Trade / BOP

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 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 We’ve searched in vain for imminent domestic weakness in the U.S. economy, … : Much of our work this spring has focused on trying to poke holes in our view that the equilibrium fed funds rate remains above the target fed funds rate, but we haven’t found any evidence of overheating in the real economy, or worrisome excesses in financial markets. … but an exogenous shock could well precipitate a recession if it were serious enough: The U.S. is a comparatively closed economy, but there’s no such thing as full-on decoupling. The U.S. may react more slowly than other major economies to what’s going on in the rest of the world, but it’s not immune to it. A trade war would threaten global growth, … : U.S.-China trade negotiations have taken center stage over the last couple weeks, and escalating tension between the world’s two largest standalone economies will surely cast a pall over the global outlook. … but there are other potential threats that bear monitoring: Tensions with Iran could be the catalyst for an oil price shock, while a significant rollback of globalization could crimp corporate profit margins. Either would hasten the end of the equity bull market and the expansion. Feature Tight monetary policy is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a recession. We deem policy to be tight if the fed funds rate exceeds our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, and easy if it is below our estimate of equilibrium. Over the six decades for which we compute an estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, the U.S. has only ever experienced recessions when the fed funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 1). Tight policy isn’t always tantamount to a recession – nothing came of tight settings in 1984 or 1995 – but recessions don’t occur without it. Chart 1Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Conditions Are Tight Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Conditions Are Tight Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Conditions Are Tight We currently estimate that the equilibrium fed funds rate, a.k.a. the neutral rate, is about 3⅛%, and we continue to project that it will be around 3⅜% by the end of the year. Those estimates leave the Fed with plenty of headroom before it materially slows the economy. If our estimate is on the money, it will take four more rate hikes to induce an inflection in the business cycle. We have not seen anything in the ongoing flow of macro data, or evidence of excesses in the financial markets, that would suggest a recession is already under way or is lurking around the corner. Internal dynamics should continue to support the expansion, but threats from outside the U.S. are growing. We therefore conclude that the next recession may well not arrive for another two years, in the absence of a significantly adverse exogenous event. This week, we extend our focus beyond the U.S. to try to uncover the external threats that could stop the U.S. economy, and the bull markets in risk assets, in their tracks. Beyond the tariff fireworks, we also contemplate the possibility that conflict with Iran could lead to an oil price shock, and the impact of a significant rollback of globalization. It is not our base case that any of the various external threats will tip the U.S. into a recession, but investors should keep tabs on the biggest ones. Tariffs The U.S.-China trade saga has unfolded in three pairs of moves and counter-moves (Diagram 1). While the aggregate $50bn worth of Chinese goods tariffed in the first two salvos mostly targeted industrial equipment and machinery, the third installment, covering $200bn worth of imports, extended the tariffs’ reach to consumer products. Major categories included not only commodities such as base metals, chemical products and mineral fuels and oils, but also a broad swath of foods, textiles, electronics, vehicles and spare parts. After a three-month cease-fire, the developments of the last two weeks arguably marked the most significant escalation of tensions on both sides. The U.S. is now threatening to levy tariffs on the remaining $325bn of Chinese goods that have so far been spared. Diagram 1Anything You Can Do External Threats External Threats Our colleagues at BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service suggest that recent foreign policy initiatives indicate that the White House does not feel any particular pressure to minimize economic risk this far ahead of the election. The risk of market-disruptive measures has therefore increased, and they see a 50-50 chance that the U.S. and China will fail to reach an accord (Table 1). Although the administration has delayed any action on autos and auto parts for now, Europe could be the next trade partner in its cross hairs. The odds that Section 232 (national-security-threat) tariffs will be levied on European auto imports is rising (Chart 2). Table 1U.S.-China Trade War: Probabilities Of A Deal By End Of June 2019 External Threats External Threats Chart 2 These heightened trade tensions may delay the global growth recovery that we were expecting to bloom in the summer, and they may also allow the dollar to keep advancing. The greenback is a countercyclical currency, moving inversely with global activity (Chart 3), and a bump in the road for global growth would likely extend its upward run. Chart 3The Countercyclical Dollar The Countercyclical Dollar The Countercyclical Dollar Although a strong dollar would be a headwind for exporters, the U.S. economy is comparatively closed. Tariffs are likely to exert the greatest pressure on the economy via softer consumption and investment. So far, the available evidence suggests that U.S. consumers and corporations have borne the brunt of higher tariffs in the form of higher retail prices and lower profit margins.1 Iran Our geopolitical strategists contend that investors have underrated conflict with Iran as a market risk for a while. Now that the contentiousness of U.S.-Iran relations has ratcheted higher upon the administration’s decision not to extend the import waivers on Iranian oil, the issue is back in the spotlight. Our strategists caution that managing the dispute may require more delicacy than the more hawkish elements of the administration realize. In their view, the potential for a misstep increases the odds of a recession and poses a significant risk to the equity bull market. In a joint Special Report by our Commodity and Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy services at the beginning of the month, our in-house experts stressed that there are multiple moving parts driving the supply-demand balance in the global oil market.2 Investors should realize that the world faces the prospect of the loss of Venezuelan production (approximately 600,000 barrels per day (b/d)) and significant outages in Libya (~600,000 to 800,000 b/d), in addition to our strategists’ base-case estimate of 700,000 b/d from Iran’s current 1.3 million b/d output. BCA does not expect that all of that output will be lost, but the key point is that Iran is not the only potential source of a supply shortfall. Our energy strategists believe that OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, and supported by Saudi Arabia’s OPEC allies – has the capacity to make up for even their larger shortfall scenarios (Chart 4). The problem is that OPEC 2.0 may not have the will to do so in a timely fashion. Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC 2.0 coalition were caught completely off guard by the administration’s issuance of import waivers in November, after they had ramped up production at its request to limit the market disruptions that would have ensued when Iran’s output was taken off the market. The last-minute waiver decision caused oil prices to crater in the wake of a supply glut that OPEC 2.0 has been working to sop up ever since (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5... But The Oil Market Is Pretty Tight ... But The Oil Market Is Pretty Tight ... But The Oil Market Is Pretty Tight   OPEC 2.0’s members may feel that they were badly used last fall, and may not be inclined to move proactively now. Russia is managing its own low-grade conflict with the U.S., and all of the coalition should bear in mind that the U.S. could release over a million b/d from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) for a solid six to nine months, according to our energy team’s estimates. If rising oil prices are often viewed as a tax on American consumers, a late summer/early fall release of holdings could be viewed as an election rebate, courtesy of the skilled economic managers in the White House. Our team expects that OPEC 2.0 will likely guard against an oversupply-driven swoon in oil prices by managing its production on something akin to a just-in-time inventory strategy. Our energy and geopolitical strategists caution that there are two other ways the administration may overplay its hand. First, it might overestimate U.S. shale drillers’ ability to export their production. While new pipeline construction will relieve the transportation bottleneck limiting the Permian Basin output that reaches the Gulf of Mexico, oil exports from the Gulf are limited by a shortage of deep-water harbor facilities. If global trade tensions do worsen, both the dollar and U.S. equities may attract safe-haven flows. There is also the possibility that Iran might strike at Iraq, putting some of its 3.5 million b/d output at risk. It could also make good on its repeated threat to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which nearly a fifth of global oil supplies travel daily. Either of these options would dramatically escalate the conflict, but a desperate Iran might pursue them if it felt cornered. The bottom line is that the probability of an oil price shock is not negligible. Brinkmanship with Iran could upset a delicate supply-demand balance in global oil markets, and a delicate geopolitical balance in the Middle East. If the Volcker double-dip is treated as a single event, a surge in oil prices has preceded every recession in the last 45 years, except for the 2001 recession precipitated by the bursting of the dot-com bubble (Chart 6). Chart 6Oil Price Spikes Often Precede Recessions Oil Price Spikes Often Precede Recessions Oil Price Spikes Often Precede Recessions Significant Rollback Of Globalization Our Geopolitical Strategy and Global Asset Allocation services have cited peak globalization as an important long-term investment theme for the last several years. The tariff tensions between the U.S. and its trading partners would seem to have borne out their predictions, especially if one views them as having been inspired by unskilled workers’ losses from globalization. Taking on foreign exporters is likely to play well in the electorally decisive Rust Belt states, where manufacturing job losses have hit especially hard. We fully subscribe to the theory of comparative advantage as formulated by David Ricardo in the early 19th century. By allowing individual countries to specialize in what they do best, free trade increases the size of the global economic pie. Empirical evidence suggests that globalization also re-slices the pie, however. In the developed world, outsourcing manufacturing has operated to the benefit of investors and the detriment of less-skilled workers. For U.S.-based multinationals, tariffs are a minor irritant compared to the prospect of having to reroute supply chains around China. The modest headwinds to globalization observed before the U.S. began engaging in serial bilateral trade conflicts did not undermine corporate profit margins in any material way. A bigger anti-globalization push that forced global supply chains to be rerouted or partially unwound would have much more negative effects. The U.S. is a comparatively closed economy, but the multinationals that dominate equity market capitalization rely heavily on interactions with the rest of the world. Unwinding the global supply chains that have been carefully constructed over the last 30 years would be disruptive and costly. The worst-case scenario envisioned by our geopolitical strategists, in which U.S.-China relations dramatically worsen and the tariff back-and-forth escalates in a major way, would hit equities hard, especially if supply chains had to be rebuilt. As a proxy for what globalization has meant for investors’ and blue-collar workers’ share of the pie, we consider the path of real wages relative to productivity over the last 50 years. From 1970 through 2001, U.S. wages generally kept pace with productivity gains, observing a fairly narrow, well-defined range (Chart 7). Once China entered the WTO (as denoted by the vertical line on the chart), productivity-adjusted wages fell precipitously, and even their periodic bounces have fallen well short of the level that marked the lower end of the previous range. Chart 7The Pie Has Grown, But Unskilled Labor's Slice Has Shrunk The Pie Has Grown, But Unskilled Labor's Slice Has Shrunk The Pie Has Grown, But Unskilled Labor's Slice Has Shrunk Bottom Line: Temporary barriers to free trade, implemented as a negotiating tactic, are not a big deal for equities. A significant rollback of globalization would be, however, and a need to divert global supply chains away from China could stop the bull market in its tracks. Investment Implications Along with our Global Investment Strategy colleagues, we are somewhat more sanguine than our Geopolitical Strategy service that a worst-case outcome between the U.S. and China can be averted. We therefore continue to believe that the U.S. expansion, and the bull markets in risk assets, will persist until the Fed tightens monetary conditions enough to spark the next recession. We reiterate our recommendations that investors should maintain at least an equal weight position in equities and spread product. Enough is at stake in the conflicts with China and Iran, however, that a worsening of either could cause us to change our view, and we will be watching developments on each front closely. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Senior Analyst, Global ETF Strategy jenniferl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Mary Amiti, Stephen J. Redding, and David E. Weinstein, “The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare,” NBER Working Paper No. 25672, (March 2019). 2      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “U.S.-Iran: This Means War?,”dated May 3, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights So What? Odds of a total breakdown in U.S.-China relations are highly underrated. Why? The key market-relevant geopolitical event is Trump’s large risk appetite. Inflationary pressures resulting from the trade tariffs are not prohibitive for Trump’s trade war. Chinese stimulus will surprise to the upside, but a massive stimulus package will depend on talks collapsing and maximum tariffs. Markets will sell before they recover. We will maintain our current portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold. Feature Chart 1Equities Sell, Safe Havens Rally Equities Sell, Safe Havens Rally Equities Sell, Safe Havens Rally Global equities have sold off and safe-haven assets caught a bid since the near-breakdown in U.S.-China trade negotiations on May 5 (Chart 1). Yet financial markets are still complacent, as the 2.8% drawdown to date on global equities and the S&P 500 does not yet reflect the depth of the geopolitical risk to sentiment and corporate earnings. To understand this risk we need to step away from the ups and downs of the trade negotiations and ask, What have we learned about U.S. policy over the past month and what does it mean for global markets on a cyclical and structural horizon? We have learned that in the lead-up to the 2020 election, President Trump is not seeking to protect his greatest asset – namely, a strong American economy – but rather to solidify his support through new ventures. By imposing the full brunt of sanctions on Iran and hiking the tariff rate on Chinese imports, Trump has made two highly significant decisions that could jeopardize the American voter’s pocketbook, with a full 18 months to go before November 3, 2020. Why has he done this? Because he believes the American economy can take the pain and he will achieve resounding foreign policy successes. These, he hopes, will make his reelection more likely. President Trump’s aggressive posture is a direct threat to the global equity bull market due to (1) higher odds of a negative shock to global trade when global growth is already weak, and (2) higher odds of an oil price shock due to a potential vicious spiral of Middle East conflict. Wreaking Havoc Historically, the United States thrives when the rest of the world is in chaos. This was obviously the case during World War I and II (Chart 2). But it also proved true in the chaotic aftermaths of the Soviet Union’s collapse and the global financial crisis, though the U.S. did suffer along with everyone else during the 2008-09 downturn. American equities have generally outperformed during periods of global chaos (Chart 3). Chart 2America Thrives Amid Global Chaos America Thrives Amid Global Chaos America Thrives Amid Global Chaos Chart 3U.S. Equities Outperform During Global Crises U.S. Equities Outperform During Global Crises U.S. Equities Outperform During Global Crises The reasons for U.S. immunity are well known: the U.S. has a large, insulated, consumer-driven economy; it has immense economic advantages enhanced by its dominance of North America; it has vast and liquid financial markets; and it is the world’s preponderant technological and military power. This position enables Washington to act more aggressively than other capitals in pursuit of the national interest – and to recover more quickly from mistakes. Chart 4U.S. Preponderance Declining U.S. Preponderance Declining U.S. Preponderance Declining It follows that there is an influential idea or myth that the country can or should exploit this advantage, when necessary or desirable, by “wreaking havoc” abroad. The prime example is the preemptive invasion of Iraq. In this way Washington can turn the tables on its opponents and keep them off balance. The Trump administration, regardless of Trump’s intentions, could soon become the epitome of this school of thought. First, it is true that, structurally, American preponderance has been decreasing: despite various crises, there has been sufficient peace and prosperity in the twenty-first century to see the rest of the world’s wealth, trade, and arms grow relative to the United States (Chart 4). With the rise of China and resurgence of Russia, U.S. global leadership is at risk and the Trump administration has adopted unorthodox policies to confront its rivals and try to reverse this process. Second, cyclically, President Trump is stymied at home after his Republican Party lost the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm election. Scandals and investigations plague his inner circle. Unable to secure funding for his signature campaign promise – the southern border wall – Trump faces the risk of irrelevance. Foreign policy, especially trade policy, thus becomes the clearest avenue for him to try to notch up victories. Trump faces the risk of irrelevance. Foreign policy thus becomes the clearest avenue for him to try to notch up victories. Bottom Line: The key market-relevant event over the past month has been the Trump administration’s demonstration of voracious risk appetite. This is fundamentally a cyclical not tactical risk to the bull market due to tit-for-tat tariffs, sanctions, and provocations with rivals like China and Iran. Pocketbooks Versus Patriotism Trump’s vulnerability becomes clear by looking at our electoral Map 1, which highlights his excruciatingly thin margins of victory in the critical “swing states” in the 2016 election. We emphasize the margin of victory among white voters – which are slightly higher than the margins overall – because the Trump campaign courted the white working class specifically in a calculated strategy to swing the Midwest “Rustbelt” states and win the election. Chart The problem for Trump is that while whites remain the majority of the eligible voting population, it is a declining majority due to demographic change. Demographics is not near-term destiny, but the vanishingly thin margins ensure that Trump cannot assume that he will win reelection without generating even more turnout and support among blue-collar whites in the key states. Chart 5 Job creation and rising incomes are the chief hope. The problem is that Trump’s tax cuts and the red-hot economy in 2018 did not prevent Republicans from getting hit hard in the midterm elections, especially in the Midwest. Moreover today’s resilient economy is not preventing the top two Democratic candidates, former Vice President Joe Biden and independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, from beating Trump in head-to-head polling in the key swing states (Chart 5). Trump’s national approval rating, at about 44%, is nearly as good as it gets, but the indications from the Midwest are worrisome, especially because the economy has slowed. If the economy is not winning the argument on the campaign trail in 2020, Trump will need to have another leg to stand on. In addition to hammering home his attempts to build a wall on the border, Trump will highlight his economic nationalism. Protectionism has won the Rustbelt over the past three elections. As we have since 2016 argued, this now boils down to pressure on China. If Trump’s policies provoke China (or Iran) to take aggressive actions, he will have a pretext to exercise American power in a way that will likely create a rally-around-the-flag effect, at least in the short term. Elections do not normally hinge on foreign policy, but they certainly can. While President Trump may not actually want a war with Iran, he knows that George W. Bush cruised to victory amid the Afghan and Iraqi wars. Or he may have in mind 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater, an offbeat, ideological “movement candidate” (can anyone say Bernie Sanders?) in the face of a hulking communist menace, the Soviet Union. A conflict with China (or Iran) could serve similar purposes in 2020, either distracting the populace from a weakening economy or adding to an election bid centered on a reaccelerating economy. The problem is that a patriotic conflict with China or Iran is an insurance policy that threatens to undermine the health and safety of the very thing being insured: the U.S. economy. Indeed, U.S. stocks did not outperform after the September 11th attacks or during the Bush administration’s wars abroad. In essence, Trump is a gambler and is now going for broke. This constitutes a huge risk to the global economy and financial markets – a risk that was subdued just a month ago due to oil sanction waivers and tariff-free trade talks. Bottom Line: President Trump is courting international chaos because his policy priorities are tied down with gridlock and scandal at home. Aggressive foreign policy is a strategy to rack up policy victories and potentially expand his voter base, but it comes at the risk of higher policy uncertainty and negative economic impacts that could derail this year’s fledgling economic rebound and the long-running bull market. “No Deal” Is More Likely Than A Weak Deal It wasn’t just a tweet that sent volatility higher over the past two weeks. Most likely, President Trump decided to raise tariffs on China at the advice of his trade negotiators, who had become convinced that China was not offering deep enough concessions (“structural changes”) and was playing for time. This was always the greatest risk in the trade talks. China is indeed playing for time, as it has no security guarantee from the United States and therefore cannot embrace structural changes in the way that Japan did during the U.S.-Japanese trade war in the 1980s. Originally, the talks were set to last 90 days with the tariff hike by March 1. Trump was apparently determined not to lose credibility on this threat as China drew out the negotiations. Hence, he piled on the pressure to try to force a conclusion by the June 28-29 G20 summit in Japan, which has been the target date for our trade war probabilities over the past several months (Table 1). We have now adjusted those probabilities to upgrade the risk that talks collapse (50%) and downgrade the odds of a deal to 40% by that date. Table 1U.S.-China Trade War: Probabilities Of A Deal By End Of June 2019 How Trump Became A War President How Trump Became A War President The underlying calculation from the Trump administration is that a cosmetic, short-term deal – along the lines of the NAFTA renegotiation – will be difficult to defend on the campaign trail and hence politically risky. We upgraded the risk that talks collapse (50%) and downgraded the odds of a deal to 40% by end of June. If China agreed arbitrarily to increase imports from the U.S. by 10% by 2020, it would only increase the level of imports above the pre-trade war 2015-18 trend by $23 billion dollars in 2029 (Chart 6, panel 1). It would also have a minimal impact on the trade deficit. The deficit has increased so much in recent years that the impact of a 10% increase in exports by 2020 would merely offset the high point we reached during the trade war, leaving Trump with a mere $800 million per year by 2029 (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 6 For commodities in particular – where China offered the largest purchases – the negative impact of the trade war has been so great that a 10% increase by 2020 over the status quo would fail to offset the recent damages over a ten-year period. China would have to increase imports by at least 17% to offset the trade war-induced decreases. If commodity imports were 30% higher in 2020 than otherwise, the impact 10 years down the line would amount to a mere $11 billion per year. These gains are smaller, as Chinese negotiators have long argued, than what could be made if the U.S. increased exports of advanced technology products to China. If the U.S. exported as many of these products to China as it does to the EU, as a share of EU GDP, it would amount to a $48 billion increase in exports. For Japan, the equivalent would be an $85 billion increase. Increasing the growth of these exports to China to match the recent trend of such exports globally would nearly double the amount sent to China by 2029, earning the U.S. an additional $60 billion that year (Chart 6, panel 3). The problem, of course, is that the confrontation with China is specifically focused on the latter’s technological acquisition and competition with the United States – it is precisely not about making reductions to the trade deficit at the expense of technological superiority. The tech war is more likely to derail the trade talks than the trade talks are likely to resolve the tech war. It is hugely significant that, at the moment of decision, President Trump sided with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and did not accept a deal focused on marginal improvements to the trade deficit. There was always a strong possibility – we previously put it at a 50% chance – that Trump would accept a short-term deal in order to get a “quick win” and minimize tariff pains ahead of the election, while punting the longer-term structural grievances until his second term when he would be less constrained by the economy. But this possibility has clearly fallen. We now put it at 35%, as shown in Table 1 above. Trump sees a shallow deal as a political liability. The most important takeaway from Table 1, however, is that the odds of a “Grand Compromise” have dropped to a mere 5%. Trump still may settle for a deal to reduce economic risks ahead of the election, but a grand compromise is very hard to get. Bottom Line: Our adjusted trade war probabilities suggest that global equities can fall further on a tactical horizon and that downside risks are grave, given a 50% chance that talks utterly collapse by the end of June. This would include a 30% chance of igniting an intense period of saber-rattling, sanctions, and Cold War-esque tensions that would cause a global flight to quality. Won’t The Trade War Turn Voters Against Trump? No. Chart 7 While geopolitical and political constraints push against a weak deal, the economic constraints of a failure to conclude a deal are not prohibitive. The latest tariff hike doubles the dollar magnitude of the tariffs, and an additional 25% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of imports would more than quadruple the magnitude of the tariffs from the April 2019 level (Chart 7). With all U.S. imports from China affected, price rises will percolate upward through all tradable industries and consumer goods. A few points are worth noting: The domestic value-add of Chinese exports to the U.S. is not as low as consensus holds. China’s manufacturing sector is highly competitive, comparable to the EU and Germany in the degree to which its exports to the U.S. incorporate foreign value (Chart 8). This means that Americans cannot substitute other goods for Chinese goods as easily as one might think. Chart 8 There remains a massive gulf between the nominal output of China’s manufacturing sector and the rest of Asia (Chart 9). Strategically it makes sense for the U.S. to want to decrease China’s share of American imports from Asia and reduce China’s centrality to the production process. But Asia cannot yet substitute for China. In practical terms this requires spreading China’s concentrated production system across the Indonesian archipelago. It is inefficient and will raise costs and import prices. Even in areas where China is lacking – such as technology, institutions, and governance – it still has a productivity advantage over the rest of Asia, pointing yet again to the cost-push inflationary consequences of an abrupt transition forced by tariffs (Chart 10). Chart 9Asia Cannot Replace China ... Yet Asia Cannot Replace China ... Yet Asia Cannot Replace China ... Yet Chart 10China's Productivity Beats Rest Of Asia China's Productivity Beats Rest Of Asia China's Productivity Beats Rest Of Asia Nevertheless, these cost factors are not so great as to force Trump into a weak deal. While the new and proposed tariff expansions will impact consumer goods more than the earlier batches that attempted to spare the consumer, the truth is that Chinese imports do not comprise a large share of the U.S. consumer basket (Chart 11). Chart 11American Shoppers Not Too Exposed To China American Shoppers Not Too Exposed To China American Shoppers Not Too Exposed To China Chart 12Goods Price Inflation Not An Immediate Risk Goods Price Inflation Not An Immediate Risk Goods Price Inflation Not An Immediate Risk Goods prices have been flat in the U.S., albeit in great part because of China, and they have fallen while the consumer price index and the real wage component of the CPI have risen by more than 20% since 2001 (Chart 12). Moreover, it is precisely in consumer goods where the American shopper does have considerable ability to substitute away from China – as opposed to the American corporation, which will have a harder time replacing Chinese-made capital goods quickly (Table 2). Thus, the risk impacts Wall Street differently than Main Street. Table 2Capital Goods Harder To Substitute How Trump Became A War President How Trump Became A War President Further, the median American household’s real income growth is still elevated (Chart 13). This comes on top of the fact that net household worth and the saving rate are both in good shape. President Trump has some leeway in waging his trade war. The risk, of course, is that this income growth is decelerating and Trump has given the tariffs 18 months to cause negative impacts for consumers prior to the election. He is also simultaneously wagering that the U.S.’s newfound energy independence – and his own ability to tap the strategic petroleum reserve – will prevent gasoline prices from spiking (Chart 14). This would occur as a result of any Iranian-backed attacks on oil production and export facilities across the Middle East. Chart 13American Household Still In Good Shape American Household Still In Good Shape American Household Still In Good Shape Chart 14Fuel Prices Already Rising Fuel Prices Already Rising Fuel Prices Already Rising Bottom Line: Inflationary pressures will result from trade tariffs (and Iranian sanctions) but they are not prohibitive for Trump thus far. This is not a recipe for cost-push inflation significant enough to trigger a recession or derail Trump’s reelection odds at present, but it is a risk that will need to be monitored. How Will China Respond? More Stimulus! The immediate ramification of a heightened trade war is deteriorating global trade and sentiment and hence slower global growth that pushes down prices. Indeed, the escalation of the trade war brings sharply into focus two long-running Geopolitical Strategy themes: Sino-American Conflict: U.S. and Chinese exports to each other have already sharply fallen off (Chart 15). Trade is interconnected so this will further depress global and Asia-ex-China exports. Chart 15Trade War Hurts Bilateral Trade ... And All Trade Trade War Hurts Bilateral Trade ... And All Trade Trade War Hurts Bilateral Trade ... And All Trade Chart 16Global Trade Already Rolling Over Global Trade Already Rolling Over Global Trade Already Rolling Over Apex of Globalization: Global trade as a whole is contracting as a result of the global slowdown, which the trade war has exacerbated (Chart 16). The negative impact on China is acute and threatens something akin to the global manufacturing recession of 2015 (Chart 17). Given that the trade war is now piling onto a merely fledgling rebound in Chinese and global growth this year, it is possible that the manufacturing slowdown could even get worse than 2015 and culminate in a global recession in our worst case scenario of a major strategic escalation. Preventing this outcome, China will increase fiscal-and-credit stimulus, which we have argued is likely to overshoot expectations this year due to trade war and the country’s desire to meet 2020 urban income goals (Chart 18). The magnitude should be comparable to the 2015-16 stimulus, unless a global recession is immediately in view, in which case it will be larger. Chart 17A Relapse Would Point Toward 2015-Sized Crisis A Relapse Would Point Toward 2015-Sized Crisis A Relapse Would Point Toward 2015-Sized Crisis It was the Xi administration that undertook the huge 2015-16 expansion of credit, so this magnitude is not out of the question. While Xi has attempted to contain leverage and reduce systemic financial risk, he is ultimately like his predecessors, most notably Jiang Zemin, in the sense that he will aim for social stability above all. Chart 18China Will Keep Stimulating China Will Keep Stimulating China Will Keep Stimulating The pain threshold of today’s policymakers has already been discovered, seeing how President Xi and the Politburo began easing policy in July 2018 after the U.S. implemented the initial Section 301 tariffs. The Chinese leaders were willing to tighten credit controls until this external risk materialized. The fact that the trade war is the proximate cause of heightened stimulus was confirmed in the wake of the Buenos Aires summit, where Xi chose to stimulate the economy further – resulting in a surge of credit in Q1 – as a way of improving China’s leverage vis-à-vis the United States in the 90-day talks. China will increase fiscal-and-credit stimulus … The magnitude should be comparable to the 2015-16 stimulus. In short, Xi and his government will stimulate first and ask questions later. Both fiscal and credit stimulus will be utilized, including traditional fiscal infrastructure spending and permissiveness toward shadow banking. A dramatic renminbi depreciation could occur but would be evidence that talks will fail (Chart 19). Chart 19Currency Agreement: Far From A Plaza Accord Currency Agreement: Far From A Plaza Accord Currency Agreement: Far From A Plaza Accord Stimulus will continue to be tactical, rolled out in piecemeal announcements, at least as long as the trade talks continue and there is a prospect of China’s economy rebounding without drastic measures. Only a total breakdown in negotiations – and collapse into outright Cold War – will prompt a massive stimulus package. Bottom Line: Chinese stimulus will surprise to the upside while talks are going, and it will increase dramatically if talks collapse. This will ultimately support global growth but it will not prevent market riots between a negative policy shock and the point at which markets are totally reassured about the magnitude of stimulus. How Will The Negotiations Proceed? Precariously. The risk of a strategic conflict is much higher than the markets are currently pricing. This is highlighted in Table 1 above, but there are additional reasons to have a high conviction on this point. We can demonstrate this by constructing a simple decision tree that outlines the step-by-step process by which the U.S. and China will proceed in their negotiations after the May 10 tariff rate hike (Diagram 1). To these we attach subjective probabilities that we believe are fair and slightly conservative. The result shows that it is not difficult to conclude that the conditional probability of a long-term, durable trade agreement is a mere 4%, whereas the conditional probability of an uncontained escalation in strategic tensions is as high as 59%! This is a much worse outcome than our actual view as expressed in Table 1. Diagram 1A Simple Decision Tree Says Geopolitical Risks Are Huge How Trump Became A War President How Trump Became A War President A similar exercise – an analysis of competing hypotheses conducted according to analytical techniques used by the U.S. intelligence community – reinforces the point that the most likely scenario is a major escalation in tensions, while the least likely is a “grand compromise” (Appendix). While our final trade war probabilities in Table 1 are not as pessimistic as these exercises suggest, the latter reinforce the point that the market is too sanguine. An increase in tariffs after five months of negotiations, with a threat to impose even more sweeping tariffs with a one-month deadline, is not conducive to Chinese concessions and therefore increases the odds of talks failing and an escalation in strategic conflict unprecedented in U.S.-China relations since the rupture from 1989-91. And this rupture would be considerably worse for the global economy. The Trump administration’s political logic is willing to accept such a conflict on the basis that a foreign policy confrontation can produce a rally-around-the-flag effect whereas a short-term deal that does not address significant technological and national security concerns is a political liability on the campaign trail. Yes, it is important that Presidents Trump and Xi are making verifiable preparations to attend the G20 summit in Japan. But they could cancel their attendance or snub each other at the event. In our view investors should wait for something more substantial to become more optimistic about political risk – such as public commitments to structural changes by China and a complementary tariff rollback schedule by the United States. Bottom Line: The odds of a total breakdown in U.S.-China relations and a Cold War-style escalation of strategic conflict are highly underrated. Markets will sell before they recover. Investment Implications Chart 20China's Nuclear Option Might Fizzle China's Nuclear Option Might Fizzle China's Nuclear Option Might Fizzle Equity markets are exposed to further downside in the short run. Even a minor escalation is not fully priced according to our Global Investment Strategy’s equity market forecasts based on our own geopolitical scenario probabilities (see Table 1 above). Our Chief Global Strategist Peter Berezin would recommend increasing exposure to risk if the S&P 500 falls 5% from current levels, other factors being equal. Cyclically, any trade agreement will fail to bring substantial benefits to the U.S.-China trade and investment outlook over a horizon beyond 12-24 months. The tech industries of the two countries will not benefit greatly from the deal. While multinational corporations exposed to the Asian manufacturing supply chain could suffer earnings downgrades from trade war, China’s stimulus will be a countervailing factor, particularly for commodities and commodity-oriented EMs. Therefore, we will keep our China Play Index and long Indonesia trades in place despite near-term risks. Ironically, U.S. treasuries can rally even when China is reducing its holdings, as global demand rises amid crisis (Chart 20). However, given that bonds have already rallied and we expect Chinese stimulus to come sooner rather than later, we will maintain our current portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold, which is up 2%. We are closing our long small caps trade for a loss of 11.9%.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Image

President Trump’s announcement this week of a new deployment of aid to U.S. farmers, to offset China’s retaliation to steeper tariffs, highlights that agriculture has been the sacrificial lamb in the U.S.’s hawkish trade policy. The $15 billion announcement follows last year’s $12 billion disbursement, and suggests that the path to a trade agreement with China remains fraught. Although China and the U.S. continue to negotiate, and President Trump has indicated that “maybe something will happen” within a “three or four week” timeframe, last week’s events indicate that a resolution is far from guaranteed. Both positive and negative trade war news will dominate the near term evolution of ag prices – stay on the sidelines as negotiations will sway markets. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices are up ~2% since the beginning of the week on escalating tensions in the Middle East, as expected. Two Saudi oil-pumping stations were targeted in a drone attack on Tuesday. This follows attacks on four oil tankers – including two Saudi ships – off the coast of the United Arab Emirates. These events highlight the increased risk of supply outages since the U.S. decision not to extend waivers on Iran sanctions.1 Base Metals: Neutral. The recent escalation in Sino-U.S. trade tensions pushed LMEX prices down 2% since the beginning of last week. Nevertheless, we believe that in the medium term Chinese authorities will manage to offset the negative economic impact on metals by ramping up fiscal-and-credit stimulus.2 Precious Metals: Gold’s geopolitical risk premium is rising amid escalating trade tensions. Gold rallied ~2% since May 3, amid declining global equities. Our gold trade is up 5.3% since inception. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Sino-U.S. trade tensions are weighing heavily on agriculture commodities. The grains and oilseed index is down 9% since the beginning of the year. Continued trade war uncertainty will keep risks elevated in the ags space (see below). Feature Several factors – including dollar strength and bearish fundamentals – have come together to drive down ag prices so far this year. However, the latest plunge highlights that trade risks remain a real threat to ag markets. This is in line with the sharp cutback in Chinese imports of U.S. ags, which make up a large share of Chinese imports from the U.S. and have been hit hard by tariffs (Chart of the Week). Soybeans in particular have become the poster child of the dispute. Uncertainty has taken their prices down to 10 year lows. In 2017, they accounted for $12.4 worth, or 9.3%, of U.S. exports to China. However, since the onset of the dispute, American soybean farmers have been struggling to market their crops. U.S. exports to China are down more than 80% y/y since 2H18 (Chart 2), and while there have been efforts to find other markets, they have yet to offset the impact of lower trade with China (Chart 3). Chart 1 Chart 2Soybeans Are The Poster Child Of The Conflict Soybeans Are The Poster Child Of The Conflict Soybeans Are The Poster Child Of The Conflict Chart 3 A long-term solution is necessary to support the agriculture industry and prices of grains and oilseeds. In fact, the Chinese tariffs add to ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and some of its other major ag markets (Charts 4A & 4B). Canada, Mexico, and the EU have placed tariffs on a range of U.S. agricultural goods in response to the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. Chart 4 Chart 4 As such, American farmers are suffering the brunt of the trade war’s burden. Chinese retaliation comes at a time when U.S. ag stockpiles are already elevated (Chart 5). Inflation-adjusted farm income had been deteriorating prior to the trade dispute, falling to about half its 2013 level (Chart 6). The trade dispute has only reinforced this trend. In its most recent Ag Credit Survey, the Kansas City Fed found the pace of decline in farm loan repayment rates increased, while carry-over debt increased for many borrowers, ultimately causing a deterioration in ag credit conditions. Given that exports account for 20% of U.S. farm income, according to USDA estimates, a long-term solution is necessary to support the agriculture industry and prices of grains and oilseeds. Otherwise, tariffs will simply be another constraint on U.S. ag exports, which have been losing global market share since the mid-1990s (Chart 7). Chart 5U.S. Stocks Are Relatively Elevated U.S. Stocks Are Relatively Elevated U.S. Stocks Are Relatively Elevated Chart 6Farmers Suffering The Brunt Of The Burden Farmers Suffering The Brunt Of The Burden Farmers Suffering The Brunt Of The Burden Chart 7U.S. Agriculture Losing Global Market Share U.S. Agriculture Losing Global Market Share U.S. Agriculture Losing Global Market Share Even though China briefly resumed some purchases of U.S. ags this year as a goodwill gesture during negotiations, these purchases stand significantly below those of previous years. They resulted from one-time purchases by Chinese state-owned enterprises, and barriers to trade remain in place. Such ad hoc attempts at reconciliation will not be sufficient to support a distrustful market going forward. The trade war is just one facet of a broader strategic U.S.-China conflict. This means a reso­lution would be only a cyclical improvement in an ongoing structural deterioration in relations. A number of potential outcomes can result from the ongoing negotiations: Most bearish: China raises the tariff rate on U.S. ag exports even further. A situation in which a fallout in the negotiations leads to strategic tensions – a scenario to which BCA’s geopolitical strategists attribute a 50% chance – could result in further ratcheting up of tariffs by China. Given that Chinese imports of U.S. ags are approaching zero, there is limited significant further downside even in this most pessimistic scenario. However, unless the U.S. is able to smoothly market its crops in other regions, upside will also be limited for some time. Since trade tariffs have already been initiated with many of the U.S.’s major ag consumers, securing reliable alternative markets may prove a challenge. Especially since Trump’s hawkish foreign policy raises risks and uncertainties for America’s trade partners. Bearish: Tariffs remain at current levels. Similar to the most bearish scenario, given that the U.S. is already having a difficult time marketing its crops abroad, significant further downside from current levels is also limited. However, any premium priced on the expectation of a resolution of the trade conflict will be eliminated. Again, as in the most bearish scenario, the loss of the Chinese market may be mitigated by an expansion of alternative markets, but challenges will remain. Bullish: Tariffs are cut back to pre-trade war levels. In this scenario, the tariffs imposed since the onset of the trade war will be unwound. This would once again raise the competitiveness of American crops in Chinese markets, and would entail higher ag prices as demand channels are re-established. Most Bullish: Tariffs fall to equalized levels. One of Trump’s key complaints is that U.S. and Chinese tariffs are not “reciprocal in nature and value” (Chart 8). Given that Chinese tariffs are above those of the U.S., this would entail a reduction in Chinese tariffs to below trade war levels (Table 1). Chart 8 Table 1... And They Have Gone Up American Farmers Caught In The Crosshairs Of Sino-U.S. Brinkmanship American Farmers Caught In The Crosshairs Of Sino-U.S. Brinkmanship A lasting trade deal will likely include measures to close the bilateral trade deficit, which in 2018 stood at $379 billion. Last year Trump called on Beijing to reduce this deficit by $200 billion over two years. If we make the overly simplistic assumption that the share of imports remains unchanged, such a reduction would lead to an additional $19 billion in soybeans, $0.54 billion in wheat, and $0.23 billion in corn imports. This back of the envelope calculation implies a doubling of these U.S. exports to China, relative to 2017 levels. As we highlighted in our March ags update, investors had become overly optimistic with their expectation of a swift resolution of the trade war.3 In fact, according to BCA’s geopolitical strategists, the trade war is just one facet of a broader strategic U.S.-China conflict. This means a resolution would be only a cyclical improvement in an ongoing structural deterioration in relations. They assign only 40% odds that a deal will be finalized by year-end, with 30% odds that the frictions will escalate into strategic tensions. In the meantime, Trump’s palliatives – which include a “trade relief” program, an EU promise to purchase more U.S. soybeans, and last week’s suggestion of government purchases for humanitarian aid – are unlikely to lift ag prices. Bottom Line: The U.S.-China trade war has weighed on American ag exports. The impact on farmers – in terms of lower incomes, and higher stockpiles – has been significant. Granting that odds of a resolution this year are no greater than 40%, we recommend a cautious stance on ag markets. However, a trade deal that entails Chinese promises to import U.S. ags – either through more favorable tariff rates or commitments to purchase large volumes – would provide a buying opportunity. In any case, we suspect that prices are near the bottom, but will require a significant catalyst – in the form of a trade deal – to begin to climb materially. No Relief From Fundamentals, Either With spring planting underway, the recent escalation in trade tensions comes at a busy time of year for U.S. farmers. According to the USDA’s annual Prospective Planting Report, released at the end of March, the planted area of corn will likely increase by 4% in 2019, while soybean and wheat will fall 5% y/y and 4% y/y, respectively. If realized, the planting area that farmers intend to dedicate to wheat will be the lowest on record – that is, since 1919 (Chart 9). However, farms in the Midwest were hit by a “bomb cyclone” in March, which has damaged crops and delayed planting. Inundated fields mean farmers are forced to push back their schedule. The latest Weekly Crop Progress Report from the USDA, indicates that farmers have fallen behind relative to typical progress at this time of year (Table 2). Although farmers’ current lack of headway is cause for concern, they may still be able to catch up and attain their targeted acreage. Chart 9Record Low Wheat Acreage Record Low Wheat Acreage Record Low Wheat Acreage Table 2Flooding Has Delayed Spring Planting American Farmers Caught In The Crosshairs Of Sino-U.S. Brinkmanship American Farmers Caught In The Crosshairs Of Sino-U.S. Brinkmanship Given that stockpiles are full, due to years of surplus, the impact of the flooding is unlikely to move international ag prices. Nevertheless, planting delays raise the possibility that corn farmers will switch to soybeans, which can be planted later in the season. In the May update of the World Supply And Demand Estimates – which includes the first estimates for the 2019/20 crop year — the USDA projected a decline in U.S. soybean ending stocks on the back of lower production and a pickup in exports. The switch in planting intentions towards soybeans at the expense of corn may at least partially reverse this expectation, raising global soybean inventories which are expected to remain unchanged (Chart 10). In addition to trade war, the African swine fever has hit pig herds in China – the main consumers of soybeans. According to China’s official statistics, more than a million pigs have been culled, and Chinese pork production is expected to be slashed by between a quarter and a half this year. This will depress demand for soybeans, further weighing on prices. So far this year the greenback has been a source of bearishness toward ags. Since the epidemic has spread to other Asian neighbors including Hong Kong and Vietnam, soybean demand from Asia will be reduced, regardless of the outcome of the trade war. This will also weigh on other major producers such as Brazil and Argentina, which have so far benefited from China’s shunning of the American crop. South American producers are also at risk if a positive outcome emerges from the negotiations. Chart 10No Change In Soybean Inventories Expected In The Coming Crop Year No Change In Soybean Inventories Expected In The Coming Crop Year No Change In Soybean Inventories Expected In The Coming Crop Year Chart 11Preliminary Projections Of Uptick In 2019/20 Wheat Inventories Preliminary Projections Of Uptick In 2019/20 Wheat Inventories Preliminary Projections Of Uptick In 2019/20 Wheat Inventories On the other hand, according to the latest USDA estimates, both global and U.S. year-end wheat inventories are expected to pick up in the 2019/2020 crop year (Chart 11). Greater European production will add to already elevated supplies. While global corn inventories are projected to come down, U.S. inventories will likely rise amid greater production and weaker exports. However, these acres are at risk given the flood delays (Chart 12). In addition to these supply-demand fundamentals, U.S. financial conditions – especially the U.S. dollar – will remain a key driver of ag prices. So far this year the greenback has been a source of bearishness toward ags. Ag prices have an inverse relationship with the U.S. trade-weighted dollar (Chart 13). While in our earlier report we had expected the dollar to peak by mid-year, the May 5 escalation in the trade war poses a risk to this view by threatening the global trade and growth outlook and spurring risk-off sentiment. Chart 12Another Deficit Expected ##br##For Corn Another Deficit Expected For Corn Another Deficit Expected For Corn Bottom Line: Farmers in the U.S. Midwest facing inundated fields are behind schedule in their spring planting. This poses a risk that a greater number of soybeans will be planted at the expense of corn – weighing down on an already depressed soybean market and potentially requiring the USDA to revise down its U.S. bean ending stocks in its next WASDE report. Chart 13U.S. Financial Conditions Continue To Weigh On Ags U.S. Financial Conditions Continue To Weigh On Ags U.S. Financial Conditions Continue To Weigh On Ags What is more, the African swine fever, which is spreading across East Asia, is reducing demand for animal feed there. Unless the trade conflict is resolved, we expect corn and wheat to outperform the soybean market.   Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report titled “U.S.-Iran: This Means War?” dated May 3, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Research’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. 3      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Financial Conditions, Trade War Continue To Dominate Ag Market,” dated March 28, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearh.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

While we remain bullish on global equities and other risk assets over 12 months, we went tactically short the S&P 500 last Friday following the market’s complacent reaction to the Trump Administration’s further tariffs increases on Chinese imports. While a moderate trade war would still produce more economic damage than standard economic models imply, this would be greatly mitigated by significant Chinese economic stimulus and a Fed that is in no hurry to raise rates and could even cut rates. Barring any further major developments, we recommend investors start increasing risk exposure if the S&P 500 falls to 2711. A dip in global bourses would also create an opportunity to go overweight EM/European equities. Favor gold over government bonds as a low-cost hedge against trade war risks for now.

Highlights Looking past the day-to-day noise of trade-related announcements, we view the underlying odds of an actual trade agreement this year to have fallen below 50%. For the purposes of investment strategy, China-exposed investors should now simply assume that the U.S. proceeds with 25% tariffs on all imports from China. Given this, investors should stop focusing strictly on the odds of trade war, and should instead start focusing on the likely net impact of the tariff shock and China’s inevitable policy response. Simulated and empirical estimates of the impact of a 25% increase in tariffs affecting all U.S.-China trade suggest that economic conditions in China are likely to deteriorate to 2015/2016-like levels. This implies that a 2015/2016-style policy response will again be required in order for policymakers to be confident that the shock will be overcome. The preference of policymakers is to prevent another significant episode of releveraging, but the constraints facing policymakers suggest that one is unlikely to be avoided. We see a meaningful chance that this tension will be resolved by a classic market “riot” over the coming 3 months as financial markets force reluctant policymakers to capitulate. We would not recommend a long position in Chinese stocks, either in absolute terms or relative to the global benchmark, for investors with a time horizon of less than 3 months. However, over a strictly cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) time horizon, we would recommend staying long/overweight on the basis that policymakers will ultimately respond as needed. We recommend investors hedge the inherent RMB exposure from a long US$ cyclical position in Chinese stocks by opening a long USD-CNH trade. Feature U.S. and Chinese negotiators failed last week to secure an agreement deferring the threatened increase in the second round tariff rate.1 The tariffs increased on Thursday at midnight for goods not already in transit to the U.S. (effectively doubling the existing tariffs), which was followed by the inevitable retaliation by China on Monday (scheduled to take effect on June 1). The retaliation, coupled with President Trump’s earlier warning that China should not do so, was taken by investors as a sign that 25% tariffs on all goods imported from China will soon be in place. As we go to press, the S&P 500, Hang Seng China Enterprises Index, and the CSI 300 are down 3.5%, 7%, and 6.9%, respectively, since President Trump’s May 5 tweet (Chart 1). Chart 1Investors Are Starting To Price In 25% Tariffs Affecting All U.S.-China Trade Investors Are Starting To Price In 25% Tariffs Affecting All U.S.-China Trade Investors Are Starting To Price In 25% Tariffs Affecting All U.S.-China Trade Stimulus Minus Shock Holding all else equal, the events of the past two weeks are strictly negative for Chinese economic growth and would thus justify a decisively bearish outlook for Chinese stock prices after the rally that has taken place over the past six months. However, all is not equal, because a substantial deterioration in the export outlook will invariably cause a response from Chinese policymakers. Over the coming few weeks, global investors are likely to remain highly focused on developments and announcements related to the trade conflict. But at this point, our geopolitical team believes that the conclusion of an actual trade agreement this year is now only a 40% probability. This underscores that China-exposed investors should, for the purposes of investment strategy, simply assume that the U.S. proceeds with 25% tariffs on all imports from China, and should broaden their focus to the outcome of a simple formula that describes the potential net outcome of this event. Two simple scenarios concerning this formula are outlined below: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Stimulus – Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Stimulus – Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. In this scenario, investors should actually have a bullish cyclical outlook for China-related assets, even if the near-term outlook is deeply negative. Scenario 2 denotes a bearish outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock, which includes a circumstance where the impacts are exactly offsetting (because of the higher uncertainty, and thus risk premium, that this would entail). “Solving” The Formula In order to “solve” this formula, investors need answers to the following three questions: What is the size and disposition of the likely shock to China’s economy in a full-tariff scenario? What kind of reflationary response is required in order to offset this shock? What are the odds that policymakers will deliver the required response? Simulated and empirical estimates of a 25% increase in tariffs affecting all U.S.-China trade suggest a sizeable economic impact. Charts 2 & 3 provide the IMF’s perspective on the first question. The charts show the simulated impact of a 25% increase in tariffs affecting all U.S.-China trade, and they estimate the near-term impact for China to be -1.25% for real GDP (-0.5% over the long-run) and -3.5% for real exports (-4.5% to -5.5% over the long run). Chart 2 Chart 3   A recent IMF working paper came up with a more benign estimate of the first year impact, but a sizeable second year impact and a similar estimate of the long-term ramifications of tariff increases.2 Using a dataset with wide time and country coverage, the aggregate results of the study imply that Chinese output is only likely to fall about 0.2% in the year following the tariff increase. However, the cumulative shock to output increased sharply to roughly 1.6% in the second year of the tariff increase, with a negative yearly impact to output persisting for 5 years (with an average annual impact of -0.6% over the whole period, somewhat higher than the estimates shown in Charts 2 & 3). At the 90% confidence interval, the author’s estimates show that a tariff increase of this magnitude would imply a -1.7% average impact on output per year in the first two years following the increase. Chart 4The IMF's Shock Estimates Suggest A Serious Hit To China's Economy The IMF's Shock Estimates Suggest A Serious Hit To China's Economy The IMF's Shock Estimates Suggest A Serious Hit To China's Economy In order to answer the second question, investors need to have some sense of the relative magnitude of the estimates noted above. Chart 4 provides some perspective and highlights that the estimates above, were they to materialize, would do two things: Taking Chinese real GDP data at face value, it would cause the largest deceleration in China’s real GDP growth rate since 2012, when the economy slowed significantly and authorities responded forcefully. Based on the most recent data for Chinese real export growth, a 3.5% deceleration in export volume would push its growth rate to its lowest level since the global financial crisis. In practice, we doubt that China’s reported real GDP growth rate accurately reflects what occurred in 2015, and it is very possible that a similar deceleration happened in that year. However, economic similarity to the 2015/2016 episode implies that a similar policy response may also be required, a proposition that is supported by our MSCI China Index earnings recession model. Table 1 shows a set of earnings recession probabilities, based on a model that we presented in two recent reports.3 The scenarios express the odds as a function of new credit to GDP and our calculation of China’s export weighted exchange rate, and assume a substantial decline in the new export orders component of the official manufacturing PMI, and flat momentum in forward earnings. Table 1Our Earnings Recession Model Suggests That A 2015/2016 Style Response Is Needed To Counter This Shock Simple Arithmetic Simple Arithmetic The table clearly highlights that a significant further acceleration in new credit to GDP, coupled with a meaningful decline in the exchange rate, is needed in order to stabilize the earnings outlook. We have previously related stability in the outlook for earnings to stability in the economy itself, given the close correlation between Chinese investment-relevant economic activity and the earnings cycle (Chart 5). Given that new credit to GDP peaked at 31.5% during the 2015/2016 episode, it seems reasonable to conclude that a 2015/2016-style policy response will again be required in order for policymakers to be confident that the shock will be overcome. Policymaker Preferences Vs. Constraints This brings us to our third question: What are the odds that policymakers will deliver the stimulus required to confidently overcome the upcoming shock? It seems reasonable to conclude that a 2015/2016-style policy response will again be required in order for policymakers to be confident that the shock will be overcome. If the answer was only dependent on the preferences of policymakers, the odds would be low. China has relied heavily on credit to stimulate its economy over the past decade, and Chart 6 highlights that this has come at a high cost. The BIS’ estimate of the debt service ratio of China’s private non-financial sector is already extraordinarily high relative to other countries, and another round of meaningful re-leveraging will just make this problem even worse. Chart 5Earnings Stability = Economic ##br##Stability Earnings Stability = Economic Stability Earnings Stability = Economic Stability Chart 6Further Leveraging Will Undoubtedly Make A Big Problem Even Worse Further Leveraging Will Undoubtedly Make A Big Problem Even Worse Further Leveraging Will Undoubtedly Make A Big Problem Even Worse   We documented in detail how this has created the risk of a debt trap for China’s state-owned enterprises in an August Special Report,4 and have presented evidence arguing that China’s policymakers appear to have good economic reasons to try and shift China’s economy away from extremely high rates of investment towards more consumption.5 This implies that restraining credit growth to avoid further leveraging has been a reasonable policy objective during periods of relative economic stability. However, policy decisions cannot be made in a vacuum, and this is true even in the case of China. As such, instead of preferences, investors should be focused on policymaker constraints in judging likely policy actions. Given the potential for second round effects, Chinese policymakers need to calibrate their policy response to ensure a positive net impact of the stimulus minus the shock. In our view, three factors point to the conclusion that Chinese policymakers face serious economic constraints in setting their policy response: Charts 2-4 highlighted that 25% tariffs on all U.S.-China trade would constitute a meaningful shock, but it is also the case that this shock would be coming at a time when Chinese economic momentum is already relatively weak. This suggests that policymakers will have to act quickly and decisively to put a floor under economic activity. Charts 7 & 8 suggest that there are meaningful second round effects on Chinese domestic investment from external sector shocks, which raises the possibility that the impact on Chinese economic activity may be larger than Charts 2-4 suggest. Chart 7 shows that while the contribution to official real GDP growth from net exports is small, Chart 8 shows that past changes in net export contribution are reasonably correlated with subsequent changes in the contribution to growth from gross capital formation. While it is possible that this relationship is not actually causal, taking it at face value implies that the IMF’s estimate of the impact on output could be exceeded if the contribution to growth from net exports declines by 0.4% or more (holding the contribution to growth from final consumption expenditure constant). Since 2018’s change in net export contribution declined by three times this amount (1.2%), the downside risks to domestic investment from effectively quadrupling U.S. import tariffs are clear. China does not have a flexible labor market, and its political system is highly sensitive to significant job losses. Chart 9 shows that the employment situation has already seriously deteriorated in lockstep with actual economic activity, further underscoring the need for policymakers to act urgently. Chart 7 Chart 8 Chart 9The Employment Situation Is Already Deteriorating, And Will Do So Further The Employment Situation Is Already Deteriorating, And Will Do So Further The Employment Situation Is Already Deteriorating, And Will Do So Further We are open to the idea that policymakers may be able to devise a stimulative response of similar reflationary magnitude to the 2015/2016 episode without resorting to a major credit overshoot, but we are currently unable to articulate what it might be. This is an area of ongoing research for BCA’s China Investment Strategy service, but for now we assume that a credit overshoot remains the ultimate line of defense for China’s policymakers that will be deployed if the pursuit of alternative strategies fail to quickly stabilize economic activity. Investment Strategy Conclusions In our view, focusing on policymaker constraints rather than their preferences is much more likely to guide investors towards the right strategy conclusions over a 6-12 month time horizon. However, in the near-term, policy mistakes can occur, and are much more likely to occur if policymakers react to the imposition of constraints rather than anticipate their arrival. Over the coming three months, we see meaningful odds that Chinese policymakers remain reluctant to allow another episode of significant releveraging in the economy. If we are correct in our assessment of the damage that the tariff shock is likely to cause, this would set up a classic market “riot”, where policymakers are forced by financial markets to capitulate and respond forcefully to the seriousness of the economic situation. Further RMB weakness is likely. Investors should hedge their exposure and go long USD-CNH. Chart 10Investors Have A Green Light To Bet On A Lower RMB Investors Have A Green Light To Bet On A Lower RMB Investors Have A Green Light To Bet On A Lower RMB Given this, we would not recommend a long position in Chinese stocks, either in absolute terms or relative to the global benchmark, for investors with a time horizon of less than 3 months. However, over a cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) time horizon, we would recommend staying long/overweight on the basis that policymakers will ultimately deliver the stimulus required to more than offset the upcoming shock to external demand. This means that our long MSCI China Index, MSCI China A onshore index, and MSCI China Growth index trades relative to the global benchmark are explicitly cyclical in orientation, and may suffer meaningful further losses over the coming few months before ultimately recovering. As a final point, Table 1 highlighted that a meaningful decline in the exchange rate is likely required in order to stabilize the earnings outlook. Chart 10 shows that currency weakness persisted well past the trough in relative Chinese investable equity performance during the 2015/2016 episode, and we would expect a similar result in the current environment given the nature of the shock. As such, we recommend investors hedge the inherent RMB exposure from a long US$ cyclical position in Chinese stocks by opening a long USD-CNH trade today, with high odds of a break above 7 in the coming weeks. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The first, second, third “round” of tariffs reference the $50/$200/$300 billion tranches of imported goods subject to U.S. tariff announcements since last summer. 2 IMF Working Paper WP/19/9, “Macroeconomic Consequences of Tariffs”, by Davide Furceri, Swarnali A. Hannan, Jonathan D. Ostry, and Andrew K. Rose. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Six Questions About Chinese Stocks,” dated January 16, 2019, and Weekly Report “A Gap In The Bridge,” dated January 30, 2019 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging,” dated August 29, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4  Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Is China Making A Policy Mistake?,” dated October 31, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The clear and present deterioration in Sino-U.S. trade negotiations suggests the dollar will remain bid in the near term. While the probability of a trade deal has fallen, the situation remains highly fluid, and the odds could shift either way rather dramatically. Ultimately, it is beneficial for both parties to come to an agreement. We highlighted last week that in an environment where volatility was low and falling, it paid to have insurance in place. The yen and Swiss franc remain attractive from this standpoint. Our thesis remains that the path of least resistance for the dollar is down, but gauging how high the dollar can catapult before ultimately reversing course is paramount for strategy. Our estimation is that the trade-weighted dollar could rise 2-3% before ultimately cresting. Expect more pronounced USD moves vis-à-vis growth-sensitive currencies. We were stopped out of our short USD/SEK position with a 1.9% loss. If global growth rebounds, this will be a high-conviction trade, but we are standing aside for risk-management purposes. Feature Markets received a dose of volatility this week. First, evidence has emerged that China is retracting on previous commitments toward a Sino-U.S. trade deal. A systematic volte face to core pledges such as legally addressing the theft of U.S. intellectual property and trade secrets, fair competition policy, and removing foreign caps on financial services, aggravated the Trump administration and prompted a new round of tariffs. As we go to press, the final details have not been revealed, but the proposal is to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10% to 25%, while slapping an additional 25% tariff on the remaining $325 billion of Chinese goods “shortly” after (Chart I-1). Almost simultaneously, tensions between the U.S. and Iran are flaring up following President Trump’s decision not to extend sanction waivers to Iranian oil exports beyond May. The Iranian response has been to threaten to claw back some of the commitments it made in the landmark 2015 nuclear deal, mainly a halt to its uranium enrichment program. The risk of miscalculation and escalation is high. With an aircraft carrier strike group departing from U.S. shores, Tehran could be forced into a corner and begin striking key pipelines in the Iraqi region of Basra, which is home to significant oil traffic. Meanwhile, investor exuberance towards green shoots in the global economy continues to be watered down with incoming data. Chinese export data has weakened anew, both in April and on a rolling three-month basis, following weak PMI numbers last week. Money and credit numbers were soft. Swedish manufacturing data, a strong proxy for global growth, continue to disappoint, with industrial new orders contracting by 8.1% in March – the worst pace since November 2016. And after a brisk rise since the start of the year, many China plays including commodity prices, the yuan, emerging market stocks and even A-shares are rolling over (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Back To The Firing Lines Back To The Firing Lines Back To The Firing Lines Chart 1-2Reflation Indicators Are Topping Out Reflation Indicators Are Topping Out Reflation Indicators Are Topping Out These developments have unsurprisingly put a bid under the dollar against pro-cyclical currencies. However, the euro is up versus the dollar this week, while the DXY marginally down. The lack of more pronounced volatility in currency markets despite a ramp-up in trade-war rhetoric is eery. Our thesis remains that the path of least resistance for the dollar is down, but gauging how high the dollar can catapult before ultimately reversing course is paramount for strategy. Tariffs And Exchange Rates Standard theory suggests that exchange rates should move to equalize prices across any two countries. This is simply because if prices rise significantly higher in country B versus Country A, it pays to buy the goods from A and resell them to B for a profit, assuming other costs are minimal. Country A’s currency rises following increased demand, while that of Country B falls, until the price differential is arbitraged away. This very simple concept originated from the School Of Salamanca in 16th century Spain, and still applies to this day in the form of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). The question that naturally follows is by how much should the currency increase? The answer is that the exchange rate will move by exactly the same percentage point as the price increase, everything else equal. If both countries produce homogeneous goods, then it is easy to see why, since there is perfect substitution. But assuming they produce heterogeneous goods, then the loss of purchasing power in Country A will lead to less demand for Country B’s goods. This means Country B’s currency will have to adjust downwards for the markets to clear. The decrease has to match the magnitude of the price increase, since there are no other outlets to liquidate Country A’s goods. If, say, Country A moves to hike prices as well, then both currencies remain at par. This is obviously a very simplified version of the real world economy, but it highlights an important point that is central to the discussion: The currency move necessary to realign competitiveness will always be equal to, or less, in percentage point terms to the price increase. In the case where the entire production base is tradeable, it will be the former. But with a rise in the number of trading partners, a more complex export basket, import substitution, shipping costs and many other factors that influence tradeable prices, the currency adjustment should be a fraction of the price increase. Since the onset of 2018, the U.S. has slapped various tariffs on China, the most important of which was 10% on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. Assume for the sake of argument that only China and the U.S. were trading partners. The U.S. currently imports $522 billion worth of goods from China, about 17% of its total imports. However, as a percentage of overall U.S. demand, this only represents 2.5% (Chart I-3). This suggests that at best, a 25% increase on all Chinese imports will only lift import prices by 4.3% and consumer prices by much less. On the Chinese side of the equation, exports to the U.S. account for 20% of total exports, so a tariff of 25% should only lift export prices by 5%. The conclusion is that the yuan and dollar only need to adjust by 4-5% to negate the impact of a 25% tariff. Chart 1-3Sino-U.S. Trade Is Small Relative To Domestic Demand Sino-U.S. Trade Is Small Relative To Domestic Demand Sino-U.S. Trade Is Small Relative To Domestic Demand Chart 1-4No Disorderly Rise In ##br##The Dollar No Disorderly Rise In The Dollar No Disorderly Rise In The Dollar   The DXY index is up 10% since the 2018 trough (Chart I-4), and the dollar was up an average of 74 basis points versus the Chinese Yuan from the day major tariffs were announced until the peak in trade-war rhetoric (Table I-1). This would be in line with economic theory. But there is a caveat: With no corresponding export subsidy for U.S. goods, the rise in the dollar makes exporters worse off. And with over 40% of S&P 500 sales coming from outside the U.S., this would have a meaningful dent on corporate profits. A paper by the Peterson Institute for International Economics showed that imposing a border adjustment tax caused the real effective exchange rate (REER) of the country to rise, hurting competitiveness.1  In quantity terms, the IMF estimated that a 20% import tariff from East Asia would lift the U.S. dollar’s REER by 5% over five years, while dropping output by 0.6% over the same timeframe.2  With the dollar not currently overvalued on a REER basis, this does not bode well for future competitiveness (Chart I-5). Chart I- Finally, trade wars are usually synonymous with recessions. As such, there are acute political constraints inching both sides toward an agreement. For President Trump, a deteriorating U.S. manufacturing sector in the Midwestern battleground states is a thorn in his side. The U.S. agricultural sector has continued to bleed from falling grain prices (Chart I-6). For President Xi, rising unemployment is a key constraint. April manufacturing and credit numbers out of China show that the economy is relapsing anew. So, either China compromises and inches towards a trade deal or launches another round of stimulus. Chart I-5The Dollar Is Not Undervalued On A REER Basis The Dollar Is Not Undervalued On A REER Basis The Dollar Is Not Undervalued On A REER Basis Chart I-6A Drought In Cash Flows For ##br##U.S. Farmers A Drought In Cash Flows For U.S. Farmers A Drought In Cash Flows For U.S. Farmers   Bottom Line: Standard theory suggests the dollar’s bid should be capped at 2-3% on the imposition of new tariffs. Getting the global growth picture right will be more important in dictating the dollar’s trend. Of course, a full-blown trade war puts the entire thesis in jeopardy. Questions From The Road We were on the road this week, talking to clients and teaching the BCA Academy. Most clients agreed that the dollar is in a transition phase, given the presence of emerging green shoots in the global economy (Chart I-7). However, most were also concerned to what degree this view could be offside. The concerns centered around the fact that the growth differential between the U.S. and the rest of the world remains wide, yield differentials still favor the U.S., profit leadership also continues to favor the U.S. and it is unclear to what degree the world is short of U.S. dollars. U.S. profit leadership in the world continues, but one prescient indicator for the dollar is whether banks are easing lending standards for large firms relative to smaller ones.  We continue to lean towards the narrative that most of the factors driving the dollar higher are behind us. U.S. growth tends to be low-beta relative to the world, so a rebound in the global economy will be negative for the dollar. An end to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet runoff will steer growth in the U.S. monetary base from deeply negative to zero. Meanwhile, a rising external profit environment will lead to an increase in foreign central bank reserves. The yield differential between the U.S. and the rest of the world remains wide, but this has a natural limit since global bond yields tend to converge towards each other over time. Chart I-7Global Growth Should##br## Rebound Global Growth Should Rebound Global Growth Should Rebound Chart I-8Positive Earnings Revisions Bodes Well For Growth Positive Earnings Revisions Bodes Well For Growth Positive Earnings Revisions Bodes Well For Growth   U.S. profit leadership in the world continues (Chart I-8), but one prescient indicator for the dollar is whether banks are easing lending standards for large firms relative to smaller ones. A better external environment will suggest banks will allow credit to flow to larger firms relative to smaller ones, since the latter tend to be more domestic. This is also an environment where global equities tend to outperform. The latest Fed Senior Official Loan survey showed that on the margin, lending standards are easing for large relative to small firms. This may suggest that return on capital is starting to improve outside the U.S., which will be a headwind for the dollar (Chart I-9). Chart I-9S&P 500 Foreign Earnings Need A Weak Dollar S&P 500 Foreign Earnings Need A Weak Dollar S&P 500 Foreign Earnings Need A Weak Dollar From a technical standpoint, almost all currencies are already falling versus the U.S. dollar – a trend that has been in place for several months now. This means most of the factors putting upward pressure on the dollar are well understood by the market. For example, global growth has been slowing for well over a year, based on the global PMI. Putting on fresh U.S. dollar long positions is at risk of a washout from stale investors, just as it was back in 2015, a year after growth had peaked (Chart I-10). It will be difficult for the dollar to act as both a safe-haven and carry currency, because the forces that drive both move in opposite directions.  Dollar technicals are also very unfavorable. Speculators are holding near-record long positions, sentiment is stretched, and our intermediate-term indicator is also flagging yellow. Over the past five years, confirmation from all three indicators has been followed by some period of U.S. dollar indigestion (Chart I-11). This may help explain relative stability in the broad trade-weighted dollar, despite a flare up in global risk aversion. Chart I-10Dollar Bull Case Is Well Known Dollar Bull Case Is Well Known Dollar Bull Case Is Well Known Chart I-11Dollar Technicals Are Unfavorable Dollar Technicals Are Unfavorable Dollar Technicals Are Unfavorable   Finally, with U.S. interest rates having risen significantly versus almost all G10 countries in recent years, the dollar has itself become the object of carry trades. This has also come with a good number of unhedged trades, as the rising exchange rate has lifted hedging costs. It will be difficult for the dollar to act as both a safe-haven and carry currency, because the forces that drive both move in opposite directions. The strength in EUR/USD this week despite the rise in global risk aversion is testament to this thesis. Bottom Line: Aside from the renewed specter of a trade war, most of the factors driving the dollar higher are behind us. House Keeping Chart I-12Buy Some Insurance Buy Some Insurance Buy Some Insurance Rising market volatility suggests some trades could be at risk from being stopped out. First, our long AUD/USD sits right at the epicenter of any growth slowdown in China. Maintain stops of 68 cents. Second, in an environment where volatility is low and falling, it pays to have insurance in place. We continue to favour CHF/NZD (Chart I-12). Third, we were stopped out of our short USD/SEK position for a 1.9% loss. If global growth rebounds, this will be a high-conviction trade. However, we are standing aside for risk-management purposes. Finally, the Reserve Bank Of Australia kept rates on hold this week, while the Reserve Bank Of New Zealand cut rates. This bodes well for our strategic AUD/NZD position.     Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Caroline Freund and Joseph E. Gagnon, “Effects of Consumption Taxes on Real Exchange Rates and Trade Balances,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, April 2017. 2 Maurice Obstfeld, “Tariffs Do More Harm Than Good At Home,” IMFBlog, September 8, 2016. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been mostly positive: To begin with the labor market, the unemployment rate fell to a 50-year low of 3.6% in April, despite a slight fall in the participation rate to 62.8%. Change in nonfarm payrolls came in above expectations at 263K in April, while average hourly earnings was unchanged at 3.2%. Moreover, JOLTS job openings came in at 7.5 million, above expectations. On the PMI front, the Markit composite PMI fell to 53 in April. ISM non-manufacturing PMI fell below expectations to 55.5. On the housing market front, mortgage applications increased by 2.7%, an improvement from the last reading of -4.3%. This nudged the MBA Purchase Index from 259.4 to 270.2. DXY index fell by 0.2% this week. On Sunday, Trump tweeted that tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports will increase from 10% to 25%, which again toppled the market. The ongoing trade disputes increase uncertainty in the global growth outlook. Report Links: Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area are improving: Headline and core inflation in the euro area rose to 1.7% and 1.2% year-on-year, respectively in April. Markit composite and services PMI came in at 51.5 and 52.8, respectively, both surprising to the upside. The French composite and services PMI increased to 50.1 and 50.5. The German composite and services PMI increased to 52.2 and 55.7. Sentix investor confidence rose to 5.3 in May, well above consensus. Retail sales increased by 1.9% year-on-year in March. EUR/USD appreciated by 0.3% this week. The European Commission (EU) released the spring 2019 Economic Growth Forecasts this week, citing that “growth continues at a more moderate pace.” While the global growth slowdown and trade policy uncertainties could weigh on the European economy, domestic dynamics are set to support the economy. According to the forecast, growth will continue to pick up in all EU member states next year. Report Links: Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Reading The Tea Leaves From China - April 12, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been neutral: Nikkei composite PMI increased to 50.8 in April. The manufacturing PMI increased to 50.2, while the services PMI fell slightly to 51.8. Vehicle sales increased by 2.5% year-on-year in April. Consumer confidence index fell to 40.4 in April. USD/JPY fell by 0.9% this week. Volatility caused by the ongoing trade disputes has reduced risk appetite, enhancing the outperformance of the safe-haven yen. According to the BoJ minutes released this Wednesday, Japanese financial conditions remain highly accommodative, and the domestic demand is likely to bounce, despite the drag from external growth. Report Links: Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Tug OF War, With Gold As Umpire - March 29, 2019 A Trader’s Guide To The Yen - March 15, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been solid: Markit composite PMI increased to 50.9 in April. Services PMI also came in above expectations at 50.4 in April, an improvement from the last reading of 48.9. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) like-for-like retail sales increased by 3.7% year-on-year in April, outperforming expectations. Halifax house prices increased by 1.1% month-on-month in April and 5% year-on-year. GBP/USD fell by 0.9% this week, erasing the gains from last Friday after positive PMI data. We continue to favor the pound given its cheap valuation and healthy domestic fundamentals. However, the window for pound upside will rapidly close as we approach Brexit 2.0. Report Links: Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 A Trader’s Guide To The Yen - March 15, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mostly positive: CBA Australia composite and services PMI both outperformed, increasing to 50 and 50.1, respectively. Building permits contracted by 27.3% year-on-year in March. However, this looks like a volatile bottoming process on a chart. Retail sales increased by 0.3% month-on-month in March. The trade balance came in at a surplus of A$4.95 million in March. AUD/USD has been flat this week. The Reserve Bank of Australia kept interest rate on hold at 1.5% this week, which disappointed the bears. Moreover, in the monetary policy statement, the RBA estimates the economy will grow around 2.75% in 2019 and 2020, supported by increased investment and a pickup in the resources sector. Report Links: Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns- April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been mixed: ANZ commodity prices increased by 2.5% in April, higher than expected. 2-year inflation expectations remain at 2%. Dairy price index increased by 0.4% in April, above the estimated -1.1%. NZD/USD fell by 0.5% this week. On Tuesday, the RBNZ lowered its interest rate by 25 bps to 1.5%. Our long AUD/NZD position, which is currently 0.8% in the money, is likely to profit from the widened interest rate differential. In the monetary policy statement, the RBNZ stated that a lower rate is mostly consistent with the current employment and inflation outlook in New Zealand. Moreover, global uncertainties, coupled with domestic housing market softness and reduced immigration remain a headwind to the economy. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been positive: Ivey Purchasing Managers’ Index increased to 55.9 in April, well above estimates. Housing starts increased by 236K year-on-year in April. Imports and exports increased to C$52 billion and C$49 billion respectively in March, resulting in a small deficit of C$3 billion. New housing price index increased by 0.1% year-on-year in March. USD/CAD has been flat this week. On Monday, Governor Poloz gave a speech focusing on the Canadian housing sector. He aims to provide more flexible mortgage choices for Canadian consumers, which could help the housing market to stabilize. The possible measures include diversifying mortgage terms, developing an MBS market, and encouraging different mortgage designs. Report Links: Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been neutral: Headline inflation fell to 0.2% in April on a month-on-month basis, while unchanged at 0.7% on a year-on-year basis. Core inflation was unchanged at 0.5% year-on-year. Foreign currency reserves increased to 772 billion CHF in April. Unemployment rate was unchanged at 2.4% month-on-month in April. The SECO consumer climate fell to -6 in Q2. USD/CHF fell by 0.2% this week. While the trade disputes and increased global growth uncertainties could support the Swiss franc in the near term, we continue to favor the euro over the franc on a cyclical basis. Report Links: Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been mixed: Registered unemployment fell to 2.3% in April. Manufacturing output contracted by 0.8% in March. House prices rose by 2.2% year-on-year in April, below March’s 3.2% annual growth. USD/NOK increased by 0.2% this week. On Thursday, the Norges Bank kept interest rates on hold at 1%, in line with expectations. The monetary policy continues to be accommodative, which is a tailwind for the Norwegian economy. Report Links: Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: Industrial production contracted by 1.3% year-on-year in March. Manufacturing new orders decreased by 8.1% year-on-year in March, the worst since November 2016. USD/SEK increased by 0.8% this week. Our short USD/SEK position was stopped out at 9.6, due to the weaker-than- expected Swedish data and unexpected U.S. dollar resilience. We will look to put the trade back on when we see more clear signs of a global growth bottom. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Global Liquidity Trends Support The Dollar, But... - January 25, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Even if higher tariffs are imposed tonight, there is a good chance that China and the U.S. will reach a temporary trade truce over the coming weeks. Contrary to President Trump’s assertion, U.S. companies and consumers have borne all of the costs of the tariffs. With the next U.S. presidential campaign less than one year away, the self-described “master negotiator” will actually need to prove that he can negotiate a trade deal. If trade talks do collapse, the Chinese will ramp up credit/fiscal stimulus “MMT style,” thus providing a cushion under global growth and risk assets. In fact, there is a very high probability that the Chinese will overreact to the risks to growth, much like they did in 2009 and 2016. Investors should remain overweight global equities for the next 12 months, while positioning for a modestly weaker U.S. dollar and somewhat higher global bond yields. Feature Tariff Man Strikes Again Hopes for a quick end to the trade war were dashed last Sunday. President Trump threatened to hike tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods and begin proceedings to tax the remaining $325 billion of imports currently not subject to tariffs. Although details remain sketchy, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer apparently informed the president that the Chinese were backtracking on prior commitments to change laws dealing with issues such as market access, forced technology transfers, and IP theft.1 This infuriated Trump. Trump’s announcement came just as Vice Premier Liu He and a 100-person Chinese trade delegation were set to depart for Washington. As BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken has noted, the relationship between the two sides was deteriorating even before Trump fired his latest salvo.2 The Chinese government was incensed by the U.S. request that Canada detain and extradite a senior official at Huawei, a top Chinese telecom firm. For its part, the Trump Administration was irked by China’s questionable enforcement of Iranian oil imports, the escalation of Chinese military drills around Taiwan, and the perception that China had not done enough to keep North Korea in check following the failed summit with Kim Jong-Un in Hanoi. It would be naïve to expect these ongoing geopolitical issues to fade anytime soon. The world is shifting from a unipolar to a multipolar one (Chart 1). In an environment where there are overlapping spheres of influence, geopolitical tensions will rise. Chart 1The Era Of Unipolarity Is Over The Era Of Unipolarity Is Over The Era Of Unipolarity Is Over That said, stocks still managed to advance during the first four decades of the post-war era even though the U.S. and the Soviet Union were at each other’s throats. What investors need today is some reassurance that the current trade spat will not degenerate into a full-out trade war that undermines global commerce. Ultimately, we think they will get this reassurance for the same reason that the Soviets and Americans never ended up lobbing missiles at each other: It would have been a lose-lose proposition to do so. Yet, the path from here to there will be a bumpy one. Investors should expect heightened volatility over the coming weeks. As It Turns Out, Trade Wars Are Neither Good Nor Easy To Win There was never any doubt that Wall Street would suffer from a trade war. What was less clear at the outset was the impact that higher tariffs would have on Main Street. Despite President Trump’s claim that the tariffs paid to the U.S. Treasury were “mostly borne by China,” the evidence suggests that close to 100% of the tariffs were, in fact, borne by U.S. companies and consumers. What investors need today is some reassurance that the current trade spat will not degenerate into a full-out trade war that undermines global commerce. A recent NBER paper compared the prices of Chinese imports that were subject to tariffs and similar goods that were not.3 Had Chinese producers been forced to bear the cost of the tariffs, one would have expected pre-tariff import prices to decline. In fact, they didn’t. The tariffs were simply absorbed by U.S. importers in the form of lower profit margins and by U.S. consumers in the form of higher selling prices. This does not mean that Chinese producers escaped unscathed. The paper showed that imports of tariffed goods dropped sharply as U.S. demand shifted away from China and towards domestically-produced goods and imports from other countries. Chart 2Support For Protectionism Rises When Unemployment Is High Support For Protectionism Rises When Unemployment Is High Support For Protectionism Rises When Unemployment Is High One might think that the decision to divert spending from Chinese goods to, say, Korean goods would be irrelevant for U.S. welfare. However, a simple thought experiment reveals that this is not the case. Suppose that a 10% tariff raises the price of an imported good from $100 to $110. If the consumer buys this good from China, the consumer will lose $10 while the U.S. government will gain $10, implying no loss in welfare. However, suppose the consumer buys the same good, tariff-free, from Korea for $105. Then the consumer loses $5 while the government gets no additional revenue, implying a net loss in national welfare of $5. Things get trickier when we consider the case where the consumer buys an identical domestically-produced good for say, $107, in order to avoid the tariff. If the economy is suffering from high unemployment, the additional demand will boost GDP by $107. The consumer who bought the domestically-produced good will be worse off by $7, but wages and profits will rise by $107, leaving a net gain of $100 for the economy. When unemployment is high, beggar-thy-neighbor policies make more sense. This is a key reason why support for protectionism tends to rise when unemployment increases (Chart 2). Today, however, the U.S. unemployment rate is at a 49-year low. To the extent that tariffs shift demand towards locally sourced goods, this is likely to require that workers and capital be diverted from other uses. When this occurs, there is no change in overall GDP. Within the context of the example above, all that would happen is that consumers would lose $7, reducing national welfare by the same amount. In fact, it is even worse than that. The example above does not include the impact on welfare from any resources that would need to be squandered from having to shift workers and capital equipment from sectors of the economy that lose from higher tariffs to those that gain from them. Nor does the example include the adverse impact on national welfare from any retaliatory policies. Ironically, while the evidence suggests that U.S. tariffs did not have much effect on Chinese import prices, it does appear that Chinese tariffs had an effect on U.S. export prices. Agricultural prices are highly sensitive to market conditions. Chart 3 shows that grain and soybean prices fell noticeably in 2018 on days when trade tensions intensified. This pattern has continued into the present. It is not surprising that Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, along with other senior Iowa politicians, penned a letter to President Trump imploring him to reach a trade deal in order to help the state’s farming communities.4 Chart 3 China’s Secret Weapon: MMT To be fair, the arguments above do not account for the strategic possibility that the threat of punitive tariffs forces the Chinese to open their markets and refrain from corporate espionage and IP theft. If Trump is able to wrangle these concessions from the Chinese, then he could remove the tariffs, creating an environment more favorable to American corporate interests. The problem is that China will resist conceding so much ground. True, a trade war would hurt Chinese exporters much more than it would hurt U.S. firms. However, China is no longer as dependent on trade as it once was. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for only 3.6% of GDP, down from 7.3% of GDP in 2006 (Chart 4). China also has plenty of tools to support the economy in the event of a trade war. Chief among these is credit/fiscal stimulus. As we discussed three weeks ago, investors are underestimating China’s ability to ramp up credit growth in order to support spending throughout the economy.5 High levels of household savings have kept interest rates below the growth rate of the economy (Chart 5). When GDP growth exceeds the interest rate at which the government can borrow, even a persistently large budget deficit will produce a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in the long run. Chart 4China Is No Longer As Dependent On Trade With The U.S. As It Once Was China Is No Longer As Dependent On Trade With The U.S. As It Once Was China Is No Longer As Dependent On Trade With The U.S. As It Once Was Chart 5China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy   The standard counterargument is that governments cannot control the interest rate at which they borrow. This means that they run the risk of experiencing a vicious circle where high debt levels cause bond yields to rise, making it more difficult for the government to service its debt. This could lead to even higher bond yields and, eventually, default. However, this argument applies only to countries that do not issue their own currencies. Since a sovereign government can always print cash to pay for the goods and services, it can never run out of money. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for only 3.6% of GDP, down from 7.3% of GDP in 2006. The main reason a sovereign central bank would wish to raise rates is to prevent the economy from overheating. If a rising fiscal deficit is the consequence of a decline in private-sector spending (which is something that would likely happen during a trade war), there is no risk of overheating, and hence, there is no need to raise interest rates. We are not big fans of Modern Monetary Theory, but at least on this point, the MMT crowd is right while most analysts are wrong. Investment Conclusions It is impossible to say with any confidence what the next few days will bring on the trade front. If the Trump Administration’s allegation that the Chinese backtracked on prior commitments turns out to be true, it is possible that some of them will be reinstated, thus allowing the negotiations to resume. This could prompt Trump to offer a “grace period” to the Chinese of one or two weeks later tonight before scheduled tariff hikes are set to occur. If tariffs do go up, what should investors do? The answer depends on how much stocks fall in response to the news. If global equities were to decline by more than five percent, our inclination would be to get more bullish. There are two reasons for this. First, the failure to reach a deal this week does not mean that the talks will irrevocably break down. The point of Trump’s tariffs was never to raise revenue. It was to force the Chinese into a trade agreement that served America’s interests. With less than a year to go before the presidential campaign kicks into high gear, the self-described “master negotiator” needs to prove to the American public that he can actually negotiate a trade deal. This means some sort of an agreement is more likely than not. Second, as noted above, China will respond aggressively with fresh stimulus if the U.S. slaps tariffs on its exports. This will help cushion global growth and risk assets. Infrastructure spending tends to be more commodity intensive than manufacturing production. Thus, even if the Chinese government exactly offsets the loss of manufacturing exports with additional infrastructure spending, the net effect on global growth will probably be positive. China will respond aggressively with fresh stimulus if the U.S. slaps tariffs on its exports. In reality, there is a very high probability that the Chinese will do more than that. As the 2009 and 2016 episodes illustrate, when faced with a clear downside shock to growth, the government calibrates the policy response based on the worst-case scenario. Not only would a bout of hyperstimulus provide downside protection to the Chinese economy against a growth shock, it would also give the government more negotiating leverage with Trump. After all, it is much easier to brush away threats of punitive tariffs if you have an economy that is humming along. Investors should remain overweight global equities for the next 12 months, while positioning for a modestly weaker U.S. dollar and somewhat higher global bond yields. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      David Lawder, Jeff Mason, and Michael Martina, “Exclusive: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources,” Reuters, May 8, 2019. 2      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “U.S. And China Get Cold Feet,” dated May 6, 2019. 3      Mary Amiti, Stephen J. Redding, and David E. Weinstein, “The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare,” NBER Working Paper No. 25672, (March 2019). 4      “Young, Ernst Lead Iowa Delegation in Letter Urging President Not to Impose Tariffs,” Joni Ernst United States Senator For Iowa, March 7, 2018. 5      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Chart 6 Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades