Economic Growth

As the summer holidays become a memory, central banks globally are mobilizing to fight mounting recession risks. More than 30 at last count are busily easing financial conditions to boost growth (Chart of the Week). Going into 4Q19, this monetary stimulus – coupled with fiscal stimulus globally – should allow growth ex-U.S. to revive, which will weaken the USD. This will be bullish for commodity demand in general, oil in particular. Fundamentally, the supply side of the oil market is in good shape. Production discipline by OPEC 2.0 will be maintained, while members of the coalition iterate on the level of output required to keep the rate of growth on the supply side below that of consumption.1 Capital discipline is being forced on U.S. shale-oil operators by markets. This will restrain their output growth rates to levels markets can absorb without inducing unintended inventory accumulation. A ceasefire in the Sino-U.S. trade war also could brighten short-term demand prospects and revive global trade volumes. This would indicate a recovery in manufacturing, given the heavy weight of manufactured goods in trade flows, and also in the the low-sulfur marine fuel markets. Going into 4Q19 and 1Q20, these supply-demand fundamentals will tighten markets, and force crude oil and refined product inventories lower. This will push Brent crude oil prices to our forecast levels of $66 and $75/bbl on average this year and next, with WTI trading $6.50 and $4/bbl under that. In addition, it would further backwardate crude oil forward curves. Chart of the WeekFinancial Conditions Continue Easing Among the risks to this view: Too-weak monetary/fiscal stimulus, leading to a failure to revive demand and stave off recession; a breakdown in OPEC 2.0’s production discipline; an expansion of the Sino-U.S. trade war; a disorderly Brexit; and, critically, a stubbornly strong USD, which raises the risk of direct intervention in FX markets by the U.S. central bank. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Saudi Aramco’s board of directors apparently has ruled out a listing of its IPO in New York, owing to legal risk in the U.S., according to Reuters news service.2 Riyadh and London reportedly are favored by board members. The Kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly has the final say. Base Metals: Neutral. The nickel rally likely corrects over the short term, after a vertical shot that lifted the metal ~56.2% between early June and this week. This was partly fueled by speculation over commentary from an Indonesian official in July reinforcing the country’s stated goal of banning raw ore exports by 2022. Indonesia is the largest nickel ore producer in the world.3 Precious Metals: Neutral. Our tactical long platinum position is up 3.9% since it was recommended last week. We continue to expect platinum will draft in gold’s wake, benefiting from safe-haven demand for precious metals generally. Fundamentally, the risk of power outages in South Africa, which produces ~67% of the world’s platinum, remains high this month, putting platinum-group metal production at risk there. Technically, the metal held long-term support at $785/oz this year – a level that goes back to the Global Financial Crisis lows – and has since rallied ~ 18%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese tariffs on U.S. soybean imports went up 5% to a total of 30% September 1, coinciding with the imposition of additional tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese imports. Feature USD strength remains a headwind to stronger EM growth, which is keeping oil demand growth in check (Chart 2).4 Indeed, in local-currency terms, oil prices remain closer to their 2014 highs, when Brent and WTI were trading above $100/bbl (Chart 3). The persistently strong USD is one reason we lowered our oil-demand forecast four times this year, which puts it at 1.2mm b/d for 2019. Chart 2USD Strength Hinders Oil Demand Growth Chart 3USD Strength Keeps Local-Currency Costs High The slowdown in global oil demand began in 2H18 and picked up speed in 1H19. We believe this largely was the result of a global tightening in financial conditions – apparent in the Chart of the Week – led by the Fed, which, with near-singular determination, raised its policy rate four times last year. Fed policy kept USD-denominated assets well bid, but, equally importantly, it raised the costs of commodities and all goods and services invoiced in USD globally in local-currency terms. This reduced aggregate demand ex-U.S. as households’ and firms’ discretionary incomes fell.5 Commodity demand also was derailed by the extended de-leveraging campaign by Chinese policymakers, which ran from 2017-18 and succeeded in its goal of bringing down the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio and the growth rate of leverage. Central Banks Scramble To Revive Growth The Treasury may be forced to up the ante and directly intervene in FX markets to weaken the dollar. To reverse the tightening of monetary conditions worldwide, central banks this year started moving to more accommodative monetary-policy settings, which we expect will continue to support looser financial conditions around the globe. In addition, fiscal stimulus either is being deployed or readied in key EM economies like China and India, which, together, account for 36% of the 53.5mm b/d of EM oil consumption we estimate for 2019. These policy responses should revive GDP growth – particularly in EM economies – and, all else equal, oil demand in the process going into 4Q19. The performance of our leading indicators support this expectation (Chart 4). That said, with so many systematically important central banks weakening their currencies, the USD could remain strong in relative terms.6 If the dollar remains a safe-haven asset in uncertain markets, while serving as the world’s reserve/invoicing/funding currency, weakening the USD during a period of high financial stress could be difficult. In that case, the Treasury may be forced to up the ante and directly intervene in FX markets to weaken the dollar. Chart 4Global LEIs Bottomed And Are Moving Up   Managing Financial Conditions In A Trade War We do not expect the Sino-U.S. trade war to be resolved. National security, foreign policy and technology positions that have been advanced by both sides appear impossible to walk back (e.g., protecting 5G networks from spying, and safeguarding intellectual property). This suggests the Sino-U.S. relationship is in the early stages of a Cold War, which could go hot in the short run.7 Still, a short-term agreement or ceasefire this year or next is still possible. The basis for such a shift would be President Trump staging a retreat to try to clinch a deal and improve the economy prior to his re-election campaign. China might accept a temporary reprieve. This would allow both sides to retreat to re-group for the almost-certain renewed trade tension that will mark the Sino-U.S. relationship going forward. Over the short run, a ceasefire could brighten demand prospects and revive global trade volumes. This would be supportive of crude oil and refined-products markets, particularly the low-sulfur marine fuel market, which, on January 1, will be bound by IMO 2020 standards.8 In the medium to longer-run, however, neither the U.S. nor China will cede ground if it strengthens the hand of the other, particularly regarding national security and technology, which will continue to be the key concern for all national security issues. This complicates fiscal and monetary policy for both sides going forward, along with trade relationships for each. We do not believe either side has these issues sorted, and likely will need time and space to develop policies for the medium- and longer-term. It also means each side’s respective allies will have to make hard choices in deciding whose camp they will migrate toward. These considerations cloud the outlook for the medium- to long-term oil markets. We will be exploring them in greater depth in forthcoming Commodity & Energy Strategy reports. Investment Implications We remain broadly long in our exposure to oil markets, expecting the fundamentals outlined above to tighten supply, strengthen demand and draw down inventories. Given this view, we remain long WTI flat price, and long 4Q19 Brent futures vs. short 4Q20 Brent futures, expecting a steeper backwardation. We also remain long the S&P GSCI commodity index, given its relatively heavy exposure to energy markets. Bottom Line: Supply-demand fundamentals, coupled with a favorable fiscal and monetary backdrop, indicate oil prices will move higher from current levels toward our forecasts of $75/bbl and $71/bbl next year for Brent and WTI, respectively. This view is not without risk – chiefly around the Sino-U.S. trade war, and the risk that an expansion of tensions would stunt global demand for oil significantly. We continue to follow this closely.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. It was formed in 2016 to manage production and reduce oil inventory levels globally. For a complete summary of our supply-demand expectations for this year and next, please see the August 22, 2019 Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "USD Strength Slows Oil Demand Growth; 2020 Brent Forecast Remains At $75/bbl". 2      Please see Exclusive: Saudi Aramco board sees too many risks for New York IPO - sources, published by reuters.com August 30, 2019. 3      Please see Nickel price forecast revised up as speculative rally boosts tight market — report, published by mining.com August 29, 2019. 4      We have shown in previous research EM income growth accounts for most of the growth in oil demand globally. This year, for example, we expect EM demand growth to account for 87% of 2019’s 1.2mm b/d growth in oil consumption. Next year, EM is expected to account for 79% of the 1.5mm b/d of growth we expect. For this reason, oil prices – and base metals prices – are a good barometer of the of EM income growth. 5      Maurice Obstfeld noted at the Fed’s June 2019 Conference on Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communication Practices (A Fed Listens Event) that the USD is not only the world’s reserve currency, it also is the dominant invoicing and funding currency. “… the dollar’s invoice-currency role affects the international price mechanism by influencing how U.S. monetary policy will move real exchange rates, inflation, and export competitiveness throughout the world. … (The) dollar’s funding currency role mediates the transmission of U.S. monetary policy to global financing conditions. “Through both mechanisms, U.S. monetary policy has an outsized impact on global economic activity – consistent with the evidence on unconventional policy spillovers. … The Federal Reserve, more than other central banks, should therefore consider spillbacks from the global economy as a relevant transmission mechanism for its policies.” Prof. Obstfeld’s paper can be downloaded at the Fed website, Global Dimensions of U.S. Monetary Policy. 6      In the August 26, 2019, issue of BCA Research’s U.S. Investment Strategy, our colleague Doug Peta, chief U.S. investment strategist, notes, “No central bank wants a stronger currency while confronting a demand deficiency aggravated by trade tensions and a global manufacturing slowdown. The New York Times Business section put the prevailing policy winds into living color in a nearly full-page, four-column graphic spotlighting the 32 central banks that have cut their policy rate so far this year.” For further discussion, please see Market Messages, published August 26, 2019, by BCA Research’s U.S. Investment Strategy. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7      Our geopolitical strategists make the odds of a trade agreement 40%, perhaps a bit higher. Please see Big Trouble In Greater China, published August 23, 2019, by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy, for an excellent discussion of the fraught Sino-U.S. relationship. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8      We expect global shipping-fuels market to tighten as UN-mandated fuel standards kick in next year. This will keep ship fuels, specifically Gasoil and ULSFO, and other distillate prices – e.g., diesel and jet fuel – elevated relative to other refined products like gasoline. This will boost demand for lighter, sweeter crudes – particularly Brent and similar grades – that allow refiners to raise distillate yields, as they scramble to meet higher demand for low-sulfur ship-fuel next year. For more information on IMO 2020, please see IMO 2020: The Greening Of The Ship-Fuel Market, published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 28, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Bank Credit Analyst

Feature BCA Research (aka The Bank Credit Analyst) published its first report in 1949, a remarkable 70 years ago. This probably makes us the longest-running independent investment research firm in the world. As we age, it is normal to occasionally reflect on how the world has changed over the course of our lives. It is an interesting exercise in the case of BCA. We need to start with a little history. The Bank Credit Analyst began life as a small-circulation newsletter produced by Hamilton Bolton, a Montreal-based money manager. He had been sending out investment commentary to his clients for some time and was encouraged to start catering to a wider audience. Bolton was a visionary because he was one of the few market analysts at that time to understand the importance of money and credit in driving economic and market cycles. In those days, banks were the dominant financial intermediary, so an analysis of flows through the banking system provided accurate and leading signals about economic and market trends. That is why he named his new service “The Bank Credit Analyst”. Bolton developed a series of monetary-based indicators that allowed him to make some great market calls. He passed away in 1967, but his valuable contribution to financial research was acknowledged in 1987 when the CFA Institute posthumously awarded him the prestigious “Outstanding Contribution to Investment Research Award”.1 Hamilton Bolton was a product of his times in that his worldview was influenced heavily by having lived through the Great Depression. Like many of his generation, he had a strong aversion to excessive debt growth, and was highly sensitive to any buildup of financial imbalances that could tip the economy back into a severe downturn. In fact, widespread fears of renewed depression did not really fade until the late 1950s. That psychology helps explain why policymakers were complicit in allowing inflation to take hold in the 1960s because there is a common tendency to fight the last war. As long as depression/deflation is seen as the primary threat, then there will be complacency about inflation risks. Does This Sound Familiar? Let’s look at some of the conditions that existed in 1949, when The Bank Credit Analyst started publication. The U.S. long-term Treasury yield had been capped at 2.5% since April 1942. At the request of the Treasury Department, the Fed had given up control of the money supply by buying whatever bonds were needed to keep yields below 2.5%, in order to support the financing of war-inflated budget deficits. The level of federal debt was down from its wartime peak of 106% of GDP, but was still at a historically high 77.5%. The European and Japanese economies were in a complete mess, having been devastated during the war. As already noted, fears of renewed deflation and depression were prevalent. Inflation was tame with the U.S. personal consumption deflator declining by 0.8% in 1949 and rising by only 1.2% in 1950. There was considerable geopolitical upheaval. Most notably, the Cold War intensified as Russia extended its control over East Europe and other countries. Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China in October 1949 after his communist forces defeated the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek. There were serious border clashes between North and South Korea in August 1949, a prelude to the North’s invasion in June 1950. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to see some parallels with the current environment. We currently are having (or have had): Massive central bank purchases of government debt (i.e. quantitative easing) and the explicit pegging of bond yields by the Bank of Japan. A huge increase in government debt levels, albeit not because of war-related spending. In a remarkable coincidence, U.S. federal debt reached 77.8% of GDP in fiscal 2018, almost exactly the same level as in 1949. The European and Japanese economies are moribund. However, unlike in 1949, this reflects structural forces, not war-related devastation. There are widespread fears about the long-run economic growth outlook, well captured by the secular stagnation thesis, promoted by Larry Summers. Central bankers are concerned that inflation is too low. Geopolitical concerns abound. These include U.S.-China tensions, Brexit, Korea (again), rising populism and Russia’s more aggressive stance on the world stage. In the end, the fears of 70 years ago that the world might slip back into depression proved unfounded. The 1950s and 1960s, for the most part, turned out to be golden decades for consumers, businesses and equity investors. Unfortunately, this does not mean that we can look forward to a repeat experience in the decades ahead, because we must now turn to the major differences between the present and the past. The Past Worked Out Just Fine The conditions for an economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s could hardly have been better. The U.S. armed forces employed more than 12 million men and women at the end of WWII, 7.6 million of whom were stationed overseas. After the war, these people were desperate to get back to a normal life, with civilian jobs, marriage and children. The inevitable result was a population boom and a surge in growth as pent-up demand for housing and consumer goods was unleashed. It was all aided by the 1944 G.I. Bill that provided low-cost mortgages and many other benefits. The improvement in economic growth boosted government tax receipts and, coupled with a drop in defense spending, this kept fiscal finances in check. During the 1950s and 1960s, the federal deficit averaged less than 1% of GDP and debt had fallen to less than 30% of GDP by 1969. This occurred despite a surge in federal infrastructure spending, helped by the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that authorized the construction of an interstate highway system. Meanwhile, the economy did not appear to be impeded by tax rates that were far above current levels. The reconstruction of the European economies was a monumental task that was beyond the financing capabilities of those shattered countries. However, between 1948 and 1951, the U.S. European Recovery Program (The Marshall Plan) transferred $100 billion in 2018 dollars to aid the recovery effort and this helped Europe get back on its feet. There also was a huge amount of U.S. aid to support the rebuilding of Japan. Economic growth in Japan averaged almost 9% a year in the 1950s and more than 10% in the 1960s. In Germany, the comparable figures were 7.7% and 4.2%. The growth of the world economy also was boosted by steady reductions in tariffs during the 1950s and 60s. The most notable was the Kennedy Round of 1964-67 that achieved a 38% weighted average drop in tariffs. Protectionism was in strong retreat in the decades after WWII. Finally, a word on the markets. At the end of 1949, the S&P 500 was trading at seven times trailing earnings while the dividend yield was at 6¾%. The market’s earnings yield of 14% compared to a 2.2% yield on 30-year Treasuries. In other words, stocks were incredibly cheap. Moreover, when the 1951 Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord ended the bond peg, yields inevitably rose steadily over the subsequent years, making bonds a poor investment. In the 1950s, U.S. equities delivered real compound returns of 16.6% a year compared to -3.3% for 30-year bonds. In the 1960s, the annualized real returns were a still-respectable 5.3% for stocks and -1.4% for bonds. In sum, the two decades after the launch of the BCA were a very favorable time and it was largely due to a very depressed starting point. However, the current environment is very different to that of 70 years ago. It’s a Different Picture Now Perhaps the most important difference with the past is the demographic outlook. In contrast to the post-WWII baby boom, the U.S. and most other developed economies face bleak population dynamics. Almost all developed economies – and many emerging ones – have seen the birth rate drop below replacement levels with the result that population growth has slowed dramatically. In many cases, populations are in actual decline – especially in the important working-age segment. That deprives economic growth of its main driver. The annual potential growth of U.S. real GDP averaged 4% in the 1950s and 4.3% in the 1960s. Potential growth in the next decade will average only 1.8% a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And it will be even lower in Europe and Japan. As far as pent-up demand is concerned, the picture also is very different. While the consumer industry works hard to develop new must-have goods and services, the reality is that demand is satiated for a lot of products. For example, in 2017, there were 259 million registered private and commercial autos and trucks in the U.S. compared to only 225 million licensed drivers. In 1950, the number of licensed drivers (62 million) far exceeded the number of registered vehicles (48 million). And it is hard to believe that the ownership penetration of most consumer durables has much upside. Turning to government finances, the current environment of bloated deficits and debt significantly constrains the room for fiscal stimulus. Yes, there is constant talk of the need for more infrastructure spending, but this has proven very difficult to implement without offsetting cuts in other spending or measures to boost revenues. The U.S. is saddled with unprecedented peacetime fiscal deficits and the CBO projects that federal debt will approach 100% of GDP within ten years, even without factoring in another recession. The comparison between the free trade era of the 1950s and 60s and the current situation speaks for itself. It is unclear at this stage just how far the move toward protectionism will go, but one thing seems clear. The rush toward globalization that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union and the entry of China into the global trading system is in retreat. This shows up not only in rising tariffs, but also in declining cross-border direct investment flows and increased antipathy to large-scale international migration. The irony is that the developed world needs more immigration to offset the weak growth in resident populations. What about the markets? The stock market certainly is not cheap, the way it was 70 years ago, with the S&P 500 trading at more than 18 times trailing operating earnings. Low interest rates are providing support, but future returns are likely to be in low single figures in a world where economic growth is moderate and there is little scope for profit margins and/or multiples to expand. Prospects for bonds do look somewhat similar to the situation in the early 1950s. Then, there was only one way for yields to go once the Fed’s peg ended. Today, yields will only fall sustainably if the economy sinks into a protracted downturn. We will get another recession in the next few years and yields could certainly hit new lows at that point. But the resulting policy response – both fiscal and monetary – seems almost certain to lead to higher inflation down the road. That would not bode well for the bond outlook, as was the case between the second half of the 1960s and the early 1980s. Concluding Thoughts Hamilton Bolton was fortunate to launch his new investment service ahead of a powerful economic revival and an almost two-decade bull market in stocks. He did not live long enough to witness the inflation upturn and volatile economic environment of the 1970s and 1980s, but BCA’s monetary focus allowed it to prosper during that period. Under the leadership of Tony Boeckh, the company’s then owner and Editor-in-Chief, BCA was strident in warning investors about the buildup of inflationary pressures and the dangers this posed for markets. During this time, BCA also developed the concept of the Debt Supercycle which helped investors understand the complex forces driving policy and the economic/market cycles. If Bolton was alive today, he would be horrified at the state of the world. He would not be able to understand how investors could be so complacent in the face of record government deficits and debt and by what he would regard as the reckless behavior of central banks. At the same time, he would be able to identify with the renewed focus on weak growth and deflation risks. The bottom line is that he would be advising investors to be extremely cautious. Investors currently are semi-obsessed with the timing of the next recession as that would be the signal to significantly downgrade risk assets. The official BCA stance is that a recession is not imminent and this creates a window for stocks to outperform. This matters for those investors who need to be concerned with relative performance. It is painful to sit on the sidelines if markets keep rising and you underperform your peers. However, for those more concerned with absolute performance, and that was true of most investors in Bolton’s time, the upside potential currently seems unattractive relative to the downside risks. Unfortunately, economists have a poor track record of forecasting recessions and bear markets thus often come as a complete surprise. Yes, low interest rates provide a floor under stocks, with the dividend yield comfortably above the 10-year Treasury yield. But rates are low for a reason: the economy and thus corporate earnings face major downside risks. Against this background, I would tend to side with what I imagine Bolton would say: this is a time to focus on capital preservation rather than taking risks to maximize returns. Let me try to end on a more positive note. As noted earlier, the long-term outlook turned out much better than Bolton probably anticipated 70 years ago. What could make that true this time around? Some things cannot be changed, at least over the next decade: adverse demographic trends, high ownership of consumer goods, and high levels of government debt. Geopolitical developments could go either way – for the better or worse – so I will make no predictions there. The one savior would be a marked revival in productivity because, ultimately, that is the only real source of rising living standards. Technology is changing rapidly and there are lots of exciting innovations. But to make a significant and lasting difference it will require more than developments such as autonomous vehicles or 3-D printing. We will need a new General Purpose Technology (GPT) that has a profound impact on the way economies and societies are structured. Previous examples include the steam engine, electricity and of course the internet. Perhaps Artificial Intelligence will do the trick, but that does not seem likely to be a near-term cure. Chart 1Then (1949) And Now (2019) In closing, we can be sure of one thing. The world changed in ways Hamilton Bolton could not have conceived and that also will be true for us today. BCA will endeavor to evolve with the times as it has done over the past 70 years and we look forward to keep helping our clients prosper in a complex and ever-changing world. 1949 – A Very Momentous Year Hamilton Bolton launches The Bank Credit Analyst The Peoples Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) are founded Indonesia gains independence from the Netherlands The civil war in Greece ends NATO is established The Geneva Convention is agreed The Soviet Union detonates its first atomic bomb Apartheid becomes official policy in South Africa Alfred Jones creates the first hedge fund The first non-stop circumnavigation of the world by an aircraft occurs The first commercial jet airliner, the De Havilland Comet, has its maiden flight EDSAC – the first practicable stored-program computer runs its first program at Cambridge University Products introduced that year included Lego, the 45 rpm record, the first Porsche car and the Xerox photocopier. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is published People born include Ivana Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Benjamin Netanyahu, Meryl Streep and Bruce Springsteen 2019 – Not So Much Chaotic politics in the U.K., Italy and many other countries Trade wars   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Previously known as the Nicholas Molodovsky Award  

Special Report

Highlights It will be impossible for China to undertake even mild deleveraging and simultaneously accelerate household income growth. All deposits in the banking system have been created by banks “out of thin air” and have not been engendered by household savings. Contrary to widespread beliefs, mainland households are highly leveraged. Cyclically, high equity valuations, crowded investor positioning and the delayed cyclical recovery in the Chinese economy pose downside risks to consumer stocks. Structurally, real income growth per capita is contingent on productivity growth. The latter will slow in China but remain relatively elevated. Overall, investors should consider buying Chinese consumer plays on weakness. Feature Deliberations about China’s successful rebalancing often boils down to whether one believes that consumers will be able to offset the slowdown in investment and exports and keep overall real GDP growth close to current levels. The narrative typically presumes that Chinese households are not spending enough and can boost their spending counteracting the ongoing slowdowns in capital spending as well as in exports. This conjecture is fallible. Chart I-1The Myth Of Deficient Consumer Demand In China Consumer spending in China has in fact been booming over the past 20 years – it has been growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10% in real terms since 1998 (Chart I-1, top panel). Hence, the imbalance in China has not been sluggish consumer spending. Rather, capital expenditure has been too strong for too long (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Healthy rebalancing entails a slowdown in investment spending – not an acceleration in household demand. Hence, the market relevant question is: Can the growth rate of household expenditure accelerate above 10% CAGR in real terms as capital spending and exports decelerate? Our hunch is that this is unlikely. As the authorities attempt to contain credit and investment excesses and trade war-induced relocation of manufacturers out of China gathers steam, the pertinent question is whether the slowdown in household expenditures in real terms will be mild (from the current 10% pace to 7.5-9% CAGR), medium (6-7.5%) or material (below 6%). In our opinion, the medium scenario has the highest odds of playing out. There are many positives about the vitality of Chinese consumers and we do not mean to downplay them. Nevertheless, many of these positives are well known, and the objective of our report is to reveal misconceptions about this segment.  Deleveraging And Consumers If and when deleveraging does transpire in China, the household income growth rate will decelerate, resulting in weaker spending growth. It will be impossible for the mainland economy to undertake even mild deleveraging and simultaneously accelerate household income growth. Chart I-2Capital Spending Is Much More Important Than Exports Our focus for this report is on a slowdown in credit and capital spending rather than exports. The basis is that the latter in general, and shipments to the U.S. in particular, have a much smaller impact than investment expenditures (Chart I-2). In turn, capital spending is mostly financed by credit. It is crucial to understand the significance of credit in driving national and household income growth in China since 2008. Currently, 2.5 yuan of new credit is needed to generate one yuan of GDP growth. This certifies that the mainland economy has become addicted to credit. As we have argued in depth in past reports, commercial banks do not intermediate savings into credit, but rather create new money/credit “out of thin air” when they lend to or buy securities from non-banks. This entails that output and income growth would have been much weaker had banks not provided credit equal to RMB 19 trillion over the past 12 months. For instance, a company affiliated with the provincial government has borrowed money from banks to build three bridges over the past 10 years, accumulating a lot of debt in the process. Ostensibly, operating these bridges does not generate enough cash flow to service its debt – a common occurrence in China. With the three bridges completed, the company would then apply for a new loan to build a fourth bridge. Should banks lend additional money to construct it? Notwithstanding this hypothetical company’s low creditworthiness, if banks provide additional financing, the credit bubble will become larger, and the issue of overcapacity will intensify. On the other hand, household income and spending growth will remain robust. If banks do not finance the construction of the fourth bridge, labor income growth in the province – employees of this company and its suppliers – will slump. Thus, if for whatever reason banks are unable or unwilling to extend as much in new credit as last year, output and income growth in this province will decelerate, all else equal. Given credit has been playing an enormous role in driving China’s economic growth over the past 10 years, it will be almost impossible to slow down credit without a downshift in household income growth. This example and analysis is not meant to suggest that bank credit origination is the sole growth driver in China. Theoretically, GDP can expand even with bank credit/money contracting. According to the quantity theory of money: Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money This means nominal GDP can grow even when the supply of money/credit is shrinking. For this to happen, the velocity of money should rise faster than the pace of decline in the supply of money/credit. From a practical perspective, this requires enterprises and consumers to increase the turnover (velocity) of their bank deposits and cash on hand (money supply). We have deliberated in past reports that the velocity of money and the savings rate are inversely related: A rising velocity of money entails a declining savings rate, and vice versa. Going back to our example of bridge construction, the relevant question is: Will companies and households in that province increase their spending (i.e., reduce their savings rate) if banks do not finance the construction of the fourth bridge? The realistic answer is not likely. If the fourth bridge does not receive financing, weaker income growth in that province – due to employment redundancies among construction companies and their suppliers – would lead to slower spending growth. Faced with slowing demand growth, other enterprises and households would likely turn cautious and increase their savings rates – i.e., reduce the velocity of money supply. In short, reduced credit origination will mostly likely generate slower household income growth and, consequently, spending. Chart I-3China: No Deleveraging So Far Broadly speaking, household income growth has not yet downshifted because deleveraging in China has not started. Chart I-3 illustrates that aggregate domestic credit – including public sector, enterprises and households – continues to grow above 10% and well above nominal GDP growth. In fact, credit growth has exceeded nominal GDP growth since 2008. This is local currency credit and does not include foreign currency debt, but the latter is small at 14.5% of GDP (or about US$ 2 trillion). To us, deleveraging implies credit growth that is no greater than nominal GDP growth – i.e., a flat or declining credit-to-GDP ratio for at least several years. If China is serious about deleveraging and curbing its money/credit bubble, the pace of credit expansion should decline to or below nominal GDP growth – which is presently 8%. If and when this occurs it will dampen household income and spending growth. Bottom Line: Chinese household income and spending will inevitably slow if money/credit growth slumps, given the Chinese economy’s excessive reliance on new credit origination over the past 10 years. Do Households Have A Savings Or Debt Glut? What about households’ enormous savings in China? Why wouldn’t households reduce their savings and boost spending? When referring to household savings, most allude to bank deposits. But in conventional economic theory – and according to the way household savings are statistically calculated at a national level – savings actually have no relation to bank deposits. Chart I-4No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = Savings Chart I-4 illustrates that in China, the annual change in household deposits is not equal to household savings (Chart I-4, top panel). Similarly, the annual rise in all deposits (based on central bank data) is vastly different from annual national savings (as defined by conventional macroeconomics and calculated by the National Bureau of Statistics) (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Bank deposits are a monetary concept that we will refer to as “money savings.” Deposits are created by banks “out of thin air,” as illustrated in our past reports.Meanwhile, the term “savings” in conventional macroeconomics denotes goods and services that are produced but not consumed, which is a real economic (not monetary) variable. Not surprisingly, there is no relationship between these “real savings” and “money savings,” as illustrated in Chart I-4. To illustrate that household “savings” (as defined by conventional macroeconomics) are not related to money supply/deposits, let us go back to the example of the company building bridges in China. When the company wire transfers a salary of RMB 1,000 to an employee, the amount of money supply in the banking system does not change. Suppose this employee decides to save 100% of her income this month. Will the supply of money increase or decrease? The answer is that it will not change: the deposit will remain at her bank account. Alternatively, if she decides to spend all RMB 1,000 (100% of her income), the supply of money also will not change – deposits will be transferred to other banks where her suppliers have their accounts.  If she cashes out her deposit and puts it under her mattress, the amount of bank deposits will decline, but cash in circulation will rise by the same amount. Provided money supply is equal to the sum of all bank deposits and cash in circulation, the amount of money supply will not change. The only way the supply of money will decline is if she pays down her loan to a bank. Conversely, the supply of money only rises when banks originate loans or buy assets from non-banks. In short, saving/not spending does not alter the amount of money supply. Rather, broad money supply is equal to the cumulative net money creation “out of thin air” primarily by commercial banks and less so by the central bank over the course of their history. This has nothing to do with household and national “savings.” The latter stand for goods and services produced but not consumed. We have discussed what “savings” mean in conventional economics in past reports. Chart I-5Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones Critically, Chinese households presently carry more debt as a share of their disposable income than American households (Chart I-5). This chart compares household debt to disposable income using official data from both China and the U.S. In the case of China, we add Peer-to-Peer (P2P) credit to consumer credit data published by the People’s Bank of China to calculate household debt. The argument by many commentators that consumers in China are not highly leveraged is grounded on the comparison of their debt to GDP. However, in all countries, household debt is assessed versus disposable income – not GDP. The income available to households to service their debt is their disposable income – not GDP. It is correct that Chinese households’ assets have surged in the past two decades as they have purchased significant amounts of real estate, and property prices have skyrocketed. A survey by China Economic Trend Institute holds that property accounts for 66% of household assets in China. To assess creditworthiness, investors should not rely on debtors’ asset values. If debtors are en masse forced to sell their assets to service debt, equity prices would tumble well beforehand. Rather, creditworthiness should be assessed based on recurring cash flow (income) available to debtors to service their debt. One should not be surprised as to why real estate prices are very high in China. Money and credit have been surging – have grown four-fold – over the past 10 years (Chart I-6) and are still expanding at close to a 10% pace. In particular, household debt is still growing at a whopping 15.5% annually (Chart I-7). If and as money/credit growth downshifts, property prices will deflate. Chart I-6Helicopter Money In China Chart I-7Household Credit Is Expanding Twice As Fast As Income Growth Importantly, housing affordability is low and households’ ability to service their mortgages is troubling. Chart I-8 exhibits the nationwide house price-to-income ratio for China and the U.S. In the Middle Kingdom, it is currently about 7.2, while in the U.S. the ratio has never been above 4. It only approached 4  at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006. Chart I-8House Prices Are Very Expensive In China   In turn, Table I-1 illustrates mortgage interest-only payments as a share of household disposable income. The national average is 25.5%. These are very high ratios, suggesting an average new home buyer will have to allocate about a quarter of her or his household income just to pay the interest on a mortgage. These averages do not divulge enormous variations among households. High-income and rich households probably do not have much debt, and debt sustainability is not an issue for them. This also implies that there are many low-income households for whom the interest payments on mortgages absorb more than 25% of their disposable income.  Bottom Line: All deposits in the banking system have been created by banks “out of thin air” and have not been engendered by household savings. Contrary to widespread beliefs, mainland households have a lot of debt, and the latter is still expanding faster than nominal disposable income growth (Chart I-7 above). Positives And The Cyclical Outlook This section lists some positives for household incomes and spending, while also highlighting inherent risks: In the long run, per-capita real income growth in any country is equal to productivity growth. Productivity in China is still booming, justifying high real income growth. The question is whether such buoyant productivity growth can be sustained at a high level to justify robust real-income per-capita growth. Typically, easy money breeds complacency, misallocation of capital and ultimately lower productivity growth. Can China sustain productivity growth of 6% to assure a similar growth rate in real income per capita if the nation continues to experience easy money and a misallocation of capital? Forecasting productivity is not easy; only time will tell. Chart I-9Nominal Household Income, Wages And Salaries Per capita aggregate income as well as both wages and salaries are still expanding briskly – by about 8.5% in nominal terms from a year ago (Chart I-9). This is a formidable growth rate and entails vigorous spending power. The cyclical and long-term concern is whether the current rate of income growth is sustainable. So far there has been few redundancies, despite the fact that corporate revenue and profits have slumped. There is anecdotal evidence that the authorities are actively discouraging dismissals among both state-owned and private enterprises. If layoffs are avoided in this cycle, it will imply that the full pain of the slowdown is absorbed by shareholders. As a result, wages and salaries will rise as a share of GDP, causing a profit margin squeeze for companies. Will private shareholders be willing to invest in the future? Over the past year,  authorities have targeted the stimulus at consumers by cutting personal income taxes. However, this has not boosted consumption: First, the individual taxpayers’ base was very small; only one quarter of total employment (or 16% of the population) was paying personal income taxes before the most recent cut. Second, personal income tax savings have amounted to less than 2% of disposable income.   Finally, the savings from tax cuts are unevenly distributed across households. High-income families will probably get higher tax savings than lower-income ones, whereas the propensity to spend is higher for the latter than the former. Household deposit expansion has accelerated at the expense of enterprises (Chart I-10). This confirms that companies have not slowed the payments to employees (wage bill). Consequently, households have firepower which can be unleashed at any time.  However, there are presently no signs of a growing appetite to spend. Quite the contrary, our proxy for household marginal propensity to spend is falling (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Households Are Hoarding Money, Not Spending Chart I-11Household Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Still Falling Non-discretionary consumer spending has remained very robust. In contrast, discretionary spending has been extremely weak and shows no signs of recovery (Chart I-12). Finally, the impulses of non-government credit, broad money and household credit are weak (Chart I-13). Without these improving substantially and households’ marginal propensity to spend rising, it is difficult to expect a meaningful recovery in consumption. Chart I-12Discretionary Spending Is Sluggish Chart I-13Credit/Money Impulses Are Much Weaker Than In Previous Stimulus Bottom Line: A cyclical recovery in consumer spending hinges on another round of major credit and fiscal stimulus as well as improvement in households’ willingness to spend. Structurally, real income growth is contingent on China’s ability to sustain high productivity growth. Investment Implications If and as capital spending and exports growth slow further, the pace of expansion in consumer expenditure will also moderate. In such a scenario, overall economic growth in China will inevitably downshift. Structurally, Chinese consumer spending will slow from the torrid pace of 10% CAGR of the past 10 years to around 6-7.5% CAGR in real terms. This is a formidable growth rate, and warrants a bullish stance on the consumer sector. We identified Chinese consumers as a major investment theme for the current decade in our 2010 report titled How To Play EM This Decade? 1 In that report, we recommended selling commodities and sectors exposed to Chinese construction and instead favoring consumer plays, especially in the health care and tech sectors. This structural theme has played out well and has further to go. Chinese household spending on health care, education and other high-value services will rise as income per capita expands, albeit at a slower rate than before. Chart I-14 demonstrates that Chinese imports of medical and pharmaceutical products are surging, even though overall imports are currently contracting. Domestically, profit margins are expanding within the medical and pharmaceuticals industries but stagnating for the overall industrial sector (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Surging Demand For Medical Products/Goods Chart I-15Continue Favoring Companies In Health Care/Medical Space All that said, a bullish growth story does not always translate into strong equity returns. Charts I-16A and I-16B reveal that share prices of Chinese investible consumer sub-sectors have had mixed performance. With the exception of Alibaba and Tencent, a few of consumer equity sub-sectors have generated strong equity returns. Chart I-16AChinese Consumer Stocks: Mixed Performance Chart I-16BChinese Consumer Stocks: Mixed Performance Such poor equity performance given strong headline consumption growth has often been due to bottom-up problems such as profit margins squeeze, overexpansion, over-indebtedness, equity dilution, quality of management and other issues. Apart from company specific risks, investors should also consider valuations. Buying good companies in great industries at very high equity multiples will probably produce meager returns. Table I-2 shows the trailing P/E ratio for various consumer sub-sectors. The majority of them trade at a trailing P/E ratio of above 20 and in some cases above 30. Besides, China’s consumer story has been well known for some time, and many portfolios are overweight China consumer plays. Consequently, investor positioning adds to near-term risks. Cyclically, high equity valuations, crowded investor positioning and the delayed cyclical recovery in the Chinese economy pose downside risks to consumer stocks as well. However, such a selloff will create conditions for selectively investing in reasonably valued high quality companies.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “How To Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade”, dated June 10, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The U.S.-Sino trade war is taking a dangerous turn, but the U.S. should avoid a recession until 2022. Global growth will bottom in early 2020. The Fed is set to cut rates two to three times in the next year. Safe-haven bonds have more tactical upside, but will perform poorly on a cyclical basis. Long-term investors should use the next six to nine months to offload their corporate bonds. Equities will be volatile for the rest of 2019; a breakout is forecast for 2020. Long-term investors should favor stocks over bonds, and international stocks over U.S. ones. Feature The yield curve has become the punch line of late-night shows, triggered by the 2-/10-year yield curve inversion in early August. Recession fears have hit the front page. There are good reasons for the mounting concern. Historically, yield curve inversions have done an excellent job forecasting recession. The trade war between the U.S. and China is intensifying at an alarming speed. Moreover, global government bond yields are dipping to all-time lows. Additionally, the global ZEW and PMIs are depressed, while the global production of capital goods and machinery is contracting (Chart I-1). Despite this backdrop, the odds of a U.S. recession are overstated. Consumers in the U.S. and other advanced economies are healthy, the U.S. Federal Reserve and other major central banks are easing, and global financial conditions are supporting growth. We expect stocks to break out of their volatile period of consolidation early next year. Bond yields should rise later this year, but it is too early to stand in front of their downward trend. Finally, long-term investors should use any additional narrowing in credit spreads to lighten their exposure to corporates. U.S. Recession Odds Are Low The yield curve signal is not as dire as the headlines suggest. The inversion is incomplete; the curve is inverted up to the five-year mark and beyond that point, it steepens again. If the yield curve foreshadows a recession, then its slope would be negative across all maturities (Chart I-2). Chart I-1The List Of Worries Is Long   The consumer sector is doing well despite the global growth slowdown. Real retail sales, excluding motor vehicles, are growing at 4.4% and have quickly recovered from this past winter’s government shutdown. Meanwhile, retailers such as Walmart, Target, Home Depot and Lowe’s are reporting strong numbers. Three factors insulate consumer spending from global woes. First, household disposable income is expanding at a healthy 4.7% pace, courtesy of a tight labor market. Secondly, household balance sheets are robust. Household debt-servicing costs only represent 9.9% of disposable income, the lowest reading in more than four decades (Chart I-3, first panel). According to a December BIS paper, debt-servicing costs are one of the best forecasters of recessions.1 Additionally, household debt relative to GDP and to household assets is at 16- and 34-year lows, respectively (Chart I-3, second and third panel). Thirdly, the U.S. savings rate, which stands at 8.1%, already offers a cushion against adverse shocks and has limited upside. The corporate sector also displays some easily overlooked positives. So far, the PMIs and capex growth are still in mid-cycle slowdown territory. Meanwhile, debt loads have never provided an accurate recessionary signal. Since the end of the gold standard, recessions have always materialized after debt-servicing costs as a share of EBITDA rose two to four percentage points above their five-year moving average. We are nowhere near there (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Consumer Balance Sheets Are Very Robust Chart I-4Corporate Debt Is Not In Recessionary Territory   Nevertheless, we will remain vigilant on the capex trend. Corporate investment may not indicate a recession, but the escalating trade war with China will hurt capex intentions. Even if capex contracts, as in 2016, the economy can still avoid a recession. The factors that prompted slowdowns in global trade and manufacturing provide a mixed message. Housing is showing some positive signs after subtracting from GDP in the past six quarters. The NAHB Housing Market Index is recovering smartly from its plunge last year and homebuilder stocks have been outperforming the S&P 500 since October 2018 (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, the 139-basis point collapse in mortgage rates since November 2018 is finally impacting the economy. Mortgage demand is surging, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officers Survey. The MBA mortgage applications data corroborate this observation. As a result, both existing home sales and residential investment are trying to bottom (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Leading Indicators Of Residential Activity Are Improving Chart I-6Positive Signs For Residential Activity     The liquidity of the U.S. private sector is also strengthening. Deposit growth has reaccelerated after falling to near recessionary levels (Chart I-7) and the non-financial, private sector’s cash holdings are again increasing faster than debt. Furthermore, bank credit is expanding. Chart I-7The Private Sector Is Accumulating Liquidity Waiting For The Global Economy To Bottom Global growth should bottom by early 2020. Thus, while the U.S. economy should avoid a recession, any distinct re-acceleration will wait until next year. The factors that prompted slowdowns in global trade and manufacturing provide a mixed message. The trade war between the U.S. and China is intensifying. Chinese activity has not yet bottomed but policymakers will be increasingly forced to react. However, the global inventory down cycle is advanced, and in Europe, domestic activity indicators are holding up despite the continued deterioration in external and industrial conditions. Trade War The uncertainty created by the Sino-U.S. trade war is hurting global growth. On August 1, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S. The tariffs are phased in: $112 billions of goods will be taxed on September 1 while $160 billion will be hit on December 15. Unsurprisingly, a vicious circle of retaliation has been unleashed as China imposed a tariff ranging from 5% to 10% on U.S. goods last Friday, to which Trump immediately responded with a tariff hike from 25% to 30% on the $250 billion batch of goods and from 10% to 15% on the $300 billion batch slated to come into place September 1 and December 1. To bring back hedged foreign buying of Treasurys, the Fed will have to engineer a steeper yield curve and lower FX hedging costs. A resumption in talks between Beijing and Washington in September will offer little solace to investors. Even if President Trump is pressured by the stock market and the U.S. electoral calendar to settle for what Beijing is offering, it is not clear that President Xi Jinping will accept a deal. As BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken discusses in Section II, the two superpowers are locked in a multi-decade geopolitical rivalry and the Hong Kong protests and tensions over Taiwan could move the talks off track. China’s Challenges China’s economy has yet to bottom convincingly. So far, Chinese reflation has been weaker than anticipated. Given that stimulus has not been forceful, the uncertainty produced by the trade war and the illiquidity created by bloated balance sheets is still dragging down China’s marginal propensity to consume (Chart I-8). However, this propensity to spend has little downside, if the past 10 years are any indication. Chinese infrastructure and equipment investment needs to be revived. They are shouldering the bulk of the decline in economic activity and have slowed to an annual pace of 2.8% and -2.1%, respectively. Residential investment is expanding at a 9.4% annual rate (Chart I-9), but according to Arthur Budaghyan, BCA’s Chief Emerging Markets Strategist, even this sector’s strength could be an illusion. Chinese property developers are starting projects to raise funds via pre-sales. However, they are not completing nearly as many projects as they have started.2 Chart I-8A Falling Marginal Propensity To Spend Means More Stimulus Is Needed   We are not yet ready to give up on Chinese stimulus as the economy is on the verge of a deflationary spiral that could push debt-to-GDP abruptly higher. The following developments support this view: The statement following the July Politburo meeting showed a greater willingness to stimulate economic activity, as long as it does not add to the property bubble. Producer prices are again deflating. Contracting PPIs often unleash vicious circles as they push real rates higher and hurt investment, which foments additional price declines. Retail sales are slowing and the employment components of the manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs have fallen to 47.1 and 48.7, respectively. China’s economy needs to be insulated from the intensifying trade war with the U.S. or the deteriorating labor market will dampen consumer spending even more. We expect more tax cuts, more credit growth, and more issuance of local government special bonds to finance government spending, following China’s 70th anniversary celebrations on October 1. As Chart I-10 illustrates, an acceleration in total social financing will ultimately lift EM PMIs as well as Asian and European exports. Inventory Cycle The inventory cycle is very advanced. Inventories in the U.S., China and euro area are depleting (Chart I-11). Inventories cannot fall forever, especially when global monetary policy is increasingly accommodative and fiscal policy is loosened. Chart I-10More Chinese Stimulus Will Eventually Support Global Growth Chart I-11The Inventory Purge Is Advanced   Global activity can rebound if the inventory adjustment ends. Inventory fluctuations help drive the Kitchin cycle, a 36-40 month oscillation in activity. According to BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, the current slowdown is nearing 18 months, the typical length of a down oscillation in these cycles (Chart I-12).3 Europe     The manufacturing-heavy euro area will benefit when the global industrial cycle bottoms, but domestic tailwinds are also emerging. European deposits accumulation is quickening, driven by households (Chart I-13, top panel). Meanwhile, the European credit impulse has recovered thanks to the fall in both non-performing loans and borrowing costs (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Moreover, consumer spending is healthy as household balance sheets are improving and wage growth is accelerating to a 3.2% annual pace. Finally, last month we highlighted that the euro area fiscal thrust is set to increase by 0.7% of GDP this year.4 Fiscal easing appears set to expand as Germany and Italy study support packages. Finally, the Italian political uncertainty is receding as the Five Star Movement and the Democratic Party have agreed to form a coalition government. Chart I-12The Three-Year Cycle Is Also Advanced Chart I-13Some Ignored Improvements In Europe   At the moment, the biggest risk for Europe is the significant probability of a No-Deal Brexit. After the recent decision to prorogue Parliament, Matt Gertken raised his probability of a No-Deal Brexit to one third from 20%.Such an event would negatively impact Dutch, German and French exports, which could scuttle any improvement in Europe. Adding It Up The combined effects of more Chinese stimulus in the fourth quarter, an impending end to the global inventory drawdown, and an endogenous improvement in Europe, all should ultimately outweigh the negatives created by the U.S.-Sino trade war. Moreover, global financial conditions are easing (Chart I-14). Therefore, the fall in global bond yields should push the G-10 12-month credit impulse higher (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Lower oil prices should also help G-10 consumers. Early indicators support this assessment. BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator has been slowly bottoming, and according to its diffusion index, it will soon move higher (Chart I-15, top panel). Moreover, Singapore’s container throughput is tentatively stabilizing, while our Asian EM Diffusion Index is improving, albeit from depressed levels (Chart I-15, second panel). Finally, ethylene and propylene prices are rallying with accelerating momentum (Chart I-15, third and fourth panels). Chart I-14Easier Financial Conditions Favor Credit Growth Chart I-15Some Growth Indicators Are Stabilizing   Bottom Line: The U.S. economy will probably slow further in the coming months, but it will not enter into recession anytime soon. Neither debt nor consumers pose problems, the housing sector is turning the corner and the private sector’s liquidity position is strengthening. Meanwhile, global activity is trying to bottom, but any improvement will be delayed by the latest round of trade tensions. However, global policymakers are responding, thus global growth should improve by early 2020. Fed Policy: More Cuts Expected Chart I-16A Liquidity Crunch In The Interbank Market? Our base case is that the Fed will cut rates twice more in the coming nine months. In the tails of the probability distribution, three supplementary cuts are more likely than only one additional cut. Paradoxically, liquidity considerations support our Fed view. A recurring theme in our research is the improvement in global liquidity indicators such as excess money, deposit growth and our financial liquidity index.5 However, these indicators are not able to boost growth because of an important technical consideration. What might be classified as excess reserves by the Fed may not be free reserves. Higher Supplementary Leverage Ratios under Basel III rules require commercial banks to hold greater levels of excess reserves to meet their mandatory Tier 1 capital ratios. Since the Fed’s balance sheet runoff results in falling excess reserves, the decline in reserves may have already created some illiquidity in the interbank system. Global central banks have been divesting from the T-bill market, which is worsening the decline in excess reserves. They have parked their short-term funds at the New York Fed’s Foreign Repurchase Agreement Pool (Foreign Repo Pool) which limits the availability of reserves in the banking system (Chart I-16).6 These dynamics increase the cost of hedging the dollar for foreign buyers of U.S. assets. When reserves fall below thresholds implied by Basel III regulations, global banks lose their ability to use their balance sheets to conduct capital market transactions. Without this necessary wiggle room, they cannot arbitrage away wider cross-currency basis swap spreads and deviations of FX forward prices from covered interest rate parity. For foreign investors, the cost of hedging their FX exposure increases. Together with the flatness of the U.S. yield curve, hedged U.S. Treasurys currently yield less than German Bunds or JGBs (Table I-1). Chart I-17Declining Excess Reserves Hurt Risk Assets And Growth Lower excess reserves and higher hedging costs have been bullish for the USD and negative for the global economy. Instead of buying hedged Treasurys, foreigners purchase U.S. assets unhedged (agency and corporate bonds, not Treasurys). Thus, falling excess reserves have been correlated with a stronger dollar, softer global growth and weaker EM asset and FX prices (Chart I-17). This adverse environment has accentuated the downside in Treasury yields and flattened the yield curve (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Going forward, these problems should intensify. The Treasury will issue over US$800 billion of debt by year-end to replenish its cash balance and finance the bulging U.S. budget deficit. Primary dealers will continue to plug the void left by foreigners and will purchase the expanding issuance (Chart I-18). In the past year, primary dealers have already increased their repo-market borrowing by $300 billion to finance their inventories of securities. They will need to expand these borrowings, which will further lift the cost of hedging U.S. assets. Thus, foreign investors faced with $16 trillion of assets with negative yields will buy more U.S. assets on an unhedged basis. The dollar will rise and global growth conditions will deteriorate. The Fed will have to cut rates two to three more times, otherwise the dangerous feedback loop described above will take hold. These cuts are more than domestic economic conditions warrant. To bring back hedged foreign buying of Treasurys, the Fed will have to engineer a steeper yield curve and lower FX hedging costs. The end of the balance sheet runoff is a step in the right direction, but it will not be enough. The BCA Financial Stress Index and our Fed Monitor are consistent with this view (Chart I-19). Moreover, the intensifying trade war is hurting the outlook for growth, inflation expectations and the stock market. Chart I-18A Large Inventory Build Up By Primary Dealers Chart I-19Two To Three More Cuts Are Coming   Investment Implications Government Bonds We have revised our position on an imminent end to the bull market. We do expect bond yields to be higher in 12 months, but for now the global economy has too many risks to time a bottom in yields. The cyclical picture for bonds is bearish. Treasurys have outperformed cash by 8% in the past year, a performance normally associated with a fed fund rate that is 200 to 300 basis points below what markets anticipated 12 months ago (Chart I-20). In order for Treasurys to continue outperforming cash, the Fed must cut rates to zero next year. Nonetheless, a U.S. recession is not in the offing and the global economy should perk up by early 2020. At most, the Fed will validate current rate expectations of 96 basis points of cuts. Chart I-20The Fed Must Cut To Zero For Bonds To Further Outperform Cash Next Year Valuations are also consistent with Treasurys delivering negative returns in the next 12 months. According to the BCA Bond Valuation Index, Treasurys are extremely overvalued. Moreover, real 10-year yields are two standard deviations below the three-year moving average of real GDP growth, a proxy for potential GDP (Chart I-21). Investors should wait to sell bonds until the Fed cuts rates by another 50 basis points, global and U.S. PMIs stabilize, and our cyclical indicator sends a sell signal. Technicals also point to poor 12-month prospective returns. The 13-week and 52-week rates of change in yields are consistent with tops in bond prices (Chart I-22). Positioning is also very stretched, as highlighted by the J.P. Morgan Duration Survey, the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Investors Survey, ETF flows, and government bonds futures and options holdings of asset managers. As a result, our Composite Technical Indicator is very overbought (Chart I-22, bottom panel). Chart I-21U.S. Bonds Are Very Expensive ... Chart I-22... And Very Overbought   The quickening pace of accumulation of securities on bank balance sheets also points to higher yields in 12 months (Chart I-23). As banks stockpile liquid assets, they accumulate more juice to fuel future lending. However, the rising cost of hedging FX exposure is bullish for the dollar. Hence, increasing Treasury holdings will not lift yields until the Fed cuts rates more aggressively. We are reluctant to recommend shorting / underweighting bonds. As Chart I-24 illustrates, mounting uncertainty over economic policy anchors U.S. yields. Last week’s round of tariff increases, along with the Brexit saga, suggests that the uncertainty has not yet peaked. Chart I-23A Coiled Spring Chart I-24Uncertainty Is Keeping Global Bonds Expensive   The collapse in German yields is also not finished. The fall in bund yields to -0.7% has dragged down rates worldwide as investors seek positive long-term returns. In response, the U.S. 10-year premium dropped to -1.1%. Historically, bunds end their rally when yields decline 120 basis points below their two-year moving average (Chart I-25). If history is a guide, German yields could bottom toward -1%, which is in line with Swiss 10-year yields. The 1995 experience also argues against an imminent end to the bond rally. In a recent Special Report, BCA’s U.S. Equity Strategy service highlighted the parallels between today’s environment and the aftermath of the December 1994 Tequila Crisis.7 In that episode, global growth troughed and the Fed cut rates three times before the U.S. ISM Manufacturing Index bottomed in January 1996. Only then did Treasury yields turn higher (Chart I-26). A similar scenario could easily unfold. Chart I-25More Downside For German Yields Chart I-26Bottom In Yields: Wait For The ISM To Turn And The Fed To Cut More   EM assets are vulnerable and could spark a last stampede into U.S. Treasurys. Investors of EM fixed-income products have not yet capitulated. EM assets perform poorly when global growth is weak, dollar funding is hard to come by and trade uncertainty is rising. Yet, yields on EM local-currency bonds have fallen, indicating little selling pressure. Rather than dispose of their EM holdings, investors have hedged their EM exposure by selling EM currencies. Therefore, EM bonds are rallying with EM currencies falling (Chart I-27), which is a rare occurrence. Recent cracks in EM high-yield bonds and the breakdown in EM currencies suggest investors will not ignore the trade war for much longer. The ensuing flight to safety should pull down Treasury yields. Chart I-27A Rare Occurrence BCA’s Cyclical Bond Indicator has yet to flash a buy signal, which will only happen when the indicator moves above its 9-month moving average (Chart I-28). Investors should wait to sell bonds until the Fed cuts rates by another 50 basis points, global and U.S. PMIs stabilize, and our cyclical indicator sends a sell signal. As a corollary, we remain positive on gold prices and expect the yellow metal to move to $1,600 in the coming months. Chart I-28BCA Cyclical Bond Indicator: Don't Sell Yet Corporate Bonds Chart I-29Corporate Bond Fundamentals Are Worsening The long-term outlook for corporate bonds is deteriorating enough that long-term investors should use any rally to lighten their exposures. However, on a six- to nine-month horizon, stresses will probably remain contained. A significant deterioration in corporate health will hurt this asset class’s long-term returns. Recent data revisions pushed GDP and productivity well below previous estimates. This curtailed corporate profitability, lifted debt-to-cash flow ratios, and hurt interest coverage measures. BCA’s Corporate Health Monitor is flashing its worst reading since the financial crisis. Moreover, the return on capital is at its lowest level in this cycle. Historically, these developments have pointed to higher default rates and spreads (Chart I-29). Worryingly, average interest coverage and profitability levels are distorted. Tech firms only account for 8% of the U.S. corporate bond universe, yet they represent 19% of cash flows generated by the U.S. corporate sector. Outside the tech sector, cash generation is poorer than suggested by our Corporate Health Monitor. This will amplify losses when the default cycle begins. The poor quality of bond issuance in the past 8 years will also hurt recovery rates when defaults rise. Since then, junk bonds constitute 10% of overall issuance, and BBB-rated bonds represent 42% of investment-grade issues. Historical averages are 9% and 27%, respectively. Additionally, covenants have been particularly light in the same period. Investors with horizons of one year or less still have a window to own corporate bonds. Moreover, since the deviation of corporate debt-servicing costs as a percentage of EBITDA remains well below historical trigger points, an imminent and durable jump in spreads is unlikely. Within the corporate universe, BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy service currently favors high-yield to investment-grade bonds.8 Breakeven spreads in the junk space are much more rewarding than those offered by investment-grade issues (Chart I-30). Equities We expect the S&P 500 to remain volatile and below 3,000 for the rest of 2019. Early next year, an upside breakout will end this period of churn. The S&P will probably soon test the 2,700 level. Technically, the selling is not exhausted. The number of stocks above their 40-, 30- and 10-week moving averages have formed successively lower highs and are not yet oversold (Chart I-31). Furthermore, the Fed is unlikely to deliver a dovish surprise in September. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s recent speech at Jackson Hole suggests that the Fed needs to see more pain before moving ahead of the curve. Chart I-30Short-Term Investors Should Favor Junk Over Investment Grade Issues Chart I-31This Correction Can Run Further   Once stocks stabilize, the subsequent rebound will not lead to an immediate breakout this year. Yields will move up when growth picks up or if President Trump becomes less combative on trade. However, falling interest rates have been a crucial support for stock prices in 2019. As the 1995-1996 experience shows, when the ISM turned up, the S&P 500 did not gain much traction. Higher yields pushed down multiples even as earnings estimates strengthened. We are more positive on the outlook for stocks next year with BCA’s Monetary Indicator pointing to higher stock prices (see Section III). Moreover, bear markets materialize only when a recession is roughly six to nine months away (Chart I-32). The S&P still has time to rally because we do not anticipate a recession until early 2022. Chart I-32No Recession, No Bear Market Chart I-33Better Prospects For Non-U.S. Stocks Cyclical investors should move their equity holdings outside the U.S. International markets are comparatively cheap (Chart I-33, top panel). Moreover, a rebound in global growth early next year is congruent with U.S. underperformance. Finally, our earnings models forecast an end to the deterioration of European profit growth in September 2019, but not yet in the U.S. (Chart I-33, bottom two panels). Stocks should outperform bonds on a long-term basis. According to the BCA Valuation Index, U.S. stocks are extremely expensive (see Section III). Our valuation indicator would be as elevated as in 2000 if interest rates were not so depressed today. As Peter Berezin showed in BCA’s Global Investment Strategy service, based on current valuation levels, investors can expect 10-year returns of 3.0%, 4.5%, 11.9% and 7.4% for the U.S., euro area, Japan and EM equities, respectively.9 This is not appealing. Nonetheless, long-term equity expected returns are superior to bonds. If held to maturity, they will return 1.5%, -0.7%, and -0.3% annually in the U.S., Germany and Japan, respectively. Practically, long-term investors should favor the rest of the world over the U.S. Local-currency expected returns are higher outside the U.S., and the dollar will decline during the next 10 years. As our Foreign Exchange Strategy service recently highlighted, the dollar is very expensive on a long-term basis.10 Exchange rates strongly revert to their purchasing-parity equilibria in such investment horizons. The growing U.S. twin deficit and the strong desire of reserve managers to diversify out of the greenback will only exacerbate the dollar’s decline. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 29, 2019 Next Report: September 26, 2019   II. Big Trouble In Greater China The chance of a U.S.-China trade agreement by November 2020 is still only 40% – but an upgrade may be around the corner. Trump is on the verge of a tactical trade retreat due to fears of economic slowdown and a loss in 2020. Xi Jinping is now the known unknown. His aggressive foreign policy is a major risk even if Trump softens. Political divisions in Greater China – Hong Kong unrest and Taiwan elections – could harm the trade talks. Maintain tactical caution but remain cyclically overweight global equities.   “I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it. So I’m taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade. And you know what, we’re winning.” – U.S. President Donald J. Trump, August 21, 2019 On August 1, United States President Donald Trump declared that he would raise a new tariff of 10% on the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not already subject to his administration’s sweeping 25% tariff. Then, on August 13, with the S&P 500 index down a mere 2.4%, Trump announced that he would partially delay the tariff, separating it into two tranches that will take effect on September 1 and December 15 (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Six days later Trump’s Commerce Department renewed the 90-day temporary general license for U.S. companies to do business with embattled Chinese telecom company Huawei, which has ties to the Chinese state and is viewed as a threat to U.S. network security. The same pattern played out on August 23 when President Trump responded to China’s retaliatory tariffs by declaring he would raise tariffs to 30% on the first half of imports and 15% on the remainder by December 15. Within a single weekend he softened his rhetoric and said he still wanted a deal. Trump’s tendency to take two steps forward with coercive measures and then one step back to control the damage is by now familiar to global investors. Yet this backpedaling reveals that like other politicians he is concerned about reelection. After all, there is a clear chain of consequence leading from trade war to bear market to recession to a Democrat taking the White House in November 2020. Trump’s approval rating is already similar to that of presidents who fell short of re-election amid recession (Chart II-2) – an actual recession would consign him to history. Will Trump Stage A Tactical Retreat On Trade? Yes. Trump’s predicament suggests that he will have to adjust his policies. Global trade, capital spending, and sentiment have deteriorated significantly since the last escalation-and-delay episode with China in May and June. Beijing’s economic stimulus measures disappointed expectations, exacerbating the global slowdown (Chart II-3). This leaves him less room for maneuver going forward. The fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. Even “Fortress America” – consumer-driven and relatively insulated from global trade – has seen manufacturing, private investment, and business sentiment weaken. GDP growth is slowing and has been revised downward for 2018 despite a surge in budget deficit projections to above $1 trillion dollars (Chart II-4). Chart II-3China's Gradual Stimulus Yet To Revive Global Economy Chart II-4Trump's Economy Grew Slower Than Thought Despite Fiscal Stimulus   The U.S. Treasury yield curve inversion is deepening. While we at BCA would point out reasons that this may not be a reliable signal of imminent recession, Trump cannot afford to ignore it. He is sensitive to the widening talk of “recession” in American airwaves and is openly contemplating stimulus options (Chart II-5). His approval rating has lost momentum, partly due to his perceived mishandling of a domestic terrorist attack motivated by racist anti-immigrant sentiment in El Paso, Texas, but negative financial and economic news have likely also played a part (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Trump Fears Growing Talk Of Recession In short, the fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The core predicament for Trump continues to be the divergence in American and Chinese policy. In the U.S., the stimulating effect of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act is wearing off just as the deflationary effect of his trade policy begins to bite. In China, the lingering effects of Xi’s all-but-defunct deleveraging campaign are combining with the trade war, and slowing trend growth, to produce a drag on domestic demand and global trade. The result is a rising dollar, which increases the trade deficit – the opposite of what Trump wants and needs (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Trump's Fiscal Policy Undid His Trade Policy   The United States is insulated from global trade, but only to a point – it cannot escape a global recession should one develop (Chart II-8). With global and U.S. equities vulnerable to additional volatility in the near term, Trump will have to make at least a tactical retreat on his trade policy over the rest of the year. First and foremost this would mean: Chart II-8If Total Trade War Causes A Global Relapse, The U.S. Economy Cannot Escape Expediting a trade deal with Japan – this should get done before a China deal, possibly as early as September. Ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada “NAFTA 2.0” agreement – this requires support from moderate Democrats in Congress. The window for passage is closing fast but not yet closed. Removing the threat to slap tariffs on European car and car part imports in mid-November. There is some momentum given Europe’s need to boost growth and recent progress on U.S. beef exports to the EU. Lastly, if financial and economic pressure are sustained, Trump will be forced to soften his stance on China. The problem for global risk assets – in the very near term – is that Trump’s tactical retreat has not fully materialized yet. The new tariff on China is still slated to take effect on September 1. This tariff hike or other disagreements could result in a cancellation of talks or failure to make any progress.11 Even if Trump does pivot on trade, China’s position has hardened. It is no longer clear that Beijing will accept a deal that is transparently designed to boost Trump’s reelection chances. Thus, the biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Is Xi prepared to receive Trump kindly if the latter comes crawling back? How will he handle rising political risk in Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan island,12 and will the outcome derail the trade talks? The biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Bottom Line: Global economic growth is fragile and President Trump has only rhetorically retracted his latest salvo against China. Nevertheless, the clear signal is that he is sensitive to the financial and economic constraints that affect his presidential run next year – and therefore investors should expect U.S. trade policy to turn less market-negative on the margin in the coming months. This is positive for the cyclical view on global risk assets. But the risk to the view is China: whether Trump will take a conciliatory turn and whether Xi will reciprocate. Can Xi Jinping Accept A Deal? Yes. It is extremely difficult for Xi Jinping to offer concessions in the short term. He is facing another tariff hike, U.S. military shows of force, persistent social unrest in Hong Kong, and a critical election in Taiwan. Certainly, he will not risk any sign of weakness ahead of the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, which will be a nationalist rally in defiance of imperialist western powers. After that, however, there is potential for Xi to be receptive to any Trump pivot on trade. China’s strategy in the trade talks has generally been to offer limited concessions and wait for Trump to resign himself to them. Concessions thus far are not negligible, but they can easily be picked apart. They consist largely of preexisting trends (large commodity purchases); minor adjustments (e.g. to car tariffs and foreign ownership rules); unverifiable promises (on foreign investment, technological transfer, and intellectual property); or reversible strategic cooperation (partial enforcement of North Korean and Iranian sanctions) (Table II-1). Many of these concessions have been postponed as a result of Trump’s punitive measures. It is unlikely that Beijing will offer much more under today’s adverse circumstances. The exception is cooperation on North Korea, which should improve. So the contours of a deal are generally known. This is what Trump will have to accept if he seeks to calm markets and restore confidence in the economy ahead of his election. But this slate of concessions is ultimately acceptable for the U.S. Chart II-9China's Ultimate Economic Constraint China’s demands are that Trump roll back all his tariffs, that purchases of U.S. goods must be reasonable in scale, and that any agreement be balanced and conducted with mutual respect. Of these three, the tariffs and the “respect” pose the most trouble. Trade balance: Washington and Beijing can agree on the terms of specific purchases. China can increase select imports substantially – it remains a cash-rich nation with a state sector that can be commanded to buy American goods. Tariff rollback: This is tougher but can be done. The U.S. will insist on some tariffs – or the threat of tech sanctions – as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Beijing implements the structural concessions necessary for an agreement. But China might accept a deal in which tariffs were mostly rolled back – say to the original 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of goods. This would likely offset the degree of yuan appreciation to be expected from the likely currency addendum to any agreement. Balance and respect: This qualitative demand is the sticking point. Fundamentally, China cannot reward Trump for his aggressive and unilateral protectionist measures. This would be to set a precedent for future American presidents that sweeping tariffs on national security grounds are a legitimate way of coercing China into making economic structural reforms. Moreover if the U.S. wants to improve the trade balance, China thinks, it cannot embargo Chinese high-tech imports but must actually increase its high-tech exports. Clearly this is a major impasse in the talks. The last point, mutual respect, is the likeliest deal-breaker. It may ultimately hinge on strategic events outside of the realm of trade. But before discussing it further, it is important to recognize that China is not invincible – it has a pain threshold. Deterioration in China’s labor market is of utmost seriousness to any Chinese leader (Chart II-9). And the economy is still struggling to revive. Xi’s reform and deleveraging campaign of 2017-18 has largely been postponed but the lingering effects are weighing on growth and the property sector remains under tight regulation. Moreover the removal of implicit guarantees, and rare toleration of creative destruction (Chart II-10), have left banks and corporations afraid to take on new risks. The state’s reflationary measures, including a big boost to local government spending, have so far been merely sufficient for domestic stability. Chart II-10Creative Destruction In China These problems can be addressed by additional policy easing. But the domestic political crackdown and the break with the U.S. have shaken manufacturers and private entrepreneurs to the bone, suppressing animal spirits and reducing the demand for loans. Ultimately a short-term trade deal to ease this economic stress would make sense for Xi Jinping, even though he knows that U.S. protectionism and the conflict over technological acquisition will persist beyond 2020 and beyond Trump. The threat of a sharp and destabilizing divorce from the U.S. is a real and present danger to the long-term stability of China’s economy and the Communist regime. Xi is a strongman leader, but is he really ready for Mao Zedong-style austerity? Is he not more like former President Jiang Zemin (ruled 1993-2003), who imposed some austerity while prizing domestic economic and political stability above all? To this question we now turn. Bottom Line: China has become the wild card in the trade war. Trump’s need to prevent a recession is known. Beijing has a higher pain threshold and could walk away from the deal to punish Trump (upsetting the global economy and diminishing Trump’s reelection prospects). This would set the precedent for future American presidents that China will not bow to gunboat diplomacy. Will Xi Jinping Overplay His Hand? Be Afraid. For decades China’s main foreign policy principle has been to “lie low and bide its time,” to paraphrase former leader Deng Xiaoping. In the current context this means maintaining a willingness to engage with the U.S. whenever it engages sincerely. This approach implies making the above concessions to minimize the immediate threat to stability from the trade war, while biding time in the longer run rivalry against the United States. Such an approach would also imply assisting the diplomatic process on the Korean peninsula, avoiding a military crackdown in Hong Kong, and refraining from aggressive military intimidation ahead of Taiwan’s election in January. Chart II-11China's Vast Market Its Most Persuasive Tool After all, there is no better way for the Communist Party to undercut dissidents in Hong Kong and Taiwan than to strike a deal with the United States. This would demonstrate that Xi is a pragmatic leader who is still committed to “reform and opening up.” It would help generate an economic rebound that would bring other countries deeper into Beijing’s orbit (Chart II-11). China’s vast domestic market is ultimately its greatest strength in its contest with the United States. In short, conventional Chinese policy suggests that Xi should perpetuate the long success story since 1978 by striking another deal with another Republican president. The catch is that Xi Jinping is not conventional. Since coming to power in 2012, Xi has eschewed the subtle strategies of Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping in favor of a more ambitious approach: that of declaring China’s arrival as a major power and leveraging its economic and military heft to pursue foreign policy and commercial interests aggressively. Xi’s reassertion of Communist rule and state-guided technological acquisition is the biggest factor behind the new U.S. political consensus – entirely aside from Trump – that China is foe rather than friend. There are several empirical reasons to think that Xi might overplay his hand: Xi failed to make substantive concessions with President Barack Obama’s administration on North Korea, the South China Sea, and cyber security, resulting in Obama’s decision to harden U.S. policy toward both China and North Korea in 2015 – a trend that predates Trump. Xi formally removed presidential term limits from China’s constitution even though he could have attracted less negative attention from the West by ruling from behind the scenes after his term in office, like Deng Xiaoping or Jiang Zemin. China has mostly played for time in negotiations with the Trump administration, as mentioned, and this aggravated tensions. Deep revisions to the draft agreement, and the  extent of tariff rollback which was supposedly 90% complete, broke the negotiations in May, sparking this summer’s standoff. Aggressive policies in territorial disputes have alienated even China’s potential allies. This includes regional states whose current ruling parties have courted China in recent years, in some cases obsequiously – South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The East and South China Seas remain a genuine source of “black swans” – unpredictable, low-probability, high-impact events – due to their status as critical sea lanes for the major Asian economies. China continues to militarize the islands there and aggressively prosecute its maritime-territorial disputes. We calculate that $6.4 trillion worth of goods flowed through this bottleneck in the year ending April 2019, 8% of which consists of energy goods from the Middle East that are vital to China and its East Asian neighbors, none of whom can stomach Chinese domination of this geographic space (Diagram II-1). Even if Washington abandoned the region, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would see Chinese control as a threat to their security. Ultimately, however, China’s adventures in its neighboring seas are a matter of choice. Not so for Greater China – in Hong Kong and Taiwan, political risk is rapidly mounting in a way that enflames the U.S.-China strategic distrust and threatens to prevent a trade agreement. Hong Kong: The Dust Has Not Settled Mass protests in Hong Kong have lost some momentum, based on the size of the largest rally in August versus June. But do not be fooled: the political crisis is deepening. A plurality of Hong Kongers now harbors negative feelings toward mainland Chinese people as well as the government in Beijing – a trend that is spiking amid today’s protests but began with the Great Recession and has roots in the deeper socioeconomic malaise of this capitalist enclave (Chart II-12A & II-12B).   A majority also lacks confidence in the political arrangement that ensures some autonomy from Beijing – known as “One Country, Two Systems” (Chart II-13). This is a particularly worrisome sign since this is the fundamental basis for stable political relations with Beijing. With clashes continuing between protesters and police, students calling for a boycott of school this fall, and Beijing rotating troops into the city and openly drilling its security forces in Shenzhen for a potential intervention, Hong Kong’s unrest is not yet laid to rest and could flare up again ahead of China’s sensitive National Day celebration. U.S. tariffs and sanctions are already in effect, reducing the ability of the U.S. to deter China from using force if it believes instability has gone too far. And as President Trump has warned – and would be true of any U.S. administration – a violent crackdown on civilian demonstrators would greatly reduce the political viability of a trade deal in the United States. Taiwan: The Black Swan Arrives Since Taiwan’s 2016 election, we have argued that it is a potential source of “black swans.” Mass protests in Hong Kong may have taken the cake. But these protests are now affecting the Taiwanese election dynamic and potentially the U.S.-China trade talks. Chart II-14U.S. Approves Big New Arms Sale To Taiwan On August 20, the United States Department of Defense informed Congress that it is proceeding with an $8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets and other military arms and equipment to Taiwan – the largest sale in 22 years and the largest aircraft sale since 1992 (Chart II-14). This sale is not yet complete and delivered, but ultimately will be – the question is the timing. Arms sales to Taiwan are a perennial source of tension between the United States and China – and China is increasingly assertive in using economic sanctions to get its way over such issues, as it showed in the lead up to South Korea’s election in 2017. This sale is not a military “game changer” – the U.S. did not send over fifth-generation F-35s, for instance – but China will respond vehemently. It is threatening to impose sanctions on American companies like Lockheed Martin and General Electric for their part in the deal. The sale does not in itself preclude the chance of a trade agreement but it contributes to a rise in strategic tensions that ultimately could. Chart II-15A 'Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis' Would Have A Seismic Equity Impact The context is Taiwan’s hugely important election in January. Four years ago, President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party swept to power on the back of a popular protest movement – the “Sunflower Movement” – that opposed deeper cross-strait economic integration. It dangerously resembled the kind of anti-Communist “color revolutions” that motivate Xi Jinping’s hardline policies. Tsai shocked the world when she called Trump personally to congratulate him after his election, which violated diplomatic protocol given that Taiwan is a territory of China and not an independent nation-state. Since then Trump has largely avoided provoking the Taiwan issue so as not to strike at a core Chinese interest and obliterate the chance of a trade deal. But the U.S. has always argued that the provision of defensive arms to Taiwan is a condition of the U.S.-China détente – and Trump is so far moving forward with the sale. How will Xi Jinping react if the sale goes through? In 1995-96, China’s use of missile tests to try to intimidate Taiwan produced the opposite effect – driving voters into the arms of Lee Teng-hui, the candidate Beijing opposed. This was the occasion of the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, in which U.S. President Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carriers to the region, one that sailed through the Taiwan Strait. The negative effect on markets at that time was local, whereas anything resembling this level of tensions would today be a seismic global risk-off (Chart II-15). Since the 1990s, leaders in Beijing have avoided direct military coercion ahead of elections. But Xi Jinping has hardened his stance on Taiwan throughout his term. He has dabbled with such coercion in his use of military drills that encircle Taiwan in recent years. While one must assume that he will use economic sanctions rather than outright military threats – as he did with South Korea – saber-rattling cannot be ruled out. The pressure on him is rising. Prior to the Hong Kong unrest, Taiwan’s elections looked likely to return the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) to power and remove the incumbent President Tsai – a boon for Beijing. That outlook has changed and Tsai now has a fighting chance of staying in power (Chart II-16). The prospect of four more years of Tsai would not be too problematic for Beijing if not for the fact that the U.S. political establishment is now firmly in agreement on challenging China. But even if Tsai loses, Taiwan’s outlook is troublesome. And this makes Xi’s decision-making harder to predict. Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. It is not that Tsai or her party will necessarily prevail. The manufacturing slowdown will take a toll and third-party candidates, particularly Ko Wen-je, would likely split Tsai’s vote. Moreover her Democratic Progressives still tie the KMT in opinion polling (Chart II-17). The Taiwanese people are primarily concerned about maintaining the strong economy and cross-strait peace and stability, which her reelection could jeopardize (Chart II-18). Tsai could very well lose, or she could be a lame duck presiding over the KMT in the legislature.   Rather, the problem for Xi Jinping is that the Taiwanese people clearly sympathize with the protesters in Hong Kong (Chart II-19). They fear that their own governance system faces the same fate as Hong Kong’s, with the Communist Party encroaching on traditional political liberties over time.   While Hong Kong ultimately has zero choice as to whether to accept Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan has much greater autonomy – and the military support of outside forces. It is not a foregone conclusion that Taiwan must suffer the same political dependency as Hong Kong. Indeed, Taiwan has a long history of exercising the democratic vote and has even dabbled into the realm of popular referendums. In short, Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. But the Hong Kong events have accentuated this fact, for two key reasons: First, Taiwanese people identify increasingly as exclusively Taiwanese, rather than as both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart II-20). The incidents in Hong Kong reveal that this sentiment is tied to immediate political relations and therefore deterioration would encourage further alienation from the mainland. Second, while a strong majority of Taiwanese wish to maintain the political status quo to avoid conflict with the mainland, a substantial subset – approaching one-fourth – supports eventual or immediate independence (Chart II-21).   This means that relations with the mainland will eventually deteriorate even if the KMT wins the election. The KMT itself must respond to popular demand not to cozy up too much with Beijing, which is how it fell from power in 2016. Meanwhile, under KMT rule, Taiwan’s progressive-leaning youth are likely to set about reviving their protest movement in the subsequent years and imitating their Hong Kong peers, especially if the KMT warms up relations too fast with the mainland. Ultimately these points suggest that Xi Jinping will strive to avoid a violent crackdown in Hong Kong. A crackdown would be the surest way for him to harm the KMT in the Taiwanese election and to hasten the rebuilding of U.S.-Taiwan security ties. Call The President The best argument for Xi to lie low and avoid a larger crisis in Greater China is that it would unify the West and its allies against China. So far Xi’s foreign policy has not been so aggressive as to lead to diplomatic isolation. Europe is maintaining a studied neutrality due to its own differences with the United States; Asian neighbors are wary of provoking Chinese sanctions or military threats. A humanitarian crisis in Hong Kong or a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” would change that. For markets, the best-case scenario is that Xi Jinping exercises restraint. This would help Hong Kong protests lose steam, North Korean diplomacy get back on track, and Taiwanese independence sentiment simmer down. China would be more likely to halt U.S. tariffs and tech sanctions, settle a short-term trade agreement, and delay the upgrade in U.S.-Taiwan defense relations. China would still face adverse long-term political trends in both the U.S. and Taiwan, but an immediate crisis would be averted. The worst-case scenario is that Xi indulges his ambition. Hong Kong protests could explode, relations with Taiwan would deteriorate, and U.S.-China relations would move more rapidly in their downward spiral. Trade talks could collapse. Xi Jinping would face the possibility of a unified Western front, instability within Greater China, and a global recession. This might get rid of Donald Trump, but it would not get rid of the U.S. Congress, Navy, or Department of Defense. The choice seems pretty clear. Xi, like Trump, faces constraints that should motivate a tactical retreat from confrontation, at least after October 1. While this does not necessarily mean a settled trade agreement, it does suggest at least a ceasefire or truce. Our GeoRisk indicators show that market-based political risk in Taiwan – and less so South Korea – moves in keeping with global economic policy uncertainty. The underlying U.S.-China strategic confrontation and trade war are driving both (Chart II-22). A deterioration in this region has global consequences. Chart II-22U.S.-China Strategic Conflict Fuels Global Economic Uncertainty And Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk In Tandem Xi is a markedly aggressive “strongman” Chinese leader who has not been afraid to model his leadership on that of Chairman Mao. He could still overplay his hand. This is why we maintain that the odds of a U.S.-China trade agreement remain 40%, though we are prepared to upgrade that probability if Trump and Xi make pro-market decisions. Investment Implications On the three-month tactical horizon, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy is paring back our tactical safe-haven trades: we are closing our “Doomsday Basket” of long gold and Swiss bonds for a gain of 13.6%, while maintaining our simple gold portfolio hedge going forward.  Trump has not yet decisively staged his tactical retreat on trade policy, while rising political risk in Greater China increases uncertainty over Xi Jinping’s next moves. On the cyclical horizon, the above suggests that there is a light at the end of the tunnel – if both Trump and Xi recognize their political constraints. This means that there is still a political and geopolitical basis to reinforce BCA’s House View to remain optimistic on global and U.S. equities over the next 12 months, with the potential for non-U.S. equities to recover and bond yields to reverse their deep dive.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy   III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 correction is likely to deepen a bit further. A move toward 2700 remains our base case scenario. Short-term oscillators have not yet reached capitulation levels and the Sino-U.S. trade war remains a source of risks, especially as the Chinese side is unlikely to provide any strong concessions until October. However, we still do not expect a deeper correction to unfold. In other words, equities remain stuck in a trading range for the remainder of the year. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continues to shun stocks. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if strong market momentum is not supported by valuations and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Global growth remains the biggest problem for stocks. Until the global economy finds a floor, the outlook for profits will be poor and our RPI will argue against buying equities. Beyond this year, the outlook remains constructive of stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan is markedly improving. However, it continues to deteriorate 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 WTP therefore argues that investors are still looking to buy the dips in the U.S. and in Japan, which limits the downside in those markets. Yields have collapsed, money growth has picked up, and global central banks are cutting rates in unison. As a result, our Monetary Indicator points to the most accommodative global monetary backdrop since early 2015. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicator is improving and continues to flash a buy signal. In 2015, it was deteriorating after having hit overbought territory. Therefore, unlike four years ago, equities are more likely to avoid the gravitational pull created by their overvaluation, especially as our BCA Composite Valuation index is in fact improving thanks to lower bond yields.  According to our model, 10-year Treasurys have not been this expensive since late 2012. Back then, this level of overvaluation warned of an impending Treasury selloff. Moreover, our technical indicator is now deeply overbought. So are various rate-of-change measures for bond prices. While none of those indicators can tell you if yields will move up in the next few weeks, they do argue that the risk/reward of holding bonds over the coming year is extremely poor. That being said, we are closely monitoring the recent breakdown in the advanced/decline line of commodities, which might herald another down-leg in commodity prices, and therefore, in bond yields as well. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar is only growing ever more expensive. Additionally, despite the dollar’s recent strength, our Composite Technical Indicator has lost enough momentum that the negative divergence we flagged last month remains in place. It is worrisome for dollar bulls that despite growing uncertainty and a deteriorating global economy, the euro is not breaking down. If the dollar’s Technical Indicator deteriorates further and falls below zero, the momentum-continuation behavior of the greenback will likely kick in. The USD would suffer markedly were this to happen. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1       Claudio Borio , Mathias Drehmann, Dora Xia, "The financial cycle and recession risk," BIS Quarterly Review, December 2018. 2       Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China’s Property Market: Making Sense Of Divergences," dated May 9, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Cycles,” dated July 26, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “August 2019,” dated July 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “August 2019,” dated July 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6       For an explanation of the mechanics of the FRP, please see NY Fed’s website: https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed20 7       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Sector Performance And Fed “Mid-Cycle Adjustments”: For Better Or For Worse," dated August 19, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8       Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "The Trump Interruption," dated August 13, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?,” dated August 23, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 10     Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “A Fresh Look At Purchasing Power Parity,” dated August 23, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 11     Negotiations between Trump and Xi are slated for September in Washington. There is a prospect for Trump to hold another summit with Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in late September and at the APEC summit in Chile in mid-November. 12     Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, while Taiwan is recognized as a province or territory. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Special Report

Feature Feature ChartNo 'Secular Stagnation' In Japan! Bond yields have plummeted to all-time lows and inflation has continued to undershoot the 2 percent target which central bankers tell us is ‘price stability’. This configuration has led to renewed fears that the European and global economies are entering a so-called ‘secular stagnation’. We strongly disagree with this line of thinking. Near-zero bond yields and inflation are categorically not portents of a long-term drought in economic progress. Quite the opposite. Chart I-2Japan Has Experienced Near-Zero Inflation For Decades Japan has experienced near-zero bond yields and inflation for decades (Chart I-2). Yet since the late 1990s, the growth in Japan’s real GDP per head has outperformed every other major economy1 (Feature Chart). Granted, the Japanese government has been running persistent deficits, but this is to counterbalance private sector de-levering. Total indebtedness as a share of GDP has not been rising. In the post credit boom era, Japan’s economic progress has come entirely from productivity improvements. The ability to learn, experiment, and innovate boosts the quality and/or quantity of output from a fixed set of inputs. Unlike the unsustainable growth that is fuelled by credit booms and asset bubbles, real growth that comes from productivity improvements marks genuine and sustainable economic progress. In Europe, Switzerland tells a similar tale. Swiss bond yields and inflation have been near zero for decades, but they have not defined a secular stagnation. Real GDP per head and living standards have steadily advanced, even from an already high base. In the post credit boom era, Japan’s economic progress has come entirely from productivity improvements.  But the best counterexample comes from economic history. At the height of the British Empire in 1914, British consumer prices were little different to where they stood at the end of the English Civil War in 1651 – meaning that Britain experienced near-zero inflation and low bond yields for almost three centuries (Chart I-3). Did these define a secular stagnation? No, quite the opposite. For Britain, this was a golden epoch in which it emerged as the world’s preeminent economy. Chart I-3Britain Experienced Near-Zero Inflation For Centuries The Real Reason For Near-Zero Inflation And Bond Yields The fear-mongering about a secular stagnation misses the real reason for today’s sub-2 percent inflation and record low bond yields. Central banks have wrongly defined price stability. Central banks have wrongly defined price stability because they think of it in terms of the economics and mathematics in which they have expertise. Their models tell them that they can nail inflation to one decimal place – two point zero. But price stability has as much to do with biology and psychology. Biologists will tell you that the human brain cannot distinguish inflation rates between -1 and 2 percent, a range we indistinguishably perceive as ‘price stability’. If biology teaches us that we cannot distinguish between -1 and 2 percent inflation, then central banks have a huge problem. It is impossible for a central bank to change our inflation expectations within that range, because the entire range just feels the same to us. Therefore, our behaviour in terms of wage demands and willingness to borrow will also stay unchanged. And if our economic behaviour is unchanged, what is the transmission mechanism to fine tune inflation within the -1 to 2 percent range? Central banks have wrongly defined price stability.  Therefore, price stability is actually like a ‘quantum state’. You’re in the state or you’re out of the state, but once you’re in the state you cannot then fine tune inflation to an arbitrary number like two point zero. In fact, average inflation over, say, five years will gravitate to the mid-point of the price stability state, 0.5 percent, which is a long way below the central bank’s arbitrary target of 2 percent (Chart I-4). This forces the central bank into drastic and prolonged monetary policy easing – which depresses bond yields (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Central Banks Have Wrongly Defined Price Stability... Chart I-5...Forcing Them To Depress Bond Yields Monetary Policies Will Ultimately Converge As structural credit booms have sequentially ended, economies have one by one entered the state of price stability. First it was Japan; then it was Switzerland; more recently it has been the euro area and the United States. It follows that the 5-year annualised inflation rates have also sequentially tumbled to the mid-point of the price stability state, around 0.5 percent. By which point, inflation is so far below the misplaced 2 percent target, that the central bank’s drastic and prolonged monetary policy easing has depressed the 5-year bond yield to near zero. Japan reached this point in the late 1990s, Switzerland in the early 2010s, and the euro area in the late 2010s. Begging the question: why has the 5-year inflation rate in the U.S. not tumbled towards 0.5 percent too?  The answer is that actually, it has. On a like-for-like basis, 5-year inflation rates are way below the 2 percent target in all the major jurisdictions. You see, the Americans measure inflation differently to the Europeans. In the U.S., the consumer price basket includes owner-occupied housing costs at a substantial weighting, while in Europe it is completely excluded. Using the same definition of inflation as in Europe, the U.S. 5-year inflation rate is not at 1.5 percent, it is at a feeble 0.6 percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-6On a Like-For-Like Basis, U.S. 5-Year Inflation Is A Feeble 0.6 Percent Crucially, on a like-for-like basis, 5-year inflation rates are way below the 2 percent target in all the major jurisdictions: the U.S., euro area, and Japan. This leads us to believe that the current chasm in monetary policies is unsustainable. Even including owner-occupied housing in the consumer price basket, as the U.S. does, the long run boost to annual inflation is only about 0.2 percent (Chart I-7). Meaning that it is only a matter of time before U.S. structural inflation and bond yields converge with those in the euro area. Chart I-7Owner-Occupied Housing Boosts Inflation, But In The Long Run By Only 0.2 Percent In the meantime, the chasm between monetary policies has become a major geopolitical risk. This is because it has depressed the euro versus the dollar by at least 10 percent – based on the ECB’s own competitiveness indicators. The exchange rate distortion stemming from polarised monetary policies is the culprit for the euro area’s huge trade surplus with the United States (Chart I-8). On this point, President Trump is spot on to complain that the Fed’s policy stance relative to other central banks is severely handicapping U.S. manufacturers. As the president tries to counter this handicap with tariffs, real or threatened, the Fed is being forced to lean against the risks to growth and inflation. Chart I-8Blame Polarised Monetary Policies For The Euro Area’s Huge Trade Surplus With The U.S. What Does All Of This Mean? One way or another, the dollar will come under structural pressure in the coming years as the current chasm in monetary policies proves to be unjustified. However, in the near term, we prefer to express this not via the euro, but via the yen. The corollary is that U.S bond yields will eventually converge with their European counterparts. But to reiterate, a world with near-zero inflation is categorically not a portent of secular stagnation. It is just the true state of price stability as the human brain perceives it, rather than the over-precise two point zero that central banks have arbitrarily picked. In turn, ultra-low bond yields stem from the monetary policy response to this massive undershoot of true price stability from central bank defined price stability.   All of this raises a fascinating question: if bond yields are lower than is truly required, why hasn’t it created a new inflation? The answer is that it has, but the new inflation is not in the real economy. The reason is that the world has just been through a structural credit boom, remains heavily indebted, and is still unwinding some of the credit excesses. In this world, as Japan has illustrated in recent decades, productivity growth must drive economic progress. Instead, the new inflation is in equity and other risk-asset prices. At ultra-low bond yields the prospect of bond capital gains diminishes versus potential losses, making bonds as risky as equities. This removes the need for an excess return on equities and other risk-assets versus bonds, meaning that the valuation of risk-assets inflates exponentially (Chart I-9). So long as bond yields remain depressed, this new inflation in risk-asset valuations is well justified and supported.2  But be very careful if the global 10-year bond yield rises above 2 percent.3   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Based on real GDP per working age (15-64) population, but also broadly true for real GDP per total population. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance”, October 25 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The global 10-year bond yield is the simple average of 10-year government bond yields in the U.S., euro area (or France as a proxy), and China.

There will be no U.S. Bond Strategy report next week. Our regular publication schedule will resume on September 10th, with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for September. Highlights Fed: Absent inflationary pressures or excessive financial asset valuations, the Fed must maintain an accommodative policy stance. This means cutting rates if the market demands it. Expect another 25 basis point rate cut in September. Duration: Stronger economic data will eventually lead long-dated bond yields higher, un-inverting the yield curve and allowing the Fed to stop its mini easing cycle. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but stand ready to reduce duration at the first signs of stronger global economic data. Yield Curve & Recessions: An inverted yield curve signals that the market views monetary policy as restrictive. Restrictive policy should be viewed as a necessary pre-condition for recession, but not one that helps much with timing the next downturn. Feature Chart 1Markets Want More Easing And The Fed Should Accommodate Bond investors had their hands full last week, as comments from Fed officials produced an unusually wide range of views. The hawks were most vocal early in the week as Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren, Kansas City Fed President Esther George and Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker all made the case for leaving rates at current levels, even as the market continues to price-in another 25 basis point rate cut in September, followed by an additional 50 basis points of cuts between October and February (Chart 1). Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, however, did not try to shift market expectations one way or the other during his Jackson Hole speech on Friday. This suggests that he is probably comfortable with current bond market pricing. In our opinion, we will see another 25 basis point rate cut in September and the Fed is justified in doing so. The Fed Can’t Fight The Markets, And It Shouldn’t Chart 2Keep Financial Conditions Supportive In the current environment, monetary policy exerts its greatest influence on the economy via its impact on broad financial conditions. Easier financial conditions lead to stronger growth and higher inflation in the future (Chart 2), and the Fed must ensure that financial conditions remain accommodative during the current global slowdown. This means that the Fed’s most important job is to ensure that investors perceive Fed policy as supportive for equities and corporate credit. In other words, unless Chairman Powell wants to slow the economy, he must bow down to the markets and deliver enough monetary easing to keep broad financial conditions accommodative. The minutes from the July FOMC meeting, released last week, suggest that the Fed understands this dynamic and will act as appropriate. In their discussion of financial market developments, participants observed that financial conditions remained supportive of economic growth, with borrowing rates low and stock prices near all-time highs. Participants observed that current financial conditions appeared to be premised importantly on expectations that the Federal Reserve would ease policy to help offset the drag on economic growth stemming from the weaker global outlook and uncertainties associated with international trade as well as to provide some insurance to address various downside risks. Chart 3No Sign Of Rising Inflation Expectations... Simply, if the market expects another rate cut in September, the Fed would be wise to deliver. Otherwise, broad financial conditions could tighten sharply, making it more difficult for economic growth to recover. It is not always the case that the Fed should act to ensure that financial conditions remain accommodative. If inflation expectations were breaking out to the upside, or financial asset valuations were stretched, then the case could be made for the Fed to fight back against the market’s easing expectations.1 However, neither of those conditions are in place today. The cost of inflation compensation priced into long-maturity TIPS has collapsed, and it is well below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that would be consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations near the Fed’s target (Chart 3). Survey measures of long-dated inflation expectations have been more stable, but are not threatening to move significantly higher (Chart 3, bottom panel). Equally, financial asset valuations are nowhere near “bubbly” (Chart 4). The risk premium priced into corporate bonds after accounting for expected default losses is above levels seen early last year, while the S&P 500’s 12-month forward Price/Earnings ratio is below its early-2018 peak. If inflation expectations were breaking out to the upside, or financial asset valuations were stretched, then the case could be made for the Fed to fight back against the market’s easing expectations. Further, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope recently inverted and the broad trade-weighted dollar continues to appreciate (Chart 5). Both of these factors suggest that the market views Fed policy as insufficiently accommodative. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard bluntly summed up the situation in an interview last week, saying that it is “our job to get the yield curve to be un-inverted”. Chart 4...Or Excessive Financial ##br##Asset Valuation Chart 5The Case For More Accommodative Monetary Policy We agree with this sentiment. Absent inflationary pressures or excessive financial asset valuations, the Fed must maintain an accommodative policy stance. This means cutting rates if the market demands it, in an effort to un-invert the yield curve. The Economy Must Lead Chart 6Still Waiting For A Rebound In Global Growth But the Fed can’t un-invert the yield curve all on its own. The Fed can pull down the short-end of the curve, but it needs to economy to cooperate if it wants to boost long-end yields. In fact, if the global economic data improve, then the market will no longer require Fed rate cuts to keep financial conditions accommodative. If the economic data improve a lot, then the market might even be able to live with rate hikes and still maintain supportive broad financial conditions. We haven’t yet seen much evidence of improvement in the global economic data, but we remain confident that a rebound will take hold before the end of the year.2 Flash PMI data for August were released last week and showed a drop in the U.S. figure to below the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 6). The Flash data showed small gains in the Eurozone and Japan, though both of those PMIs also remain below 50. In contrast with the weaker PMI data, Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) are showing some signs of strength. Although both the U.S. and Global (excluding U.S.) LEIs remain at below-average levels relative to their trailing 12-month trends (Chart 7), the Global (ex. U.S.) index bottomed several months ago and the U.S. index ticked higher last month. Troughs in the LEIs tend to precede troughs in both the Global PMIs and bond yields.  Chart 7Leading Economic Indicators Suggest The Rebound Might Be Soon Bottom Line: The Fed must keep financial conditions accommodative, and this means satisfying the bond market’s expectations for further rate cuts. Eventually, stronger economic data will lead long-dated bond yields higher, un-inverting the yield curve and allowing the Fed to stop its mini easing cycle. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but stand ready to reduce duration at the first signs of stronger global economic data. The Inverted Yield Curve And Recession Risk We have received a lot of client questions on the topic of using the yield curve to forecast recessions. In this week’s report we explain our views about how the inverted yield curve should be interpreted. In short, we think an inverted yield curve should be viewed as a necessary pre-condition for recession, but not one that helps much with timing the next downturn. The Flash PMI data showed small gains in the Eurozone and Japan, though both of those PMIs also remain below 50. We start by recognizing that many variables have strong track records at forecasting recession, and those variables can be grouped into two broad categories: Financial market indicators (including the yield curve, stock market, oil price, etc…) Economic indicators (including initial jobless claims, unemployment rate, housing starts, etc…) In general, financial market indicators give more advance warning of recession but they are also prone to sending false signals. Economic indicators, on the other hand, are less prone to false signals, but often provide little (if any) advance notice. With this in mind, we turn to Chart 8. The top panel of which shows the New York Fed’s popular Recession Probability Indicator, an indicator derived purely from the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope. We also calculate the same model using the 2-year/10-year slope, but the results are not materially different. Chart 8Recession Probability Indicators The top panel of Chart 8 shows the strengths and weaknesses of using financial market data to forecast a recession. The New York Fed’s model started to rise about 3 years prior to the last recession and 5 years prior to the 2001 recession. The model also fluctuated up and down several times in the late 1990s, suggesting that recession risk was lower in 1998 than in 1996 even though the recession was actually 2 years closer. In general, the model clearly illustrates that the yield curve flattens as the economic recovery ages, but also that the yield curve can provide a recession signal far in advance of the actual recession. The model’s signal can also reverse if the yield curve re-steepens. The bottom panel of Chart 8 shows the New York Fed’s yield curve-based Recession Probability Indicator alongside our own recession indicator, one that is based on several different variables (including the yield curve). Our model is designed to give less lead time than a pure yield curve model, but also fewer false signals. Once again, the late-1990s are instructive. The yield curve-only model was sending a recession signal of varying magnitudes for 5 years before our multi-factor model shot higher in 2001. What can we conclude from looking at these different recession models? Essentially, we should view an inverted yield curve as a signal that the market views monetary policy as restrictive. Restrictive monetary policy is a necessary pre-condition for recession, but it does not help us much with timing. Policy could remain restrictive for several years before the recession takes hold, or policy could move from restrictive to accommodative and the yield curve’s recession signal could vanish. Incorporating The Term Premium, Is This Time Different? Some publications at BCA have made the case that the yield curve’s recession signal is distorted in this cycle because of the deeply negative term premium. While this could be true in theory, in practice, we think it would be unwise to dismiss what the yield curve is telling us about the current stance of monetary policy. Chart 9Uncertainty Around The Term Premium Bond yields consist of two components, short rate expectations and a term premium. The yield curve’s power as a recession indicator comes from the rate expectations component. Assuming a constant term premium, an inverted yield curve means that the bond market expects the overnight rate to fall in the future. This is more likely to happen in a recession. However, if the term premium were deeply negative at the long-end of the yield curve, then an inverted yield curve might simply reflect the negative term premium and not an expectation that the fed funds rate will decline. In theory, this could be the case if, for example, the equity hedging value of Treasury bonds is perceived to be much higher now than in the past. In that case, investors might be willing to pay to take duration risk in order to gain the perceived diversification benefits. That is a plausible story. The problem is that we cannot verify it in the data because bond term premia cannot be accurately estimated. For example, one popular term premium estimate, the New York Fed’s Adrian, Crump and Moench (ACM) estimate, placed the 10-year zero coupon term premium at -84 bps on July 22. On that same date, the spot 10-year Treasury yield was 2.06%. This implies that the market’s 10-year average fed funds rate expectation was (206 bps – (-84 bps)) = 2.9%. In other words, the ACM estimate tells us that on July 22 the market expected the fed funds rate to average 2.9% over the next 10 years. This seems highly implausible, given that the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants, taken that same day, shows that the median market participant expected the fed funds rate to average 2% over the next 10 years (Chart 9). According to that median survey response, the 10-year term premium was +6 bps on July 22, not -84 bps! The point is not that survey measures of term premia are preferable to more sophisticated models of the ACM variety. We simply wish to point out that term premia estimates are highly uncertain, and the actual term premium on any given day is impossible to pin down. Once we recognize this fact, then we should at least be skeptical of claims that a negative term premium is distorting the recession signal from the yield curve. Given the uncertainty surrounding term premium estimates, we are inclined to simply take the yield curve’s signal at face value. Bottom Line: The proper interpretation of an inverted yield curve is that it is a signal that the market views monetary policy as restrictive. Restrictive monetary policy is a necessary pre-condition for recession, but it does not help us much with timing. It is conceivable that a deeply negative term premium is currently distorting the yield curve’s signal about the stance of monetary policy. But given the uncertainty surrounding term premium estimates, we are inclined to simply take the yield curve’s signal at face value.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We have made the case that inflation expectations and financial conditions are the two most important factors to monitor when tracking Fed policy. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2  We elaborated on the reasons to expect a rebound in global growth in the U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?” dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The sustained global growth slowdown, widening junk spreads, along with the risk of a U.S. recession becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy suggest that caution is still warranted in the broad equity market on a 3-12 month time horizon. Weakening consumer sentiment, softening hotel industry operating metrics that point to a margin squeeze, anemic relative outlays on lodging and a decelerating ISM non-manufacturing index, all signal that more pain lies ahead for the S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines index.   Waning industry operating metrics, a bearish signal from our EPS growth model along with the mighty U.S. dollar warns against bottom fishing in the S&P electrical components & equipment (EC&E) index.  Recent Changes There are no changes to the portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 traded in an uncharacteristically tight range last week before falling apart on Friday on the back of a re-escalation in the U.S./China trade war. Worries of recession also resurfaced. Not only did the MARKIT flash manufacturing PMI break below the 50 expansion/contraction line, but it also pulled down the MARKIT flash services PMI survey that barely held above the boom/bust line. Adding insult to injury, the 10/2 yield curve slope inverted anew last week further fanning these recession fears. Worrisomely, consumer sentiment took a hit recently according to the University of Michigan survey (top panel, Chart 1). Importantly, what caught our attention was the following commentary: “The main takeaway for consumers from the first cut in interest rates in a decade was to increase apprehensions about a possible recession. Consumers concluded, following the Fed’s lead, that they may need to reduce spending in anticipation of a potential recession.” While the consumer is the last and most significant pillar standing for the U.S. economy, reflexivity may spoil the party and a recession may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the message the bond market is sending and it is warning that the path of least resistance is a lot lower for stocks (bottom panel, Chart 1). Chart 1“The First Cut Is The Deepest” Economists are also downgrading their U.S. real GDP growth estimates and that forecast now stands at 2.3% for the current year according to Bloomberg. While the recession alarm bells are not sounding off, these downward revisions bode ill for stocks (Chart 2)  Chart 2Watch Out Down Below Moving to another part of the fixed income market, stress is slowly building in the high yield market especially given the recent tick up in bankruptcies and the blind sides that cove-lite loans now pose to bond investors. As a reminder, the U.S. high yield option adjusted spread (OAS) troughed last September and continues to emit a distress signal for the broad equity market (junk OAS shown inverted, top panel, Chart 3). Chart 3Mind The Gaps With regard to global growth, it is still missing in action, and given that Dr. Copper is on the verge of a breakdown, a global growth recovery is a Q1/2020 story at the earliest. This week we update a consumer discretion­ary subindex and also highlight an industrials sector subgroup. Chart 4SPX: The Next Shoe To Drop? Chart 5Risk To View Other financial market variables concur that global growth is elusive. J.P. Morgan’s EM FX index has broken down and EM equities are also hanging from a thread. The EM high yield OAS has broken out signaling that the risk off phase has yet to fully run its course (EM junk OAS shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 4). Finally, there is a short-term risk to our cautious equity market view. Indiscriminate buying in U.S. Treasurys has now pushed the 10-year yield down almost 180bps from last November’s peak deeply in overvalued territory. While such a move is not unprecedented, buying may be exhausted and in need of at least a short-term breather (Chart 5).     Netting it all out, the sustained global growth slowdown, widening junk spreads, along with the risk of a U.S. recession becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy suggest that caution is still warranted in the broad equity market on a 3-12 month time horizon. As a reminder, this is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which contrasts BCA’s sanguine equity market house view. This week we update a consumer discretionary subindex and also highlight an industrials sector subgroup. Empty Spaces When the consumer is worried about a possible recession as the latest survey revealed, the knee jerk reaction is to tighten the purse strings and marginally retrench. The latest University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey made for grim reading and such souring in confidence will continue to weigh on lodging equities (Chart 6). As a result, we remain underweight the niche S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines consumer discretionary subgroup. When the consumer is worried about a possible recession as the latest survey revealed, the knee jerk reaction is to tighten the purse strings and marginally retrench. Chart 6Stay Checked Out Of Hotels   Already discretionary retail sales have taken the back seat and non-discretionary retail sales are in the driver’s seat. In fact, the top panel of Chart 7 shows that the relative retail sales backdrop has plunged to levels last seen during the GFC, warning that relative share prices have ample room to fall. Drilling deeper in the consumption data is instructive. Lodging outlays are decelerating and are also trailing overall PCE. The implication is that relative profits will likely underwhelm sustaining the 18-month long de-rating phase (middle & bottom panels, Chart 7). On the operating front the news is equally dour. While selling prices are expanding, the relentless construction binge will lead to a mean reversion sooner rather than later (bottom panel, Chart 8).   Chart 7De-rating Phase To Gain Steam Chart 8Margin Squeeze Looming   Tack on the ongoing assault from the new sharing economy unicorns like Airbnb, and industry pricing power will remain in check in coming quarters. Similarly, the ISM non-manufacturing price subcomponent is warning that a deflation scare is looming in the lodging industry (second panel, Chart 8). Not only are selling prices under attack, but also labor-related input costs are on fire. The sector’s wage inflation is climbing at a 3.9%/annum pace or roughly 120bps higher that the overall employment cost index (third panel, Chart 8). Taken together, there are high odds that a profit margin squeeze will weigh on profits and on relative share prices (top panel, Chart 8). Importantly, the overall ISM services survey best encapsulates the bearish backdrop of the S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines index. Historically, relative share prices have been moving in tandem with the ISM non-manufacturing survey and the current message is that selling pressures on relative share prices will persist in the coming months (Chart 9). Chart 9Heed The Message From The ISM Services Survey In sum, weakening consumer sentiment, softening hotel industry operating metrics that point to a margin squeeze, anemic relative outlays on lodging and a decelerating ISM non-manufacturing index signal that more pain lies ahead for the S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines index. Bottom Line: Continue to avoid the S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL – MAR, HLT, RCL, CCL, NCLH. Short Circuited The S&P EC&E index broke down recently (top panel, Chart 10) and we reiterate our underweight recommendation in this industrials sector subgroup. While it is tempting to bottom fish here especially given oversold technical and bombed out valuations (bottom panel, Chart 11), a number of the indicators we track suggest that more losses are around the corner. Chart 10Sell The Weakness Chart 11Good Reasons For Valuation Discount   First the trade-weighted dollar has broken out to fresh cyclical highs despite the collapse in the 10-year yield. Historically, relative share prices and the greenback are tightly inversely correlated and the current weak global growth message the U.S. dollar is emitting is bearish for the S&P EC&E index (U.S. dollar shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 10). This global growth soft patch is not only negative for new orders owing to deficient foreign demand, but the appreciating currency also makes EC&E exports less competitive in the global market place (U.S. dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 10). Second, while industry new orders have been resilient, the massive inventory buildup dwarfs new order growth and warns that a deflationary liquidation phase is looming (middle panel, Chart 11). In fact, the recent drubbing in the ISM manufacturing prices paid subcomponent portends a deflationary industry phase (third panel, Chart 12). Adding it all up, waning industry operating metrics, a bearish signal from our EPS growth model along with the mighty U.S. dollar warns against bottom fishing in the S&P EC&E index. Other operating metrics are also warning that EC&E profits will underwhelm. Industry weekly hours worked have plunged and sell-side analysts have been aggressively cutting EPS estimates (bottom panel, Chart 13). On the productivity front, executives have not adjusted labor cost structures to lower running rates yet (second panel, Chart 13) and, thus, our EC&E productivity gauge (industrials production versus employment) is contracting which bodes ill for industry earnings (third panel, Chart 13). Chart 12Weak Profit Backdrop Chart 13Deteriorating Operating Metrics   Finally, our S&P EC&E EPS growth model does an excellent job in encapsulating all these moving parts and is signaling that the path of least resistance is lower for EPS growth in the coming months (bottom panel, Chart 12). Adding it all up, waning industry operating metrics, a bearish signal from our EPS growth model along with the mighty U.S. dollar warns against bottom fishing in the S&P EC&E index. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P EC&E index. BLBG: S5ELCO – AME, EMR, ETN, ROK.     Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Sovereign bond yields have cratered over the last few months, … : Over the last three months, 10-year yields in the U.S., France, Germany, Switzerland and Australia have fallen by 71, 64, 53, 54, and 67 basis points, respectively. … and the Treasury curve has experienced a significant bull flattening, … : Month-to-date total returns for the Barclays Bloomberg Long, Intermediate and 1-3-Year Treasury Indexes are 9.2%, 1.6% and 1.1%, respectively. … indicating that the bond market thinks more rate cuts are in store: The textbook interpretation of an inverted curve is that monetary policy is too tight and needs to be loosened, but technical factors have amplified the flattening pressure. Is the bond market reacting to weakening growth prospects, or uber-dovish central banks?: The answer has implications well beyond the fixed-income universe. It could mean the difference between an economic slowdown and a market melt-up. Feature BCA researchers convened last week for our monthly View Meeting, much of which was given over to the global decline in sovereign bond yields. Does their plunge owe more to weakening growth prospects or central banks’ synchronized dovish pivot? There have surely been elements of both; after all, central banks wouldn’t be so dovish if they weren’t concerned about the growth outlook. It is clear to our fixed-income strategists that the yield move has overshot the data, however, and they mainly attribute the overshoot to monetary policy. No central bank wants a stronger currency while confronting a demand deficiency aggravated by trade tensions and a global manufacturing slowdown. The New York Times Business section put the prevailing policy winds into living color in a nearly full-page, four-column graphic spotlighting the 32 central banks that have cut their policy rate so far this year.1 The pell-mell rush to cut rates is emblematic of a global scramble for competitiveness. No central bank wants its economy to be caught without a buffer while other economies are busily reinforcing theirs. The Message From The Bond Market Trade tensions are a legitimate threat to global economic growth already challenged by a downswing in the global manufacturing cycle. A recession is a possibility, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion. We agree with our fixed-income colleagues that the yield selloff has overrun the economic fundamentals. Last week’s preliminary European manufacturing PMIs suggested that manufacturing may finally be stabilizing, and there is still no evidence that the manufacturing downturn has infected the services sector (Chart 1). A recession is hardly a foregone conclusion. 10-year Treasury yields have been falling sharply since their 3.25% peak in early November, and the current leg down is the third in a series of sharp declines (Chart 2, top panel). Global sovereign yields have followed the same pattern (Chart 2, bottom panel), but the latest plunge is as much a reflection of ubiquitous easing biases as it is of new concerns about economic weakness. That may sound like a minor point, of interest only to macro specialists, but it has import for all investors. If the yield decline isn’t signaling new softness, then easier financial conditions will be free to act as a tailwind for risk assets. Chart 1Services Are Holding Up ... Chart 2A Brief Inversion ... But Yields Are Freefalling Neither investment-grade (Chart 3, top panel) nor high-yield corporate bond spreads evince any particular concern about the economy (Chart 3, bottom panel). Although they’ve ticked up, they remain near the bottom of their post-crisis range, and are nowhere near the levels they reached in 2011-12, during the federal budget showdown/U.S. downgrade and the flare-up of the Eurozone crisis, or in 2015-16, during the last manufacturing recession. With banks still easing lending standards for corporate and industrial borrowers (Chart 4), spreads won’t undergo a systematic widening. Borrowers do not default as long as there is a lender willing to roll over their maturing obligations, so tighter credit standards are a precondition for spread-widening cycles. Chart 3No Sign Of Stress Among Corporate Borrowers ... Chart 4... And Banks Aren't Applying Any Pressure The Message From The Housing Market Chart 5Lower Rates Have Yet To Impact Housing ... We have been disappointed by residential investment’s muted response to the significant year-to-date decline in mortgage rates (Chart 5, bottom panel). The trajectory of starts and permits (Chart 5, top panel) hasn’t changed, new and existing home sales haven’t perked up (Chart 5, second panel), and mortgage purchase applications (Chart 5, third panel) appear not to have heard the news that rates are much lower. We thought that the swift fall in mortgage rates would promote more residential investment than it has to date. There is a difference, however, between disappointing growth and a full-on contraction. With affordability remaining high relative to history (Chart 6), and apartment rents exceeding monthly mortgage payments in several locales (Chart 7), housing demand should remain well supported. There are no excesses in the housing market in terms of inventory or oncoming supply that would make housing a source of economic or financial instability. Inventory relative to the number of households is bumping around its all-time lows (Chart 8), and cumulative household formations have easily outstripped housing starts since the crisis broke (Chart 9). Structural factors like a lack of supply geared to first-time and first-move-up buyers, and the ravenous appetite of pools of capital purchasing single-family homes for rent, are squeezing out some would-be buyers, but housing is not about to induce a recession. There are plenty of things for investors to be concerned about, but the housing market isn’t one of them. Chart 6... Though They Have Placed Homeownership In Easier Reach Chart 8... Inventories Are At Record Lows, ... The View From Broad And Wall We concede that stocks are not behaving as if all is well. Big daily swings are not a feature of healthy markets, and eight of this month’s sixteen sessions have registered moves of at least 1%. The second quarter’s 3% year-over-year earnings growth is three percentage points better than the consensus expected when earnings season kicked off, however, and despite the single-day moves, the S&P 500 has spent all but the first day of the month in a well-defined range between 2,825 and 2,945 (Chart 10). The market may be jumpy from one day to the next, but investors have not been concerned enough to engage in sustained selling. The equity market’s verdict on housing is more optimistic than ours. Inspired by earnings reports, the S&P 1500 Homebuilders Index have broken out to a new 52-week high (Chart 11). Retailers were the stars of last week’s earnings releases, with Lowe’s, Nordstrom and Target posting double-digit percentage gains after reporting numbers that failed to live up to investors’ worst fears. Equities are validating the view that the U.S. consumer is alive and kicking. Chart 11Homebuilder Stocks Have Broken Out The GDP Outlook Chart 12Capex Intentions: Elevated But Slipping If consumers are well positioned, the U.S. economy should be, too. Consumption accounts for two-thirds of the U.S. economy, with investment and government spending equally dividing the other third. Federal expenditures amount to about 40% of government spending, and between this year’s fiscal thrust and next year’s hotly contested presidential election, D.C. can be counted upon to do its part for the economy. At the state and local level, healthy household income should support state sales and income tax receipts, while still-rising home prices will provide the property taxes to keep municipal coffers full. That leaves fixed asset investment as the economy’s Achilles heel. We are confident, as noted above, that residential investment will not decline enough to pose a problem for the economy, but corporate investment is in the crosshairs of the uncertainty surrounding the multiple trade squabbles. The NFIB survey and the regional Fed surveys indicate that capital expenditure plans are rolling over, even if they remain at a fairly high level (Chart 12). Our base case remains that investment will not fall enough to offset robust consumption and trend-level government spending, but a marked worsening in trade tensions could erode business confidence enough to drag the economy below stall speed. Busted Thesis In our mutual-fund days, we followed one rule without exception. If our thesis for owning a stock was disproved, we got rid of the stock without a backward glance. We no longer manage money, but our clients do, and we try to set a good example, especially in the inevitable instances when things go wrong. We are closing out our agency mREIT recommendation on the ground that we got the rates call underpinning it very wrong. Things went wrong with our agency mortgage REIT recommendation right from the get-go. In retrospect, we should have waited until the FOMC meeting dust settled before putting on a curve-dependent position. We are closing it out now, though, because we recommended the group in anticipation of a steeper yield curve. Given that we think it will take some time for investors to become convinced that a recession is not imminent, and given that mechanical factors may push yields even lower, we do not expect sustained curve steepening for several months. Although we only held it for four weeks, the recommendation left a mark. Through Thursday’s close, our defined subset of agency mREITs lost 11%, while the S&P 500 is down 3.1% and the Barclays High Yield Index is flat. We’re taking our medicine and moving on, but we will take another look at the group when the curve eventually does begin to steepen. Investment Implications Even if recession fears are overblown, as we and a majority of our colleagues believe, it will likely take some time for investors to overcome their concerns. That leads us to believe that equities may be unable to make new highs in the near term, and that Treasury yields have more downside risk than upside risk in the next few months, as rising convexity2 compels investors following asset-liability management strategies to seek out long-maturity bonds. The yield point may sound complex and esoteric, but our Global Fixed Income Strategy team increasingly believes it’s a key to understanding the negative-yield phenomenon and is researching the issue for an upcoming Special Report. Monetary accommodation is not a silver bullet. If the economy has already flipped from expansion to contraction, modest rate cuts parceled out at a deliberate pace will be insufficient to turn things around, and equities and spread product will suffer. If the expansion remains intact, however, rate cuts will help shore up the economy at the margin and quite possibly fuel a new phase of the bull markets in risk assets. Our money is on the latter, and we expect that this bull cycle has one more burst in it that will allow it to sprint to the finish line like the majority of its predecessors. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Smialek, Jeanna and Russell, Karl, “Rates Are Falling Again. That May Be Dangerous.” New York Times, August 17, 2019, p. B1. 2 Duration measures a bond’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Convexity measures duration’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates, which increases as rates fall. Investors like life insurers and pension funds, who match the duration of their investment portfolios with the duration of their liabilities, are forced to increase the duration of their bond holdings at an increasing rate as interest rates fall.

Special Report

Highlights So What? Maintain a cautious stance on Turkish currency and risk assets. Why? Following the AKP’s defeat in Istanbul, Erdogan has doubled down on unorthodox economic policies. Improvements in the current account balance are temporary. Unless investor sentiment is meaningfully repaired, the lira will resume its decline in 2020. In the meantime, tensions with the West – especially the U.S. – will remain elevated. The imposition of secondary sanctions from the U.S. is likely. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump is wavering in the trade war, which is ostensibly positive news for global risk assets that are selling off dramatically amid very gloomy expectations about the near future. The question is whether the delay is too little, too late to halt the slide in financial markets in the near term. The reason to be optimistic is that interest rates have fallen and the global monetary policy “put” is fully in effect. Moreover, it is irrefutable now that President Trump is sensitive to the negative financial effects of the trade war. He is delaying new tariffs on some of the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not simply because consumer price inflation has ticked up but more fundamentally because the tightening of financial conditions increases the risk of a recession. A president can survive a small increase in inflation but not a big increase in unemployment. The reason to be pessimistic is that global economic expectations are threatening the crisis levels of 2008 (Chart 1) and Trump’s tariff delay offers cold comfort. His administration has not delayed all the tariffs, and the delay lasts only three months. Rather than renew the license for U.S. companies to do business with Chinese telecom giant Huawei, his Commerce Department has deferred any decision – leaving uncertainty to fester in the all-important tech sector. Chart 1Global Economic Expectations Near Crisis Levels Chart 2More China Stimulus Needed To Prevent EM Breakdown Beneath the surface is the fact that China’s money-and-credit growth faltered in July, suggesting that negative sentiment is still suppressing credit demand and preventing policy stimulus from having as big of a bang as in 2015-16. The late-July Politburo meeting signaled a more accommodative turn in policy, as we have expected, and BCA’s China strategist Jing Sima expects more fiscal stimulus to be announced after the October 1 National Day celebration. But high-beta economies and assets will suffer in the meantime – especially emerging market assets (Chart 2). Emerging markets are also seeing geopolitical risks rise across the board – and with the exception of China and Brazil, these risks are underrated by markets: Greater China: Beijing is getting closer to intervening in Hong Kong with police or military force. Such a crackdown will increase the odds of a confrontation with Taiwan and a backlash across the region and world, meaning that East Asian currencies in particular have more room to break down. India: The escalation in Kashmir is not a “red herring.” A single terrorist attack in India blamed on Pakistan could trigger a dangerous military standoff that hurts rather than helps Indian equities, unlike the heavily dramatized standoff ahead of the election earlier this year. Russia: Large-scale protests, overshadowed by Hong Kong, highlight domestic instability amid falling oil prices. These developments bode ill for Russian currency and equities. We will return to these risks in the coming weeks. This week we offer a special report on Turkey, where political risk is becoming extremely underrated as the lira rallies despite a further deterioration in governance (Chart 3). Chart 3Political Risks Are Underrated In Turkey Too Early To Write Off Erdogan “Whoever wins Istanbul, wins Turkey … Whoever loses Istanbul, loses Turkey.” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has had a tough year. The March 31 local elections – especially the rerun election for mayor of Istanbul – dealt the party its biggest electoral losses since it emerged as the country’s dominant political force in 2002 (Chart 4). The elections came to be seen as a referendum on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and thus raise the question of whether the party’s strongman leader is in decline – and what that might mean for emerging market investors. Erdogan’s grip on power has long been overrated – it is his vulnerability that has driven him to such extremes of policy over the past decade. The Gezi Park protests of 2013 and the attempted military coup of 2016 revealed significant strains of internal opposition in the aftermath of the Great Recession. With each case of dissent, the AKP responded by stimulating the economy and tightening state control over society (Chart 5). But this strategy faltered last year when monetary policy finally became overextended, the currency collapsed, and the country slid into recession. The opposition finally had its moment. The AKP is less a source of unity. As a consequence, the AKP is less a source of unity among Turkish voters. Both its share of seats in parliament and the overall level of party concentration in the Turkish parliament have declined since 2002 (Chart 6). Were it not for its coalition partner, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the AKP would not have gained a majority in the 2018 parliamentary election. The AKP’s popular base consists of conservative, rural, and religious voters. This bloc is losing influence in parliament relative to centrist and left-wing parties (Chart 7). Moreover, the share of Turks identifying with political Islam, while still the largest grouping, is declining. Those who identify with more secular Turkish nationalism are on the rise (Chart 8). Does this shift entail a major turn in national policy? Will a new party emerge to challenge the AKP at last? Chart 8Secular Nationalism Is On The Rise There has long been speculation that former AKP leaders such as former Turkish president Abdullah Gul, former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu, and former deputy prime minister Ali Babacan might form a political alternative. The latter resigned from the AKP on July 8, reviving speculation that a rival party could emerge that is capable of combining disillusioned AKP voters with the broader opposition movement at a time when Erdogan’s vulnerability has been made plain. However, the opposition is likely getting ahead of itself. The ruling party still has many tools at its disposal. Its share of seats in parliament is more than double that of the main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). It is also viewed favorably in rural areas, and support for Erdogan there will not shift easily. Moreover, despite the negative electoral trend, the AKP has a lot of enthusiasm among its supporters – it is the party with the highest favorability among its own voters (Chart 9). The March election served as a wakeup call for the AKP – a warning not to take its power for granted. Erdogan can still salvage his position. The next election is not due until June 2023, leaving the party with four years to recuperate. While polls for the 2023 parliamentary election paint an ominous sign (Chart 10), they are very early, and the key will be whether Erdogan can divide the opposition and reconnect with his voter base. Above all, this will depend on what changes he makes to economic policy. Chart 10Erdogan Needs To Reconnect With Voter Base Bottom Line: Erdogan’s and the AKP’s popularity is waning, but it is too soon to write them off. The key question is how Erdogan will handle economic policy now that there are chinks in his armor. Doubling Down On Erdoganomics The fluctuation in the lira “is a U.S.-led operation by the West to corner Turkey … The inflation rate will drop as we lower interest rates.” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Erdogan needs to see the economy back to recovery in order to secure his success in the next election. A survey conducted early this year reveals that Turks view unemployment, the high cost of living, and the depreciation of the lira as the most significant problems facing Turkey, with 27% of respondents indicating that unemployment is the most important problem facing the country (Chart 11). More importantly, Turks do not have much confidence in the government’s ability to manage this pain – only one-third of respondents viewed economic policies as successful, a 14pp decline from the previous year. This highlights the need for Erdogan to revive confidence in Turkey’s policymaking institutions and to deliver on the economic front.     The key is how Erdogan will handle economic policy. However, it is still too early to call for a sustainable improvement in the Turkish economy as many of the same fundamental imbalances continue to pose risks. While the current account has improved significantly – even registering a surplus in May – the improvement will not endure (Chart 12). On the one hand, the weaker lira has made exports more attractive relative to global competition. However, the improvement in the external balance is in large part due to weaker imports which are now more expensive for Turkey’s residents and have fallen by 19% y/y in 1H2019. Shrinking imports also reflect weak domestic demand which has been weighed down by tight monetary conditions (Chart 13). Chart 12Current Account Improvement Will Not Endure Chart 13Tight Monetary Conditions Weighed On Domestic Demand What is more, portfolio inflows which in the past were necessary to offset the large current account deficit, have collapsed (Chart 14). Were it not for the improvement in the trade balance, the central bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT) would have experienced a pronounced decline in its foreign reserves, and currency pressures would have been significant. A meaningful improvement in investor sentiment – which will remain cautious on the back of economic and geopolitical risks – is a necessary precondition for the return of these inflows. Nevertheless, the current account deficit will likely remain narrow in the second half of the year as the trade balance improves on the back of a weak lira and imports remain depressed due to soft domestic demand. This will keep the lira supported over this period. Although risks from a wide current account deficit have been temporarily put off, years of foreign debt accumulation are a hazard to a sustainable improvement in the lira. Foreign debt obligations (FDO) due over the coming 12 months are extremely elevated at $167 billion (Chart 15). It is not clear that they can be paid off. While the FDO figure is overly pessimistic as some of these debts will be rolled over, net central bank foreign exchange reserves can cover only 2.7% of these obligations. This poses downside risks on the lira at a time when inflows have not yet recovered.1 Moreover, unorthodox economic policies will eventually reverse any improvement in the currency. Chart 14Financial Account Does Not Lend Support Chart 15FDO Pose A Risk To The Currency While the 4 years between now and the next election could be an opportunity to embark on unpopular structural reforms that will improve the outlook by the time voting season rolls in, Erdogan has instead doubled down on his current strategy. Less than two weeks after the results of the Istanbul election rerun, CBRT governor Murat Cetinkaya was removed by presidential decree. A month later, key CBRT staff were dismissed.2 At his first monetary policy committee meeting as governor on July 25, Murat Uysal slashed the one-week repo rate by 425bps. Given Erdogan’s outspoken distaste for high interest rates, the president’s consolidation of power over economic decision making implies that the outlook for easier monetary policy is now guaranteed. However, the ramifications of this dovish shift will be concerning for voters. The depreciating lira was singled out as the most important economic problem facing Turkey by the largest number of survey respondents (Chart 16). Erdogan’s pursuit of dovish policies despite popular opinion shows that he is doubling down on unorthodox policy despite popular opinion. Monetary easing threatens to unwind the current account improvement and ultimately de-stabilize the lira. Assuming that the banking sector does not hold back the supply of credit to the private sector, lower rates will generate a pickup in demand which will raise imports and widen the current account deficit. Unless there is a marked improvement in investor sentiment – which will remain tainted by the erosion of central bank independence and increased tensions with the West – a return in portfolio inflows to pre-2018 levels is unlikely. As a consequence the lira will begin to soften anew in 2020. The lira will soften anew in 2020. While inflation will subside as the lira stabilizes this year, it will likely remain elevated relative to pre-2018 levels – in the 10% to 15% range. Contrary to Erdoganomics, traditional economic theory postulates that interest rate cuts pose upside pressure on prices. The resurgence in domestic demand will occur against a backdrop of rising wages (Chart 17). Chart 17Price Pressures Will Persist With foreign currency reserves running low, the CBRT recently adopted several measures to discourage locals from exchanging their liras for foreign currency. These efforts reflect attempts to mitigate the negative impact of monetary easing on the lira, and to ensure FX reserves are supported: A 1-percentage point increase in the reserve requirement ratio for foreign currency deposits and participation funds. A 1-percentage point reduction in the interest rate on dollar-denominated required reserves, reserve options and free reserves held at the bank. An increase in the tax on some foreign exchange sales to 0.1% from zero. These measures make it more expensive for banks to hold foreign currency, incentivizing lira holdings instead. They also raise the CBRT’s foreign reserves highlighting the downside risks on these holdings and the lira. However, given that these measures boost CBRT reserves only superficially – rather than mirroring an improvement in the underlying economic conditions – they highlight that need for policy tightening to defend the lira, even as the CBRT officially pursues an accommodative path. Bottom Line: The Turkish economy will be extremely relevant to Erdogan’s fate in 2023. However with large foreign debt obligations, a rate cutting cycle underway, and foreign investors who remain uneasy, the case for Turkey’s economic recovery – especially amid turbulent global conditions – is weak. In the meantime, Erdogan will continue to blame external factors for the nation’s malaise. Don’t Bet On Trump-Erdogan Friendship “Being Asian and in Asia is as important as being European and in Europe for us.” Turkish Foreign Minister Melvut Cavusoglu For several years Erdogan has attempted to distract the populace from the country’s economic slide by adopting an aggressive foreign policy, particularly toward the West. The immediate cause is Syria, where Turkey has fundamental security interests that clash with those of the U.S. and Europe. But tensions also stem from Erdogan’s economic and political instability. This aggressive foreign policy has not changed in the wake of the AKP’s electoral loss. Erdogan is continuing to test the U.S.’s and EU’s limits and the result is likely to be surprise events, such as U.S.-imposed sanctions, that hurt Turkey’s economy and financial assets. Erdogan clashes with the West both because of substantive regional disagreements and because it plays well domestically. Turks increasingly see the U.S. and other formal NATO allies as a threat, while looking more favorably upon American rivals like Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela (Chart 18). The U.S., meanwhile, is expanding the use of “secondary sanctions” to impose costs on states that make undesirable deals with its rivals, and Turkey is now in its sights. The reason is Erdogan’s decision to purchase the S400 missile defense system from Russia. This decision exemplifies the breakdown in the U.S.-Turkish alliance and Turkey’s search for alternative partners and allies. The arms sale is likely – eventually – to trigger secondary sanctions under the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act and especially the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Washington has already imposed sanctions on China for buying the same weapons from Russia. Erdogan recently accepted the first delivery of components for the S400s, which are supposed to go live by April 2020. He stuck with this decision in disregard of Washington’s warnings. He has a solid base of popular support across political parties for this act of foreign policy and military independence from the U.S. (Chart 19). But the full consequences have not yet been felt. President Trump’s response is muted thus far. He banned Turkish pilots from the U.S. F-35 program and training but has not yet imposed sanctions due to his special relationship with Erdogan and ongoing negotiations over Syria. Syria is the root of the breakdown in Turkish-American relations since 2014. Washington and Ankara have clashed repeatedly over their preferred means of intervening into the Syrian civil war and fighting the Islamic State. The U.S. relies on the Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which are affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK is based in Turkey and both the U.S. and Turkey designate it as a “terrorist organization” due to its militant activities in its long-running struggle for autonomy from Turkey. Turkey has intervened in Syria west of the Euphrates River and has repeatedly threatened to conduct deeper strikes against the Kurds. The latter would put U.S. troops in harm’s way and could result in lost leverage for Western forces seeking to maintain their YPG allies and force an acceptable settlement to the Syrian conflict. There is a basis for a deal between Presidents Trump and Erdogan that could keep sanctions from happening. Trump is attempting to wash its hands of Syria to fulfill a promise of limiting U.S. costs in wars abroad. Meanwhile an aggressive intervention in Syria is not a popular option in Turkey, which is why Erdogan has not acted on threats to seize a larger swath of territory (Chart 20). As a result, the U.S. and Turkey recently formed a joint operation center to coordinate and manage “safe zones” for Syrian refugees. If they can manage the gray area on the Turkish-Syrian border, the Trump administration can continue to prepare for withdrawal while preventing Erdogan from taking too much Kurdish territory. The tradeoff is clear, but similar agreements have fallen apart. First, the U.S. Congress is ready to impose sanctions over the S400s and Trump is under pressure to punish Turkey for undermining NATO and dealing with the Russians. Second, the Trump administration has not found an acceptable solution to the Syrian imbroglio that makes full withdrawal possible. If Trump becomes convinced that the risks of a total and rapid withdrawal from Syria are greater than the rewards (as many of his GOP allies staunchly believe), then he has less incentive to protect Erdogan. Meanwhile Erdogan could still decide he needs to plunge deeper into Syria to counteract the YPG. Or he could retaliate against any sanctions over the S400s and provoke a broader tit-for-tat exchange. He has threatened to cancel orders for Boeing aircraft worth $10 billion. Clearly U.S. sanctions will cause the lira to fall and send Turkey into another bout of financial turmoil. In the meantime Turkey’s relations with Europe also pose risks. While the refugee crisis has abated, in great part due to Turkish cooperation, other disagreements are still problematic: The EU is not upgrading Turkey’s customs union and both sides know that Turkey is not eligible for EU membership anytime soon. In response to what the EU has deemed as illegal drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Cyprus, the EU called off high-level political meetings with Turkey and suspended EUR 145.8 million in pre-accession aid. EU foreign ministers have also put off talks on the Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement between the two parties which would have led to an increase in passengers using Turkish airports as a transit hub. In addition, EU ministers asked the European Investment Bank to review its lending activities in Turkey, which amounted to EUR 358.8 million last year. Erdogan is taking a bolder approach to Cyprus. He has decided to send a fourth ship to drill for natural gas in Cyprus’s Exclusive Economic Zone in the Eastern Mediterranean. The purpose is to rally support for his government by calling on the public’s strong allegiance to Turkish Cypriots (Chart 21). The problem is that a confrontation sought as a domestic distraction could provoke negative policy reactions from the EU (or the U.S., which is reconsidering its arms embargo on the Greek Cypriot side). Relations with the West would get worse. Chart 22... But Turkey Cannot Afford To Flout The EU Turkey cannot afford to flout the U.S. and EU. Its economy is dependent on Europe (Chart 22). And the U.S. still underwrites Turkey’s NATO membership and access to the global financial system. The problem is that Erdogan is an ambitious and unorthodox leader and he has clearly wagered that he can rally domestic support through various confrontations with Western policies. This means that for the immediate future the country is more likely to clash with Western nations than it is to recognize its own limits. Political risks are frontloaded and investors should be cautious before trying to snap up the depressed lira or Turkish government bonds. Bottom Line: Tensions with the West – especially the U.S. – will likely lead to economic sanctions. While there is a basis for Presidents Trump and Erdogan to avoid a falling out, it is not reliable enough to underpin a constructive investment position – especially given Erdogan has not changed course in the wake of this year’s significant electoral loss. Investment Conclusions Chart 23Optimism On Lira Amid Unresolved Risks The lira has rallied by 3.6% since the Istanbul election. It has risen 0.3% since the replacement of CBRT Governor Murat Cetinkaya and rallied further despite the sacking of the central bank’s chief economist and other high-level staff (Chart 23). Given that the market knows that the central bank reshuffle entails interest rate cuts, is this a clear signal that the lira has hit a firm bottom and cannot fall further? Turkey is more likely to clash with Western nations.  We doubt it. First, Erdogan’s doubling down on unorthodox policy threatens the recovery in the currency and risk assets and his aggressive foreign policy raises the risk of sanctions and further economic pain. Second, although Turkey is not overly exposed to China, it is heavily exposed to Europe, which is on the brink of a full-fledged recession and depends heavily on the Chinese credit cycle – which had another disappointment in July. German manufacturing PMI has been sinking further below the 50 boom-bust mark since the beginning of the year, and the economy contracted in 2Q2019 (Chart 24). Chart 24Global Backdrop Not Yet Supportive Chart 25Improvement In Spread Will Be Fleeting Given these domestic and global economic risks and geopolitical tensions, we expect any improvement in the sovereign spread to be fleeting (Chart 25). While the lira may experience temporary improvement, pressures will re-emerge in 2020 as the lagged impact of Erdogan’s pursuit of growth at all costs re-emerge. Stay on the sidelines as any improvement in the near term is fraught with risk.     Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy roukayai@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Indonesia, Turkey, And The UAE” May 2, 2019, ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Among those removed are the central bank’s chief economist Hakan Kara as well as the research and monetary policy general manager, markets general manager, and banking and financial institutions general manager.

Highlights Economic data suggest the current business cycle in China has not yet reached a bottom. Stimulus measures have not been forceful enough to fully offset a slowing domestic economy and weakening global demand. With possibly more U.S. tariffs to come, intensifying political unrest in Hong Kong and a currency set to depreciate further, the potential downside risks outweigh any potential upside over the near term. Investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long. We are still early in a credit expansionary cycle, and we expect further economic weakness to pave the way for more policy support in China. However, we recommend investors who are not yet invested in Chinese assets to remain on the sidelines until clearer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. Feature Chart 1A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks Financial market volatility surged in the first half of the month following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet, vowing to impose a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods by September 1st. By the end of last week, prices of China investable stocks relative to global equities had nearly wiped out all their 2019 year-to-date gains. (Chart 1) The extent of the decline has left some investors wondering whether the time has come to bottom-fish Chinese assets. In our view, the answer is no. In this week’s report we detail five reasons why the near-term outlook for China-related assets remains negative. We remain bullish on Chinese stocks over the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) horizon and recommend investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets stay long. However, we also recommend investors who are not yet invested to remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. As we go to press, the U.S. Trade Representative Office announced that the Trump administration would delay imposing the 10% tariff on a series of consumer goods imported from China — including laptops and cell phones — until December.1 Stocks in the U.S. surged on the news. Today’s rally in the equity market highlights our view, that short-term market performance can be dominated and distorted by news on the trade front. However, market rallies based on headline news will not sustain without the support of economic fundamentals. Reason #1: Chinese Economic Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed In a previous China Investment Strategy report,2  we presented some simple arithmetic to help investors formulate their outlook on the Chinese economy. We argued that in a full-tariff scenario, investors should focus on the likely outcome of one of the two following possibilities: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff 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. Scenario 2 denotes an outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock. For now, we remain in scenario 2 due to Chinese policymakers’ continual reluctance to allow the economy to re-leverage. The magnitude of the credit impulse so far has been “half measured” relative to previous cycles.3  More than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom. As a result, more than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom, with the main pillars supporting China’s “old economy” still in the doldrums (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Chart 2No Clear Bottom, Yet Chart 3Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher   In addition to a weakening domestic economy, China’s external sector has been weighed down by U.S. import tariffs as well as slowing global demand. (Chart 4).  The possibility of adding a 10% tariff by year end on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods exports to the U.S. may trigger another tariff “front-running” episode in the 3rd quarter. However, Chart 5 and Chart 6 highlight that any front-running would be against the backdrop of sluggish global demand. Therefore, not only the upside in Chinese export growth will be very limited in the subsequent months following the front-running, but export growth is also likely to fall deeper into contraction. Chart 4Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Chart 5Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Chart 6Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Reason # 2: A-Shares Are Not Yet Signaling A Sizeable Policy Response In previous China Investment Strategy reports, we have written at length about how Chinese policymakers are reluctant to undo their financial deleveraging efforts and push for more stimulus. After incorporating July credit data, our credit impulse, at a very subdued 26% of nominal GDP, was in fact a pullback from June’s credit growth number (Chart 7). This confirms our view that the current stimulus is clearly falling short compared to the 2015-2016 credit expansionary cycle. It underscores Chinese policymakers’ commitment to keep their foot off the stimulus pedal. What’s more, the recent performance of China’s domestic financial markets has been consistent with a half-measured credit response, and is not yet signaling a meaningful change in China’s policy stance. The A-share market since last summer has been trading off of the likely policy response to the trade war. Chart 8Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Chart 8 (top panel) shows that the A-share market has closely tracked China’s domestic credit growth over the past year. Given this, we believe that the A-share market is reacting more to the likely policy response to the trade war, in contrast to the investable market which rises and falls in near-lockstep with trade-related news (middle panel). The fact that A-share stocks have been trending sideways underscores that China’s domestic equity market continues to expect “half measured” stimulus. This week’s sharp decline in China’s 10-year government bond yield is in part related to escalating political unrest in Hong Kong (bottom panel), and in our view does not yet signal any major change in the PBOC’s stance. Finally, our corporate earnings recession probability model provides another perspective on the equity market implications of the current path of stimulus. If the current size of stimulus holds through the end of 2019, our model suggests that the probability of an outright contraction in corporate earnings lasting through year end remains quite elevated, at close to 50% (first X in Chart 9). The July Politburo statement signaled a greater willingness to stimulate the economy; as a result, we are penciling in a slightly more optimistic scenario on forthcoming credit growth through the remainder of the year, by adding 300 billion yuan of debt-to-bond swaps4 and 800 billion yuan of extra infrastructure spending5 to our baseline estimate for the rest of 2019. However, this would only add a credit impulse equivalent of 1 percentage point of nominal GDP and would only marginally reduce the probability of an earnings recession to 40% (second X in Chart 9). A 40% chance of an earnings recession is well above “normal” levels that would be consistent with a durable uptrend in stock prices, and in previous cycles, Chinese stock prices picked up only after business cycles and corporate earnings had bottomed (Chart 10). In sum, the current pace of credit growth, signals from the domestic equity market, and our earnings recession model all suggest that it is too early to bottom fish Chinese stocks. Chart 9A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer Chart 10Too Early To Bottom Fish Reason #3: The Trade War Is Far From Over Our Geopolitical Strategy team maintains that the U.S. and China have only a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020, and that any trade truce is likely to be shallow.6 We agree with this assessment, which has clear negative near-term implications for Chinese investable stocks, even if temporary rallies such as what took place yesterday periodically occur. Since the onset of the trade war, Chinese investable stocks appear to have traded nearly entirely in reaction to trade-related events. Hence, until global investors are given proof that much stronger stimulus can and will offset the impact of the trade war on corporate earnings, Chinese stocks are likely to continue to underperform their global peers. Reason #4: The Hong Kong Crisis Is A Near-Term Risk Another near-term catalyst for financial market turbulence in China is the worsening situation in Hong Kong. For now, we hold the view that a full-blown crisis (i.e. China intervening with military force) can be avoided, but we are not ruling out the possibility of a severe escalation or its potential impact on market sentiment towards Chinese assets.  On the surface, China investable stocks (the MSCI China Index, the predominantly investable index that now includes some mainland A-shares) are not directly linked to businesses in Hong Kong: Out of the top 10 constituents of the MSCI China Index, which account for roughly 50% of the index’s market capitalization, seven are headquartered in mainland China and do not appear to have significant revenue exposure to Hong Kong. By contrast, at least 30% of Hang Seng Index-listed companies have business operations in Hong Kong. The remaining three companies in the top 10 MSCI China Index are Tencent (the largest component of the index, with a weight of approximately 15%), Ping An Insurance (4% weight), and China Mobile (3% weight) – all of which registered large losses in the past week. Both Tencent and Ping An Insurance are headquartered in Shenzhen, a southeastern China metropolis that links Hong Kong to mainland China. China Mobile appears to have the most revenue exposure to Hong Kong of any top constituent through its CMHK subsidiary, which is the largest telecommunications provider in Hong Kong. It is true that there has been little evidence so far that Chinese investable stocks have been more impacted by the escalation in political unrest in Hong Kong than by the escalation in the trade war. Indeed, the fact that the two escalations were overlapping this past week makes it difficult to isolate their effects. But if unrest in Hong Kong spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China intervening. According to an analysis done by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team,6 the deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions. Should this to occur, the near-term idiosyncratic risk to Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore markets will be significant. Reason #5: Further RMB Depreciation May Weigh On Stock Prices Whether due to manipulation or market forces, last week’s depreciation in the Chinese currency (RMB) was economically justified and long overdue. Chart 11RMB Depreciation Long Overdue Chart 11 shows the close relationship between the U.S.-China one-year swap rate differential and the USD/CNY exchange rate. The true source of the correlation shown in the chart remains somewhat of a mystery, given that Chinese capital controls, particularly following the 2015 devaluation episode, prevent the arbitrage activities that link rate differentials and exchange rates in economies with fully open capital accounts. However, Chart 11 clearly shows that China’s currency would have already weakened by now if it was fully market-driven, and we do not believe that the People’s Bank of China will be inclined to tighten monetary policy in order to reverse the recent devaluation. Hence, the path of least resistance for the CNY is further depreciation.  If the threatened 10% tariff on all remaining U.S. imports from China is imposed this year, our back-of-the-envelope calculation based on Chart 12 suggests that a market-driven “equilibrium” USD/CNY exchange rate should be at around 7.6. We have high conviction, based on previous RMB devaluation episodes, that China’s central bank will not allow its currency to depreciate in a manner that invites speculation of meaningful further weakness – meaning we are not likely to see a straight-lined or rapid depreciation down to the 7.6 mark. Chart 12Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the Chinese economy. At the same time, aggressive market intervention via the PBoC burning through its foreign exchange reserves is also unlikely: A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the economy. It improves Chinese export goods’ price competitiveness and helps mitigate some of the pain caused by increased tariffs. Therefore it is in the PBoC’s every interest to allow such depreciation. However, no matter how “orderly” RMB depreciation may be, the fact that the PBoC has signaled it is no longer defending a “line in the sand” exchange-rate mark is likely to trigger another round of “race to the bottom” currency devaluation from other regional, export-dependent economies.7 A weaker RMB and emerging market currencies will also contribute to USD strength. A strong dollar has been negatively correlated with global risky assets, implying that for a time, a weaker RMB will be a risk-off event for risky assets and thus presumably for Chinese and EM equity relative performance. Investment Implications Our analysis above highlights that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is fraught with risk, and it is for this reason that we recommended an underweight tactical position in Chinese stocks for the remainder of the year in our July 24 Weekly Report.8 However, by next summer (the tail-end of our cyclical investment horizon), it is our judgement that one of two things will have likely occurred: The trade war with the U.S. will have abated or been called off, and investors will have determined that a “half-strength” credit cycle is likely enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand and the earnings outlook. In this scenario, Chinese stocks are likely to rise US$ terms over the coming year, relative to global stocks. The trade war with the U.S. will have continued, and Chinese policymakers will have acted on the need to stimulate aggressively further in order to stabilize domestic demand. In combination with an ultimately stimulative (although near-term negative) decline in the RMB, the relative performance of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark will likely be higher in hedged currency terms. Because of the near-term risks to the outlook, we agree that investors who are not yet invested should remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. But investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long, and should bet on the latter scenario: rising relative Chinese equity performance in local currency terms, alongside a falling CNY-USD / appreciating USD-CNY exchange rate.   Jing Sima  China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “US to delay some tariffs on Chinese goods”, Financial Times, August 13, 2019. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC”, dated July 10, 2019, and “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4      The remaining of 14 trillion debt-to-bond swap program rounds up to 315 billion yuan. 5      The relaxed financing requirement for infrastructure projects can add 800 billion yuan. 6      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch. 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “The RMB: Depreciation Time?”, dated May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations