3.3, panel 1). This was due to the upward-sloping term structure of the futures curve (contango), resulting in a negative roll yield. In this range, energy had the best performance, followed by industrial metals. Precious metals had negative excess returns. When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance of any commodity by far (Chart II-3.3, panel 2). Precious and industrial metals had low but positive excess returns in this period. When inflation was high, industrial metals had the highest excess returns, followed by energy (Chart II-3.3, panel 3). We omit energy for the last quartile since there is not enough data available. Overall, when inflation was very high, both gold and silver had the highest excess returns (Chart II-3.3, panel 4). However, gold’s return volatility was much lower, while it also had positive returns 64% of the time compared to 52% for silver. Other Assets U.S. Direct Real Estate Our asset-class analysis confirmed that public real estate (REITs) as an asset class offered poor risk-adjusted returns during inflationary periods. But how did direct real estate perform? We analyzed direct real estate separately from all other assets because of a couple of issues: Our return dataset is available only on a quarterly basis, versus a monthly basis for the rest of the assets in our sample. Even when annualized, volatility is not directly comparable when using data with different frequencies. The NCREIF Real Estate Index that we used is a broad aggregate, which is not investable. Individual property prices might differ from this aggregate. Finally, real estate returns are measured on an appraisal basis. Appraisal-based indices are not reflective of real transactions. Moreover, prices tend to be sticky. To attenuate this issue we unsmoothed the capital returns by removing return autocorrelation. Overall, the Sharpe ratio of direct real estate was solid throughout the first three quartiles of rising inflation (Chart II-4.1, top panel). There is not enough data available for the fourth quartile. However, judging by the performance of U.S. housing in the 1970s from OECD, risk-adjusted returns when inflation was very high was likely positive (Chart II-4.1, bottom panel). Chart II-4 Chart II-4   Cash Cash (investing in a 3-month U.S. Treasury bill) outperformed inflation over our sample (Chart II-4.2, top panel). Moreover, cash provided positive real returns when inflation was mild, or high, or when it was decreasing (Chart II-4.2, bottom panel). However, cash was not a good inflation hedge at the highest inflation quartile, with an average annualized real loss of almost 2%. Juan Manuel Correa Ossa Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we argued that the S&P 500 would most likely enter a period of digestion after its furious gains from December to April. This corrective episode is now upon us as the S&P 500 is breaking below the crucial 2,800 level. Moreover, our short-term technical indicators are deteriorating, as the number of stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages have rolled over after hitting elevated levels, but have yet to hit levels consistent with a durable trough. This vulnerability is especially worrisome in a context where pressure will continue to build, as Beijing is only beginning to retaliate to the U.S.’s trade belligerence. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) is not flashing a buy signal either. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. It will require either cheaper valuations, a pick-up in global growth or further policy easing before stocks can resume their ascent. On the plus side, 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. The current readings in major advanced economies thus suggest that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Hence, stock weaknesses are likely to prompt buy-the-dip behaviors by investors. Therefore, the expected downdraft will remain a correction and stocks have more cyclical upside. Our Monetary Indicator remains in stimulative territory, supporting our cyclical constructive equity view. The Fed is firmly on hold and global central banks have been opening the monetary spigots, thus monetary conditions should stay supportive. 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 of our Monetary Indicator, especially as our Composite Technical Indicator has moved back 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 slightly expensive. Moreover, our technical indicator flags a similar picture. However, duration surveys show that investors have very elevated portfolio duration, and both the term premium and Fed expectations are very depressed. Taking this positioning into account, BCA’s economic view is consistent with limited yield downside in the short-run, and higher yields on a 6 to 12 month basis. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar is only getting ever more expensive. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator is not only in overbought territory, it is also starting to diverge from prices. Normally, this technical action points to a possible trend reversal, especially when valuations are so demanding. However, this downside will only materialize once global growth shows greater signs of strength. 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       Edward E. Leamer, "Housing is the business cycle," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 149-233, 2007. 2       This includes both real and financial transactions. 3       Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “How Trump Became A War President,” dated May 17, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Stay Cyclically Overweight Global Equities, But Hedge Near-Term Downside Risks From An Escalation Of A Trade War,” dated May 10, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Trader's Paradise,” dated January 28, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 6       Please see Carl E. Walsh, “October 6, 1979,” FRSBF Economic Letter, 2004:35, (December 3, 2004). 7       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 1), ” dated August 10, 2018, and “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8       We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. 9       Excess returns are defined as asset return relative to a 3-month Treasury bill. 10       Sector classification does not take into account GICS changes prior to December 2018.  11       Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "REITS Vs Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 12       It is important to note that the synthetic TIPS series does not completely match actual TIPS series for the periods where they overlap. Specifically, volatility is significantly higher in the synthetic series. Thus, results should be taken as approximations. 13       We decompose the returns into the same 4 quartiles to answer this question. However, due to lower data availability, we start our sample in 1978 instead of 1973. Moreover, our sample for energy is smaller beginning in 1983. This mainly reduces the amount of data available at the upper quartile. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Falling Yields: There have been three main drivers of the latest decline in global bond yields: slower global growth, softer inflation expectations and increased safe-haven demand for bonds given the intensifying U.S.-China trade conflict. The first two are more than fully discounted in current yield levels, but the latter is likely to persist in the near-term with no resolution of the trade conflict in sight. Model Portfolio Adjustments: We are tactically reducing the sizes of the overall strategic tilts in our model bond portfolio – below-benchmark duration exposure and overweight global corporates vs. governments. There is a growing risk of deeper selloffs in global equity and credit markets if the June G-20 meeting produces no positive signals on ending the trade dispute. We do not yet see a case to position more defensively on a medium-term horizon, however, given the pickup in “early” global leading economic indicators. Feature Chart of the WeekYields Discount A Lot Of Bad News Yields Discount A Lot Of Bad News Yields Discount A Lot Of Bad News The investment backdrop at the moment – slowing global growth momentum, softening inflation expectations, an increasingly prolonged U.S.-China trade dispute with no immediate sign of resolution, and a strengthening U.S. dollar– is fairly bond bullish. Unsurprisingly, government bond yields in the developed markets have fallen to levels more consistent with a less certain macro environment. At one point last week, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield dipped as low as 2.30%, while the 10-year German Bund fell deeper into negative territory at -0.13%. There are now expectations of easier monetary policy discounted in yield curves of several countries, most notably the U.S. where markets are priced for 50bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year – despite no indication from the Fed that cuts are coming anytime soon. From a valuation perspective, bond yields are starting to look a bit stretched to the downside (Chart of the Week). The term premium component of yields has fallen to near post-crisis lows in the majority of countries, while the U.S. dollar has surged despite lower U.S. interest rate expectations – both indications of investors driving up the value of traditional safe-havens at a time of uncertainty. Looking purely at the growth side of the equation, the downward momentum in bond yields should start to fade with the global leading economic indicator now in the process of bottoming out. That does not mean, however, that yields could not fall further in the near-term if the trade headlines get worse and risk assets sell off more meaningfully – an outcome that grows increasingly likely as the two sides in the trade war seem to be digging in for a longer battle. The State Of The World Since The “TTT” Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy now believe that there is only a 40% chance of a U.S.-China trade deal by the end of June. This could trigger a deeper selloff in global equity and credit markets if investors begin to price in a larger and more prolonged hit to economic growth and corporate profits from the U.S. tariffs. This would trigger even greater safe-haven flows into government bonds, pushing yields lower through a more negative term premium. The much lower level of U.S. Treasury yields has helped limit the hit to risk asset prices from the elevated uncertainty over global trade. Since the “Trump Tariff Tweet” (TTT) of May 5, when the new round of tariffs on U.S. imports from China was announced which sparked the new leg of the trade war, the fall in benchmark 10-year government bond yields across the developed world can be fully explained by the fall in the term premium (Table 1). For example, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has fallen -14bps since the TTT, while our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year Treasury as decreased by -20bps. Over the same time period, 10-year U.S. inflation expectations have also fallen -11bps, but the market has only priced in an additional -5bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year according to our Fed Discounter. Table 1Decomposing 10-Year Government Bond Yield Changes Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields The big difference between last December and today is the much lower level of U.S. Treasury yields. Lower yields have helped mute the hit to risk asset prices from the elevated uncertainty over global trade since the TTT (Chart 2). The Fed’s more dovish pivot in the early months of 2019 has helped push Treasury yields lower as investors have moved from pricing in rate hikes to discounting rate cuts. Even traditional “risk-off” measures like the VIX, U.S. TED spreads, the price of gold and the Japanese yen have only risen modestly since the TTT compared to the big moves seen back in December when investors feared that the Fed would tighten right into a U.S. recession (Chart 3). Chart 2Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Chart 3Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Easier monetary policy, if delivered, can help underwrite a rebound in equity and credit markets. When looking across the array of financial market returns since the TTT (Table 2), the only developed economies that have seen equities appreciate are Australia and New Zealand – countries where rate cuts are being signaled by policymakers (or already delivered, in the case of New Zealand). Table 2Asset Returns By Country Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields In the case of the U.S., however, numerous Fed officials have stated recently that no changes to U.S. monetary policy are likely without decisive evidence that the new round of China tariffs and trade uncertainty was having a major negative impact on U.S. growth. On that front, forward-looking measures of U.S. economic activity, like the Conference Board leading economic indicator or our models for U.S. employment and capital spending, are not pointing to an imminent sharp slowing of U.S. growth (Chart 4). At the same time, leading indicators like our global LEI diffusion index and the China credit impulse are both signaling that global growth momentum may soon start surprising to the upside (Chart 5). Chart 4No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators Chart 5Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth If the Fed does not see a case to deliver the rate cuts that are now discounted, or even to just signal to the markets that easier policy is coming soon, then there is a greater chance of a deeper pullback in U.S. equity and credit markets from any new negative news on trade. This suggests that the risk-aversion bid for U.S. Treasuries will result in an even more deeply negative U.S. term premium and lower bond yields. Easier monetary policy, if delivered, can help underwrite a rebound in equity and credit markets. Already, we are seeing such increasingly negative correlations between returns on equities and government bonds across the major developed markets. In Charts 6 & 7, we show the rolling 52-week correlation between local government bond and equity returns for the U.S., euro area, Japan, U.K., Canada and Australia. For each country, we also plot that correlation versus our estimate of the term premium on 10-year government bond yields. Chart 6Safe Haven Demand For Bonds ... Safe Haven Demand For Bonds... Safe Haven Demand For Bonds... Chart 7... Helping Drive Down Term Premia ...Helping Drive Down Term Premia ...Helping Drive Down Term Premia It is clear that there is a significant “risk-aversion bid” for government bonds right now, given the increasingly negative stock/bond correlations and falling term premia. One possible interpretation is that falling bond yields are being driven more by fears of a risk-off selloff in global equity and credit markets rather than rational pricing of future monetary policy or inflation expectations because of slowing growth. Interestingly, Australia – where the central bank has been signaling that rate cuts are imminent – is the only exception in this list of countries where the stock/bond correlation is not negative. There, the deeply negative term premium is more about weakening growth and low inflation expectations, which is forcing a dovish response from the Reserve Bank of Australia, rather than a risk aversion bid for safe assets from investors. It is clear that there is a significant “risk-aversion bid” for government bonds right now, given the increasingly negative stock/bond correlations and falling term premia. Net-net, while bond yields discount a lot of bad news and now look too low compared to tentative signs of improving global growth, it is hard to build a case for an imminent rebound in global bond yields without signs that U.S. and China are getting closer to a trade deal. Bottom Line: There have been three main drivers of the latest decline in global bond yields: slower global growth, softer inflation expectations and increased safe-haven demand for bonds given the intensifying U.S.-China trade conflict. The first two are more than fully discounted in current yield levels, but the latter is likely to persist in the near-term with no resolution of the trade conflict in sight. Tactical Risk-Reduction Adjustments To Our Model Bond Portfolio Chart 8Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Given the growing potential for a larger selloff in global risk assets if no U.S.-China trade deal comes out of next month’s G-20 meeting (where Presidents Trump and Xi will both be in attendance), we think it is prudent to make some tactical adjustments to the recommended weightings within our model bond portfolio. These moves will provide a partial hedge against any near-term widening of global credit spreads or further reduction in government bond yields in the event of a complete breakdown of the trade talks. Specifically, we are making the following changes: Duration Exposure: We are increasing the overall duration of the model bond portfolio by 0.5 years, which still leaves a duration position that is 0.5 years below the custom benchmark index of the portfolio. We are doing this by increasing allocations to the longer maturity buckets in the U.S., Japan and France. Credit Exposure: We are cutting the sizes of our recommended overweight tilts for U.S. corporates in half for both investment grade and high-yield. This is a combined reduction of nearly 4% of the portfolio that will be used to fund the increase in duration on the government bond side. We are making no other changes to our government bond country allocations, staying overweight in core Europe (Germany plus France), Japan and Australia where our Central Bank Monitors are calling for a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 8). We are also staying overweight U.K. Gilts, where yields continue to trade more off Brexit uncertainty than domestic economic growth or inflation pressures. We are not making any changes to the model bond portfolio exposure to euro area corporate debt or Italian governments, riskier spread products where we are already underweight. We are, however, maintaining our weightings for U.S. dollar denominated EM sovereign and corporate debt at neutral. EM debt has performed relatively well versus developed market equivalents since the May 5 “Trump Tariff Tweet” (TTT). We understand that not downgrading EM seems counterintuitive when we are trying to position more defensively in the model portfolio. We prefer to reduce exposure to U.S. credit, however, given that EM debt has performed relatively well versus developed market equivalents since the May 5 TTT (Table 3), and with EM spreads now at more attractive levels relative to U.S. investment grade (Chart 9). In addition, EM credit tends to perform better during periods when Chinese credit growth is accelerating, as is currently the case (bottom panel) – and which may continue if China’s policymakers eventually turn to more domestic stimulus measures to combat the effects of U.S. tariffs, as seems likely. Table 3Credit Market Performance Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields Chart 9EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates Importantly, these are all only tactical changes to our model portfolio to partially protect against the risk of U.S. credit spread widening in the event of more negative news on the U.S.-China trade front. We still have not changed our strategic (6-12 month) views on global bond yields (higher) and global corporates (outperforming government bonds) given the tentative signs of improving global growth from the leading indicators. Bottom Line: We are tactically reducing the sizes of the overall strategic tilts in our model bond portfolio – below-benchmark duration exposure and overweight global corporates vs. governments. There is a growing risk of deeper selloffs in global equity and credit markets if the June G20 meeting produces no positive signals on ending the trade dispute. We do not yet see a case to position more defensively on a medium-term horizon, however, given the pickup in “early” global leading economic indicators.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights So What? Markets remain complacent about U.S.-China trade. Why? The U.S. has escalated the trade war by threatening sanctions on key Chinese tech firms. Chinese President Xi Jinping is preparing his domestic audience for protracted struggle. U.S. domestic politics do not prohibit, and likely encourage, a tough stance on China. Farmers are not a constraint on Trump — economic growth is. Go long spot gold and JPY-USD. Feature Markets remain complacent. Chart 1 suggests that while the combination of unilateral trade tariffs and spiking U.S. 10-year Treasury yields was enough to sink the S&P 500 in 2018, the former alone cannot do so today. Chart 1Tariffs Alone Not Enough To Sink Equities? Wrong. Tariffs Alone Not Enough To Sink Equities? Wrong. Tariffs Alone Not Enough To Sink Equities? Wrong. Specifically, the increase in the Section 301 tariff rate from 10% to 25% on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports and the threat of a new 25% tariff on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese imports in just a month’s time has only led to a 3% pullback in equities since May 3. That was the last trading day prior to President Donald Trump’s infamous tweet about hiking the tariff. Unlike the trade war escalation in October through November of last year, the Federal Reserve is no longer hiking rates, China’s economic indicators have bottomed, and U.S. equity investors have now fully imbibed the “Art of the Deal.” The consensus holds that the escalation of trade tensions with China is contained within the context of Trump’s well-known routine of inflicting pain and then compromising. We would wager that the bond market is right and equities are wrong. Equities will converge to the downside, unless the market receives a concrete positive catalyst that improves the near-term outlook for U.S.-China relations and hence global trade. The problem is that for equities such a catalyst could happen at any time in the form of additional Chinese stimulus. Therefore, higher volatility is the only guaranteed outcome. The sudden onslaught of U.S. pressure makes it harder for Chinese President Xi Jinping to offer structural concessions to his American counterpart without looking weak. It was easier to do so when the threat of tariffs was under wraps, as was the case between December 1 and May 5. This new obstacle informed our decision to close out our long China equities and long copper trades and downgrade our end-June trade deal probability from 50% to 40%. But the escalation of tensions makes stimulus more likely to surprise to the upside, which will at least partially offset the negative hit to global sentiment and the trade outlook. Waiting For A Positive Political Intervention Three negative geopolitical catalysts loom in plain sight, while investors are still waiting on a positive catalyst. The negatives: China has not yet announced retaliation to the U.S. Commerce Department’s blacklisting of Huawei and a handful of other Chinese tech firms; the U.S. could implement the blacklist within three months, increasing the risk of a broader “tech blockade” against China; and the U.S. authorities are prepared to extend tariffs to all Chinese goods in one month. Meanwhile there are no high-level talks currently scheduled between the principal Chinese and American negotiators as we go to press. This could change quickly. But if negotiating teams do not hold substantive meetings with positive reports afterwards, then investors cannot be sure that Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping will speak to each other, let alone finalize a substantive trade deal, at the G20 in Japan on June 28-29. The macro backdrop is hardly encouraging: global export volumes are contracting and the dollar’s fall may be arrested amid a huge spike in global policy uncertainty. Any rebound in the greenback will pile additional pressure onto trade flows, at least until the market sees a substantial increase in Chinese stimulus (Chart 2). Furthermore, it is concerning that President Trump, a businessman president and champion of American manufacturing, is raising tariffs at a time when lending and factory activity are already slowing in the politically vital Midwestern states (Chart 3). The implication is that he is unfazed by economic risks and therefore less predictable. He is pursuing long-term national foreign policy objectives at the expense of everything else. This may be patriotic but it will be painful for global equity investors. Chart 2Trump Unfazed By Deteriorating Global Economy Trump Unfazed By Deteriorating Global Economy Trump Unfazed By Deteriorating Global Economy Chart 3Economic Activity Is Already Slowing Economic Activity Is Already Slowing Economic Activity Is Already Slowing Chart 4Markets Blasé About Looming Risks Markets Blasé About Looming Risks Markets Blasé About Looming Risks It is not only the S&P 500 that is failing to register the dangerous combination of weak global trade and escalating U.S.-China strategic conflict. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA U.S. Equity Strategy points out that the “Ted spread,” the premium charged on interbank lending over the risk-free rate, is as docile as the safe-haven Japanese yen (Chart 4). President Xi Jinping, however, is not so blasé. He took a trip to Jiangxi province on May 20 to declare that China is embarking on a “new Long March.” This is a reference to the legendary strategic withdrawal executed by the early Chinese Communist Party in its civil war against the nationalists in 1934-35. It was an 8,000-mile slog across the rugged terrain of western and central China, peppered with battles against warlords and nationalists, in which nearly nine-tenths of the communist troops never made it. It is a historical event of immense propagandistic power used to celebrate the CPC’s resilience and ultimate triumph over corrupt and capitalist forces backed by imperialist Western powers. Most importantly, the Long March culminated in Mao Zedong’s consolidation of power over the party and ultimately the nation. In short, President Xi just told President Trump to “bring it on,” as he apparently believes that a conflict with the U.S. will strengthen his rule. The S&P 500 and the “Ted spread” are failing to register the dangerous combination of weak global trade and escalating U.S.-China strategic conflict. Trump, meanwhile, operates on a much shorter time horizon. He is coming closer to impeachment, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharpens her rhetoric and negotiations over a bipartisan infrastructure bill collapse. Impeachment will fail and in the process will most likely help Trump’s reelection chances. But gridlock at home means that one of our top five “Black Swan” risks for 2019 is now being activated: Trump is at risk of becoming a lame duck and is therefore looking for conflicts abroad as a way of stirring up support at home. Bottom Line: The bad news in the trade war is all-too-apparent while good news is elusive. Yet key “risk off” indicators have hardly responded. We recommend going long JPY-USD on a cyclical basis on the expectation that the market will continue to have indigestion until a positive catalyst emerges in the trade talks. Trump’s Trade War Calculus Chart 5 The trade war is focused on China more so than other states – and Trump likely has the public backing for such a conflict. President Trump delayed any Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto parts imports this month as the China trade war escalated (Chart 5). This confirms our reasoning that the nearly 50/50 risk of tariffs on car imports from Europe and Japan (recently upgraded from 35%) is contingent on first wrapping up a China deal. Another signal that Trump is conscientious not to saddle the equity market with too many trade wars is the decision finally to exempt Canada and Mexico from Section 232 aluminum and steel tariffs (Chart 6). It is now possible for Canada to ratify the deal before parliament dissolves in late June and for the U.S. and Mexico to follow. American ratification will involve twists and turns as the Democrats raise challenges but their obstructionism is ultimately fruitless as it will not hurt Trump’s approval ratings and labor unions largely support the new deal. Meanwhile a major hurdle relating to Mexican labor standards has already been met. These are positive developments for these markets and yet they call attention to a critical point about the Trump administration’s trade strategy: Trump has not shown much willingness to compromise his trade demands with allies in order to secure their cooperation in pressuring China. The threat of car tariffs is still looming over Europe (and even Japan and South Korea). In fact, a united front among these players would have made it much harder for China to resist structural changes (Chart 7). Chart 6Canada And Mexico Are Off The Hook Canada And Mexico Are Off The Hook Canada And Mexico Are Off The Hook Chart 7A 'Coalition Of The Willing' Would Be More Effective A 'Coalition Of The Willing' Would Be More Effective A 'Coalition Of The Willing' Would Be More Effective Nevertheless, we have long held that China, not NAFTA or Europe, would be the focus of Trump’s ire because there is much greater consensus within the U.S. political establishment on the need for a more muscular approach to China grievances, and hence fewer constraints on Trump. This view has now come full circle, at least for the time being. Bear in mind that while Republicans and even Democrats have a favorable view of international trade, in keeping with an improving economy (Chart 8), the U.S. as a whole is more skeptical of free trade than most other countries (Chart 9). The economy is insulated and globalization has operated unchecked for several decades, generating resentment. Chart 8 Chart 9 Chart 10 This is especially relevant with China. Americans have an unfavorable view of China’s trade practices and China in general (Charts 10 and 11). This perception is getting worse as the great power competition heats up. Even a majority or near-majority of Democrats view China’s cyber-attacks, ownership of U.S. debt, environmental policies, and economic competition as causes of real concern (Chart 12). This means Trump is closer to the median voter when he is tough on China. Chart 11 Chart 12 The result is a lower chance of a “weak deal,” i.e. a short-term deal to reduce the trade deficit primarily through Chinese purchases of commodities, since this will be a political liability for Trump. He may be forced into such a deal if the market revolts (say 35% odds). But otherwise he will hold out for something better, which Xi Jinping may be unwilling to give. China, not NAFTA or Europe, is the focus of Trump’s ire. This is why we rank “no deal” at 50%, more likely than any kind of deal (40%), though there is some chance of an extension of talks beyond the June G20 (10%). Bottom Line: The delay of auto tariffs and progress in replacing NAFTA suggest that the Trump administration is cognizant of the negative market impact of its trade wars and the need to focus on China. However, the risks to Europe and Japan are not yet removed. And any Chinese concessions will be weaker than might otherwise have been possible had Trump created a “coalition of the willing” to prosecute China’s violations of global trading norms. A weak deal makes it more likely that strategic conflict is the result. Trump Beats Bernie Beats Biden? Or Vice Versa? U.S. domestic politics are also pushing Trump in the direction of conflict with China. The American voter’s distrust of China explains why former Vice President Joe Biden, and leading contender for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020, recently caught flak from both sides of the aisle for being soft on China. At a campaign stop in Iowa on May 1, Biden said, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man … They’re not competition for us.” He has made similarly dovish comments in the recent past. It makes sense, then, that Trump is trying to link “Sleepy Joe” (as he calls Biden) with weakness on China and trade. Biden, who is still enjoying a very sizable bump to his polling a month after formally announcing his candidacy (Chart 13), is a direct threat to Trump’s electoral strategy of maximizing white blue-collar turnout and support, particularly in the Midwestern swing states. Biden was on the ticket when President Barack Obama won these states in 2008 and 2012. He is a native son of Pennsylvania. And he appeals to the same voters as a plain-talking everyman. Chart 13 Both Biden and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont are beating Trump in the very early head-to-head polling for the 2020 presidential race. In fact, Sanders has a bigger lead over Trump than Biden in many of these polls (Chart 14). Chart 14 Yet Sanders has a narrower path to victory in the general election – he is heavily dependent on the Rustbelt, where he could either win based on repeating the 2016 results in a new demographic context (the “Status Quo” scenario in Chart 15), or by winning back the blue-collar voters who abandoned the Democrats for Trump in 2016 (the “Blue Collar Democrats” scenario). Sanders performed well in these states in the Democratic primary in 2016, whereas he struggled in the South. Chart 15 Chart 16Democrats Swung Too Far Left For Many Independents Democrats Swung Too Far Left For Many Independents Democrats Swung Too Far Left For Many Independents Biden, on the other hand, is capable of winning not only in these two scenarios, but also by rebuilding the Obama coalition. He has a better bid to win over the black community due to his close association with Obama and his command of Democratic Party machinery, plus potentially his choice of running mate (the “Obama vs. Trump” scenario). By this means Biden, unlike Sanders, can compete against Trump in the Sun Belt and South in addition to the Midwest. Therefore, it is all the more imperative for Trump to try to corner Biden and frame the debate about Biden early. Trump may also be betting that despite the head-to-head polling, Sanders is too far left for the median voter. While the Democratic Party swings sharply to the left, the median voter remains more centrist, judging by the fact that independent voters (who make up half the electorate now) only slightly favor Democrats over Republicans, a trend that is only slightly rising (Chart 16). Biden’s polling is strong enough that he holds out the prospect of winning the Democratic nomination relatively smoothly, without deepening the ideological split in the party too much. Whereas Trump would benefit in the general election if Democrats suffered an internal split over a bloody primary season in which Bernie Sanders clawed his way to the nomination. The hit to American farmers is probably not a significant political constraint on President Trump waging his trade war. The upshot is that Trump is vulnerable in U.S. politics and will attempt to take action to strengthen his position. Meanwhile if Biden’s position on trade changes then we will know that he reads the Midwestern voter the same way Trump does – as a protectionist. Bottom Line: Trump’s eagerness to attack Biden reveals the specific threat that Biden poses to Trump’s electoral strategy as well as Trump’s calculus that a belligerent position on China is a vote-getter in the key Midwestern swing states. We expect Biden to become more hawkish on China, which will emphasize the long-term nature of the U.S.-China struggle and confirm the median voter’s appetite for hawkish policy. American Farmers Unlikely To Alter The 2020 Playing Field Chart 17 Chart 18 Yet can Trump’s political base withstand the trade war? And can he possibly win the swing states if the trade war is escalating and damaging pocketbooks? There are many stories about farmers in the Midwest and other purple states who are deeply alarmed at Trump’s trade policies, prompting questions about whether he could be unseated there. American farmers have been among the hardest hit in the trade war. China was a major market for U.S. agricultural exports prior to the conflict (Chart 17). Since then U.S. agriculture has struggled, as exports to China have declined by more than 50% y/y in 2018 (Chart 18). Agricultural commodity prices are down ~10% since a year ago, with soybeans – the poster child of the conflict – trading at 10 year lows. Net farm incomes – a broad measure of profits – were on a downward trend prior to the trade war (Chart 19). While the USDA estimates that overall U.S. farm income will increase by 8.1% y/y this year, this follows a nearly 18% y/y decline in 2018 to reach the lowest level since 2002 (Chart 20). The recent escalation of the trade war will weigh on these incomes. Chart 19 Chart 20 A common narrative in the financial media is that this hit to American farmers is a significant political constraint on President Trump in waging his trade war. He could be forced to accept a watered-down deal with China to preserve this voting bloc’s support ahead of November 2020, the thinking goes. Possibly, but probably not because of farmers abandoning the Republican Party en masse. First of all, rural counties and small towns continued supporting the Republican Party in the 2018 midterms, at a time when the initial negative impact of the trade war was front-page news (Chart 21). Second, some of the key farm states are unlikely to be key swing states in the election. Take soybeans, for example. Prior to the trade war, nearly 60% of U.S. soybean exports, and more than a third of U.S. soybeans, ended up in China. Illinois is the top producer, followed by Iowa and Minnesota. Last year soybean production in these three states accounted for 15%, 13%, and 8% of total U.S. production, respectively. As such, agriculture and livestock products exports to China in 1Q2019 are down 76% y/y in Illinois and 97% y/y in Minnesota. However, Trump won Iowa by nearly 150 thousand votes, a 9.4% margin, and there are not enough farmers in the state to overturn that margin. The negative impact on soybeans could prevent Trump from picking up Minnesota, where he lost by only 1.5% of the vote. But Minnesota is unlikely to cost him the White House in 2020. The picture is different in the key swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Farming accounts for only ~1% of jobs in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania – and 2.3% of jobs in Wisconsin – and thus farmers represent a small share of the voting bloc in these states (Chart 22). But Trump won Michigan by a mere 0.23% of the vote, Pennsylvania by 0.72%, and Wisconsin by 0.77%. If one-fifth of farmers in these states switched their vote, Trump’s 2016 margin of victory would vanish. Chart 21 Chart 22 Of course, manufacturers are a much larger voting bloc (Chart 23). And rural voters are unlikely to shift to the Democrats on such a large scale. Moreover, ag exports from these states have generally held up (Chart 24), the majority of their exports are destined for North America rather than China. The benefit from the recent thaw in North American trade relations will outweigh the loss of China as a market (Chart 25). Chart 23 Chart 24 The Trump administration is also producing an aid package worth at least $15 billion to shield farmers at least partially from the trade war impact.1 This compares to an estimated $12 billion loss in net farm income in 2018. Chart 25 Chart 26 Ultimately, Trump is much more threatened by other voting groups in these states. Young voters, women, minorities, suburbanites, and college-educated white voters all pose a threat to his thin margins if they turn out to vote and/or increase their support for the Democratic Party in 2020. A surge in Millennials, for instance, played the chief role in unseating Republican Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin in 2018 (Chart 26). While midterm elections differ fundamentally from presidential elections, the Republicans lost 10 out of 12 significant elections in the Midwest during the midterms (Table 1). Table 1Republicans Lost Almost All Significant Midwest Elections In The Midterm Is Trump Ready For The New Long March? Is Trump Ready For The New Long March? It is true that the winning Democratic candidates in the six major statewide races in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all had voters who believed Trump’s trade policies were more likely to “hurt” the local economy than help it, according to exit polls (Chart 27). At the same time, a majority of voters believed that the trade policies either “helped” the local economy or “had no impact,” as opposed to hurting it. And Democrats are somewhat divided on this issue. Health care, not the economy, was the primary concern of voters. Moreover, health care, not the economy, was the primary concern of voters, especially Democratic voters (Chart 28). Republicans cared more about the economy and tended to support Trump’s trade policies. Chart 27 Chart 28 In sum, unless the trade war causes a general economic slowdown that changes voter priorities, Trump’s chief threat in 2020 comes from urban and suburban voters angry over his attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, rather than from farmers suffering from the trade war. The large bloc of manufacturing workers in the Midwestern battleground states helps to explain why Trump is willing to wage a trade war at such a critical time: loyal rural counties bear the brunt of the economic pain yet a tough-on-China policy could bring out swing voters from the manufacturing sector in suburbs and cities. Bottom Line: Trump could very well lose agriculture-heavy swing states in 2020, but it would not be because of losing his base among rural voters. Rather, it would be a result of a broader economic slowdown – or a superior showing of key demographic groups in favor of Democrats for other reasons like health care. The large bloc of manufacturing voters relative to Trump’s margins of victory helps to explain his aggressive posture on the trade war. Investment Conclusions Go long JPY-USD on a cyclical, 12-month horizon in the context of escalating trade war, complacent markets, and yet the prospect of additional Chinese stimulus improving global growth. This trade should be reinforced by the specific hurdles facing Japan over the next three to 18 months. While we would not be surprised if a trade agreement with the U.S. is concluded quickly, even ahead of any U.S.-China deal, nevertheless Japan faces upper house elections, a potential consumption tax hike, and preparations for a contentious constitutional revision and popular referendum on the cyclical horizon. On the expectation of greater Chinese stimulus, we are maintaining our long China Play Index call, which is up 2.2%. As a hedge against both geopolitical risk and the impact of Chinese stimulus over the cyclical horizon, go long spot gold.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 While the plan is yet to be finalized, payments of ~$2/bushel to soybean farmers, $0.63/bushel to wheat farmers, and $0.04/bushel to corn farmers are under consideration. Unlike last year when the payments were distributed according to farmers’ current production, a potential modification to this year’s plan is that the payments will be distributed based on this years’ planted acreage and past yields.

Highlights Duration: We see current bond market behavior as very similar to mid-2016, when heightened political uncertainty obscured the economy’s true strength and kept bond yields lower for longer than was justified by the economic fundamentals. The correct strategy at that time was to sell into the bond market’s strength, and we advocate a similar strategy today. China: Any attempt by the Chinese government to retaliate in the trade war by selling U.S. Treasury securities would be either self-defeating or ineffective, depending on the exact strategy employed. In either case, U.S. Treasury yields will be unaffected. Fed: At least part of the Fed’s dovish turn might represent a desire to send the labor share of national income higher. We introduce a new data series for Fed Watchers to track. Feature The Trump Administration fired the latest salvo in the trade war two weeks ago, expanding tariffs to a broader swathe of Chinese imports. Then last week, the escalation of tensions spilled over to the bond market, sending global yields abruptly lower. Chart 1Flight To Safety Flight To Safety Flight To Safety The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield bounced off 2.35% last Thursday and has since settled at 2.39% (Chart 1). Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve is now priced for 44 bps of Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 1, bottom panel). It is possible, and even likely, that geopolitical tensions will keep yields low during the next month or two. In fact, our Geopolitical Strategy service places the odds of a complete breakdown in trade negotiations by the end of June at 50%.1  But we would encourage investors to sell into rallies, positioning for higher yields on a 6-12 month horizon. To see why, we return to a Weekly Report from early April where we walked through different factors that would be useful in the creation of a macroeconomic model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield.2 We consider what has changed during the past six weeks and what those developments mean for bond yields going forward. Back In The Bond Kitchen In early April, we ran through four different factors that should be included in any bond model and suggested macroeconomic indicators that best capture the trends in each. The four factors are: Global Growth: Best proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI and Bullish Dollar Sentiment Policy Uncertainty: Best proxied by the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Output Gap: Best proxied by Average Hourly Earnings Sentiment: Best proxied by the U.S. Economic Surprise Index We consider each factor in turn. Global Growth Chart 2Monitoring Global Growth Monitoring Global Growth Monitoring Global Growth The Global Manufacturing PMI, our preferred series for tracking global growth, ticked down during the past month, continuing the free-fall that has been in place since the end of 2017 (Chart 2). At 50.3, it is now only slightly above the 50 boom/bust line and is close to where it was in mid-2016, when the 10-year yield hit its cyclical low. But on a positive note, several leading indicators have hooked up in recent months, suggesting that the Global PMI could soon trough and move higher in the second half of the year. Specifically, the ZEW survey of global economic sentiment is off its lows, as is the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI). Meanwhile, the Global LEI Diffusion Index has surged, indicating that 74% of the 23 countries in our sample are seeing improvement in their LEIs. Historically, the Global LEI Diffusion Index leads changes in both the Global LEI and the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 2, panel 3). Financial market prices that are highly geared to global growth had been singing a similar tune, but they rolled over as trade tensions flared during the past two weeks. For example, cyclical equity sectors recently started to underperform defensive sectors (Chart 2, bottom panel), and the important CRB Raw Industrials index took a nosedive. We place particular importance on the CRB Raw Industrials index as a timely indicator of global growth, because the ratio between the CRB index and gold correlates nicely with the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 3).3 Unsurprisingly, the ratio’s recent dip coincides with last week’s drop in the 10-year. Several leading indicators have hooked up in recent months, suggesting that the Global PMI could soon trough and move higher in the second half of the year.  In addition to the Global Manufacturing PMI, we recommend including a survey of bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar in any bond model. More bullish dollar sentiment coincides with lower Treasury yields, and vice-versa. Our preferred survey shows that dollar sentiment remains elevated, but hasn’t changed much since April (Chart 4). The dollar itself, however, has begun to appreciate during the past two weeks (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... Chart 4...And The Greenback Is On The Rise ...And The Greenback Is On The Rise ...And The Greenback Is On The Rise Bottom Line: The coincident global growth indicators that correlate best with bond yields – the Global Manufacturing PMI and Dollar Bullish Sentiment – are sending a similar message as in April. Meanwhile, leading economic indicators continue to suggest that we should expect improvement in the second half of the year. The biggest change from April is that global growth indicators derived from financial market prices – cyclical versus defensive equities, the CRB Raw Industrials index and the trade-weighted dollar – have responded negatively to heightened political risk. If this weakness persists and eventually infects the economic data, then it could prevent a second-half rebound in global growth, keeping Treasury yields low for even longer.   Policy Uncertainty Spikes in the monthly Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index often cause capital to seek out the safety of U.S. Treasuries, and we recommend including this index in any macroeconomic bond model (Chart 5A). Spikes in the monthly Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index often cause capital to seek out the safety of U.S. Treasuries. While there have been no updates to the monthly index since the trade war’s recent escalation, one of its components – a daily index that tracks the number of relevant news stories – has surged during the past two weeks (Chart 5B). This clearly illustrates that a sharp increase in political uncertainty has been the catalyst for the bond market rally. Investors are obviously concerned that an ongoing and intensifying trade war might derail the economic recovery, and they are seeking out Treasuries as a hedge. Chart 5AGlobal Uncertainty Set To Spike Global Uncertainty Set To Spike Global Uncertainty Set To Spike Chart 5BMarkets Are Concerned Markets Are Concerned Markets Are Concerned In such situations, the traditional playbook is to fade any purely uncertainty-driven rally, on the view that markets tend to overreact to headline risk. This strategy worked well following the mid-2016 Brexit vote. The uncertainty shock from the vote sent the 10-year quickly down to 1.37%, but it then increased in the second half of the year when it became apparent that the economic recovery would continue. While higher tariffs will certainly be a drag on growth going forward, accommodative Fed policy and a probable increase in Chinese economic stimulus will mitigate the impact, keeping the economic recovery intact.4 Output Gap Chart 6Wages Are Headed Higher Wages Are Headed Higher Wages Are Headed Higher The output gap is a concept that represents where the economy is operating relative to its peak capacity, and its progress during the past three years is the main reason why bond yields will not re-test 2016 lows. We have found that wage growth is the most reliable way to measure the output gap: higher wage growth signals less spare capacity, and less spare capacity coincides with higher bond yields. We recommend Average Hourly Earnings as the best wage measure to include in any bond model. Since April, average hourly earnings growth has been roughly flat, but leading indicators suggest that further acceleration is highly likely in the coming months (Chart 6). While the Fed is keen to let wage growth accelerate, rising wage growth also makes a rate cut difficult to justify. The combination of rising wage growth and an on-hold Fed should put a rising floor under long-maturity bond yields. Sentiment The final factor that should be included in any bond model is sentiment. In April, we suggested that the U.S. Economic Surprise Index is the best measure of sentiment. When the surprise index has been deeply negative for a long time, it usually means that investors are downbeat on the economy and that the bar for a positive surprise is low. This has actually been the case in recent months, and our simple auto-regressive model suggests that the surprise index is biased higher (Chart 7). Positioning data confirm this message, and in fact show that investors are taking as much duration risk as they were when yields troughed in mid-2016 (Chart 8). Chart 7Low Bar For Positive Surprises Low Bar For Positive Surprises Low Bar For Positive Surprises Chart 8Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 The overall message is that bond investors have a very dim view of the economy, and it will not take much positive news to send yields higher. Investment Strategy We see current bond market behavior as very similar to mid-2016, when heightened political uncertainty obscured the economy’s true strength and kept bond yields lower for longer than was justified by the economic fundamentals. The correct strategy at that time was to sell into the bond market’s strength, and we advocate a similar strategy today. Timing when the next move higher in bond yields will occur is difficult, but we take some comfort in the fact that the flatness of the yield curve makes it less costly than usual to carry below-benchmark duration positions. In fact, the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index is 7 bps higher than the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index. Bond investors have a very dim view of the economy, and it will not take much positive news to send yields higher. To further mitigate the cost of keeping duration low, we advocate taking duration-neutral positions that are short the belly (5-year & 7-year) part of the yield curve and long the very long and very short ends of the curve. Such trades are also provide a positive yield pick-up, and will earn capital gains when Treasury yields move higher.5 A Quick Note On China’s Treasury Purchases Chart 9Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War The trade war’s recent escalation has led some to speculate that China could retaliate against higher tariffs by dumping U.S. Treasury securities onto the open market. The speculation only increased when the TIC data revealed that Chinese net Treasury purchases totaled -$24 billion in March, the most deeply negative figure since October 2016 (Chart 9).   We see low odds that China will employ this tactic in the trade war, and no meaningful impact on Treasury yields in any case. To see why, let’s consider two possible scenarios. In the first scenario, China sells a large amount of U.S. Treasury securities and keeps the proceeds from the sales in its domestic currency. Assuming the amounts in question are sufficiently large, these transactions would cause the RMB to appreciate and lead to a tightening of Chinese monetary conditions. Tighter monetary conditions are exactly what the Chinese government does not want as it seeks to counteract the negative economic impact from tariffs. In fact, China is much more likely to engineer a further easing of monetary conditions, much like in 2015/16 (Chart 9, bottom panel). In the second scenario, China could sell U.S. Treasuries and purchase other foreign bonds (German bunds, for example). This would nullify any impact on Chinese monetary conditions, but it would not have much impact on U.S. Treasury yields. With Chinese money still flowing into global bond markets, the re-balancing would only push other investors out of non-U.S. bond markets and into U.S. Treasuries. Without changing the overall demand for global bonds, it is difficult to envision much of an impact on U.S. yields. Bottom Line: Any attempt by the Chinese government to retaliate in the trade war by selling U.S. Treasury securities would be either self-defeating or ineffective, depending on the exact strategy employed. In either case, U.S. Treasury yields will be unaffected. A New Data Series For Fed Watchers: Rich’s Ratio A number of recent Fed speeches have referred to the time series plotted in Chart 10: The share of national income going to labor, as opposed to corporate profits. Chart 10Introducing Rich's Ratio Introducing Rich's Ratio Introducing Rich's Ratio Vice-Chair Richard Clarida brought this analysis to the Fed, and the data series was actually once dubbed “Rich’s Ratio” by Clarida’s old PIMCO colleague Paul McCulley. The idea behind Rich’s Ratio is that while some late-cycle wage gains are passed through to prices, a portion also eat into corporate profits. Notice in Chart 10 that Rich’s Ratio has a tendency to rise late in the economic recovery. Based on his past writings, we would not be surprised if at least part of the Fed’s recent dovish turn represents a desire to send Rich’s Ratio higher, even if that goal might entail a modest overshoot of the Fed's 2 percent inflation target. We will have more to say about Rich’s Ratio in the coming weeks. For now, we simply want to make Fed Watchers aware that they have a new series to track. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “How Trump Became A War President”, dated May 17, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The rationale for why the CRB/Gold ratio tracks the 10-year Treasury yield is found in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Tarrified”, dated May 16, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification