Financial Markets

Highlights Deep-seated economic and political forces will undermine the trade truce between China and the United States. U.S. economic momentum is strong enough to allow the Fed to deliver more rate hikes next year than what the market is discounting. Global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year as China picks up the pace of stimulus and the dollar peaks. Until then, a cautious stance towards global equities and other risk assets is warranted. Global bond yields will fall further in the near term, but will rise by a faster-than-expected pace over a horizon of 6-to-18 months. Feature Trade War Roller Coaster Investors breathed a short-lived sigh of relief following the G20 summit in Buenos Aires this past weekend. During the course of a two-and-a-half hour dinner on the sidelines of the summit, President Donald Trump agreed to postpone raising tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese imports by two months to March 1st. For his part, President Xi Jinping pledged to engage in substantive talks to open up the Chinese economy to U.S. imports, while addressing U.S. concerns about forced technology transfers and IP theft. In one of the more ironic moments in history, China also agreed to restrict opioid exports to the West. Unfortunately, the euphoria did not last very long. By Tuesday, President Trump was back to his old self, calling himself “Tariff Man” and ominously warning that “We are going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all – at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States.” News reports indicated that the Chinese were “puzzled and irritated” by Trump’s change in tone. The mood brightened on Wednesday. Trump sounded more conciliatory, perhaps reflecting China’s decision to immediately resume importing soybeans and liquefied natural gas from the United States. By Wednesday night, however, global equities were in turmoil again due to revelations that a high-ranking Chinese tech executive had been arrested in Canada at the behest of the U.S. government on suspicion of violating sanctions against Iran. U.S. stocks recouped some of their losses Thursday afternoon, but the S&P 500 still finished down fractionally for the day. Political Stumbling Blocks To A Trade Deal At times like this, it is crucial to focus on the big picture, which is that major hurdles remain to consummating a trade deal that satisfies both sides. As our geopolitical strategists have argued, the trade war is just as much a tech war.1 China wants access to western technology, but the West, fearful of China’s ascent, is reluctant to provide it. The fact that China has had a history of appropriating western technology without due compensation only makes things worse. It is notable that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.2 Domestic U.S. politics will also undermine prospects for a lasting trade war ceasefire. Protectionism against China remains popular in the U.S., especially in the Midwestern swing states. If Trump agrees on a permanent deal to end the trade war, who will he blame if the trade deficit continues to widen? This is not just idle speculation. Trump’s trade goals are inconsistent with his fiscal policy. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a wider trade deficit. This does not mean that Chinese stocks cannot rally for a few weeks. The MSCI China investable index is in oversold territory, trading at less than 11-times forward earnings, compared to 14-times at the start of the year (Chart 1). Given that China represents nearly one-third of EM stock market capitalization, any sentiment-driven rally that pushes up Chinese stocks is likely to give a solid lift to the aggregate EM equity index (Chart 2). However, for EM equities to put in a durable bottom, two things need to happen: Chinese growth needs to stabilize and the dollar needs to peak. We do not see either happening until the middle of next year. Chart 1Chinese Stocks Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 2China Is Large Enough To Give EM A Lift Waiting For A Bottom In Chinese Growth The slowdown in Chinese growth this year has been concentrated in domestic demand rather than in trade. Chinese exports to the U.S. have actually increased by 13% in the first ten months of the year compared to the same period last year. A lull in the trade war, a weaker yuan, and lower energy input costs are all beneficial to Chinese exporters. However, the collapse in the new export order component of the Chinese manufacturing PMI suggests that these positive developments will not be enough to prevent exports from decelerating sharply in the first half of 2019 (Chart 3). Chart 3China: An Ominous Sign For Exports If Chinese growth is to rebound, domestic demand will need to reaccelerate. While the Chinese government has loosened fiscal and monetary policy at the margin, this has not been sufficient to revive animal spirits. Growth continues to sag, as measured by a variety of activity measures (Chart 4). After a brief rebound, credit growth relapsed in October, pushing the year-over-year change to a multi-year low (Chart 5). Chart 4Still Waiting For Growth To Stabilize Chart 5The Chinese Credit Spigot Has Not Been Opened Looking out, there is a risk that undue optimism over the resolution of the trade war will prompt the government to redouble its efforts on its reform agenda. This agenda has been focused on reducing debt-financed investment spending – exactly the sort of expenditure commodity producers and capital goods exporters around the world rely on. Ultimately, China will be forced to pick up the pace of stimulus, as it becomes increasingly clear that the economy needs it. However, this is likely to be a story only for the second or third quarter of 2019, suggesting Chinese growth may continue to disappoint until then. No Help From The Fed The equity sell-off on Tuesday was exacerbated by comments by New York Fed President John Williams who noted that the Fed should continue raising rates “over the next year or so.”3 Williams is regarded as one of the thought-leaders at the Federal Reserve. He is also generally seen as a centrist on monetary policy. As such, his words often echo the views of the majority of FOMC members.  Williams said that the U.S. economy was “on a very strong path with a lot of momentum.” We tend to agree with this assessment. Despite weakness in a few areas such as housing, the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. The Atlanta Fed’s GDP tracker is pointing to growth of 2.7% in the fourth quarter. Personal consumption is set to rise by 3.4%, one full percentage point above the average during the recovery. The manufacturing sector remains robust. The ISM manufacturing index rose to 59.3 in November from 57.7 the prior month. The all-important new orders component jumped 4.7 points to a three-month high of 62.1. The non-manufacturing ISM index also surprised on the upside. Strong wage growth, lower gasoline prices, and a declining savings rate will boost consumer spending next year. High levels of capacity utilization, easing lending standards, and rising labor costs will also support business investment. Residential investment should stabilize as well, given the recent decline in bond yields (Chart 6). We see the fed funds rate rising by 125 basis points through to end-2019. This stands in sharp contrast to current market pricing, which foresees only 40 basis points of hikes during this period (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Residential Investment Should Stabilize Chart 7The Market Is Ignoring The Fed Dots Don’t Fear A Flatter Yield Curve… Yet The flattening of the yield curve would seem like a major rebuke to our positive U.S. economic outlook. The 10-year/2-year Treasury spread has declined to 14 basis points. The 5-year/2-year spread has fallen into negative territory, marking the first notable inversion of any part of the Treasury curve.  How worried should we be? Some concern is clearly warranted. Policymakers have been too quick to downplay the signal from the yield curve in the past. In 2006, they blamed the “global savings glut” for dragging down long-term yields. In 2000, they argued that the U.S. federal government’s budget surplus was reducing the supply of long-term bonds. In both cases, the bond market turned out to be seeing something more ominous than they were. Nevertheless, one should keep two points in mind. First, part of the recent decline in long-term bond yields reflects a fall in inflation expectations stemming from lower oil prices (Chart 8). As we discussed last week, lower oil prices should give consumers more spending power without hurting energy capex to the degree that they did in 2015.4 Chart 8Oil Price Decline Is Dragging Down Inflation Expectations Second, the term premium – the extra compensation that investors demand for buying long-term bonds compared to rolling over short-term bills – is currently negative (Chart 9). This partly stems from the fact that investors see long-term Treasurys as a good hedge against recession risk (i.e., bond prices tend to go up when the economy weakens). Chart 9The U.S. Term Premium Is Negative Partly Because Bonds Are A Good Hedge Against A Weaker Economy Quantitative easing has also driven down the term premium. While this effect has diminished as the Fed’s balance sheet has shrunk, estimates by the New York Fed indicate that the 10-year yield is still 65 points lower than it would have been in the absence of asset purchases.5 If the term premium were 84 basis points – the average between 2004 and 2007 – the 10-year/3-month slope would be 195 basis points. Empirically, the 10-year/3-month slope is the best recession predictor of any yield curve measure. It still stands at 50 basis points. If long-term yields stay put and the Fed raises rates once per quarter, this part of the yield curve will not invert until the second half of next year. It usually takes about 12-to-18 months for an inversion in the 10-year/3-month slope to culminate in a recession (Chart 10). In the last downturn, the slope fell into negative territory in February 2006, 22 months before the start of the recession. This suggests that the next recession will not occur until late 2020 at the earliest. Chart 10The U.S. Yield Curve: An Admirable Track Record In Forecasting Recessions Investment Conclusions The signal for global equities from our tactical MacroQuant model has improved since early October, mainly because the sell-off has gone a long way towards discounting some of the negative macro developments that have occurred. Nevertheless, the model continues to signal downside risks for global stocks stretching into early 2019 (Chart 11). Chart 11The MacroQuant Equity Score Has Improved, But Is Still In Bearish Territory The model utilizes a “what you see is what you get” approach, meaning that it only relies on observable data rather than estimates of unobservable variables like the neutral rate of interest. Right now, global growth is decelerating and financial conditions have tightened, which has caused the model to turn bearish on the near-term outlook for stocks. If we are correct that China will be forced to step up the pace of stimulus; that worries over Italian debt will fade, at least temporarily, with an agreement over next year’s budget; and that U.S. growth will remain buoyant even in the face of higher rates (implying that the neutral rate is higher than widely believed), then global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year. The dollar tends to weaken whenever global growth accelerates, which should provide a further reflationary impulse to the world economy (Chart 12). Chart 12Accelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bearish For The Dollar Equity bull markets typically end about six months before the onset of a recession (Table 1). If the next global recession does not occur for at least another two years, this will provide enough time for a blow-off rally in stocks starting in mid-2019. Hence, investors should stay tactically cautious towards global equities over a 3-month horizon, but be prepared to turn cyclically opportunistic over a 6-to-18 month horizon. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Over the past few months, we have argued that bond yields will temporarily decline due to slower global growth amid widespread bearish bond sentiment. This has indeed happened. Yields are likely to remain under downward pressure into early 2019, but should then begin to stabilize and move higher, ultimately rising much more than expected as global inflation accelerates. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift?” dated December 3, 2018; and “Trump’s Demands On China,” dated April 4, 2018. 2      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 3      Jonathan Spicer, “Fed's Williams says rate hikes 'over next year or so' still make sense,” Reuters, December 4, 2019. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018. 5      Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, “The Effect of the Federal Reserve’s Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates,” FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

While the trade-war cease-fire agreed at the G20 summit between the U.S. and China boosted grain markets – particularly as China agreed to begin “substantial” purchases from the U.S. – the future of the trade relationship remains uncertain. The agreement to work out an agreement only holds for 90 days, and there’s a lot to get through. An increase in Chinese purchases of U.S. ag products could realign prices for the grains traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange with their global counterparts, by reversing the inefficiencies created by the 25% tariffs announced last summer, particularly re soybean trade flows. However, until concrete steps are announced, this remains nothing more than a hope at present. Then there’s the USD. We expect a stronger dollar in 1H19 to continue to weigh on ag markets, by keeping U.S. exports relatively expensive versus foreign competition. We continue to believe the market underestimates the number of rate hikes the Fed will deliver next year – our House view calling for four policy-rate increases next year is higher than the market consensus – and that positive news on the trade front will be offset by relatively tighter financial conditions in the U.S. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to agree cuts of 1.0mm to 1.4mm b/d at its meeting in Vienna today and tomorrow. Our $82/bbl Brent forecast for 2019 remains in place. Base Metals: Neutral. Zinc treatment charges in Asia hit a three-year high of $170 to $190/MT in November, a one-month gain of $50/MT. Chinese smelters are keeping capacity offline in the wake of lower prices for the metal and holding out for higher treatment charges, according to Metal Bulletin. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold’s rally to $1,240/oz is consistent with a more dovish read on Fed policy. Nonetheless, we continue to expect a December rate hike, and four more next year. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain markets are hopeful for a reprieve following the G20 rapprochement between presidents Trump and Xi. However, a strong USD remains a headwind for U.S. exports. Feature Throughout 2018, ag markets have been in the cross-hairs of Sino – U.S. geopolitical warfare. President Trump’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at last week’s G20 summit in Buenos Aires is nothing more than an agreement to begin negotiations. Nevertheless, ags – particularly grains – are poised to benefit from a “substantial” increase in Chinese purchases “immediately.” Although uncertainty regarding the U.S. – China trade relationship will drag on into 2019, we are likely to see at least a thaw in ag markets. Apart from trade, U.S. financial conditions will continue to impact ags. More Fed rate hikes than are currently priced in by markets, which will keep the U.S. dollar well bid relative to the currencies of other ag exporters, will weigh on these markets. Weather will remain a wildcard. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) assigns an 80% probability to an El Niño event occurring this winter, which, in the past, has led to higher volatility in ag markets due to flooding and droughts. Overall we would not be surprised to see some upside in the short term as Chinese consumers resume purchases of American crops. However, this will be muted when markets begin reassessing Fed policy expectations, and pricing in more hikes than the two currently anticipated over the next 12 months. American Farmers Breathe A Sigh Of Relief … In our most recent assessment of ag markets, we argued that while trade policy had weighed on the ag complex, further downside in these markets was unlikely.1 So far, this narrative has played out. Soybeans, corn, and wheat prices fell 22%, 19%, and 11%, respectively between the end of May and mid-July (Chart of the Week). By Tuesday of this week, they had rebounded, gaining 12%, 13%, and 8%, respectively. Chart of the WeekBetter Days To Come? Grain prices now are more in line with fundamentals. Moreover, the signing of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaces NAFTA and eliminates uncertainty in agricultural trade within the North American market, was a market-positive development. The potential breakdown of North American trade was a significant risk to U.S. agriculture: Mexico is the second-largest destination for U.S agricultural exports, accounting for 13% of all U.S. exports of agricultural bulks (Chart 2). Canada makes up a smaller 2% share. Chart 2Trade Negotiations Hit American Farmers Hard Away from the USMCA, the agreement to a trade truce between the U.S. and China at the G20 summit is a ray of hope. President Donald Trump agreed to postpone hiking rates from 10% to 25% on the second round of tariffs imposed by the U.S. on Chinese imports until March 1, in exchange for a promise by President Xi Jinping to pursue structural changes to its economy, and that China will raise its imports from the U.S. – specifically of agricultural goods. While the current truce could be an opening salvo to a more favorable trade relationship, BCA Research’s geopolitical strategists warn that this development is inconsistent with their structurally bearish view of the U.S. – China relationship. Given the obstacles still in place, they are skeptical that the truce will endure.2 While China did agree to buy “substantial” agricultural products from U.S. farmers immediately, it is still unclear whether China will remove the tariffs on imports of American grains as part of the truce.3 For now, China’s 25% tariff on its imports of U.S. soybeans, corn, and wheat is still in place. Apart from state-owned enterprises acting in response to government orders to purchase U.S. ags, Chinese traders are unlikely to fulfill this promise on their own unless the tariffs are removed. In any case, there are high odds that this will happen – in order to make room for Chinese traders to purchase the grains, as well as to show of good faith in negotiations with the U.S. … Thank You President T The current global ag landscape mirrors the disputes shadowing the world’s two largest economies. The trade rift – highlighted by the 25% tariff on China’s imports of U.S. grains and other ags – has created two parallel agriculture markets. In one market, China is scrambling to secure supplies, creating a deficit. In the other, U.S. farmers are struggling to market their produce overseas, suffering from storage shortages and in some cases left with no option but to leave their crops to rot. This dichotomy is evident in physical markets. Take soybeans, an especially vulnerable crop, given that almost 60% of U.S. exports have traditionally been consumed in China. While Brazil is facing a shortage amid insatiable Chinese demand, a record 11% of American beans are projected to be left over after accounting for exports and domestic consumption (Chart 3). This comes at a bad time as the global trend over the past few years has been an increase in land devoted to soybeans at the expense of corn. Further evidence of the impact of the tariffs are as follows: Chart 3A Soybean Glut In The U.S., Tight Supplies In Brazil China’s total soybean imports technically do not qualify as having collapsed. However, the 0.5% y/y decline in volumes so far this year is in stark contrast with the average 10% y/y growth over the past four years (Chart 4). Chart 4China Has Been Shunning American Beans Chinese consumers are clearly avoiding beans sourced in the U.S. China’s soybean imports from America over the September-to-August 2017/18 crop year are significantly lower than last year’s volumes. There is clear seasonality in China’s sourcing of soybeans, with the U.S. crop gaining a larger share in the fall and winter (Chart 5). Nevertheless, this year is a clear outlier. Previously, in October, ~ 20% of China’s soybean imports were generally from the U.S. This year, the share stands at a mere 1%. Instead, China has been relying on Brazilian-sourced beans. Chart 5Unusual Trade Flows For This Time Of Year These factors are creating strong demand for beans from Brazil, where crushers are reportedly suffering from a lack of soybean supply and tight margins. The premium paid for Brazilian beans over CBOT prices reached a record high in September (Chart 6). Chart 6Record Premiums For Brazilian Beans In 2018 While Brazilian farmers are benefiting from the U.S. – China standoff, American farmers are suffering significant losses. U.S. soybean exports to the world are severely behind schedule for this time of the year. This is a clear consequence of weak demand from China, which has completely died down (Chart 7). Even though American farmers are searching for alternative destinations to replace China – and despite exports to countries other than China being double last year’s levels for this time of the year – they are not yet sufficient to compensate for the loss of sales there. Chart 7The Rest Of The World Does Not Compensate For Chinese Bean Purchases A normalization of agricultural trade between China and the U.S. – if it were to emerge as a consequence of the trade truce – would go a long way toward reversing these trends. However, exogenous factors likely will keep soybean prices, in particular, under pressure: Chinese demand for soybeans – which it uses as feed for its massive pig herds – will likely take a hit due to an outbreak of African Swine Flu. Soybean inventories in China have grown significantly (Chart 8). This is a sign that buyers there had been frontloading imports in anticipation of weaker imports from the U.S. over the winter period, when Brazilian supply dies down. Chart 8Chinese Buyers Well Stocked Ahead Of The Winter In addition, Brazilian farmers have raised their soybean plantings for next year. According to latest USDA estimates, Brazilian production in the 2018/19 will come in at 120.5mm MT, up from 119.8mm MT and 114.6mm MT in the previous two years, respectively. Similarly, exports from Brazil are projected to stand at 77mm MT, up from 76.2 and 63.1mm MT, in the previous two years, respectively. In its November World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates – published prior to the trade truce – the USDA projected U.S. exports will come down sharply from 59.0mm MT and 58.0mm MT in 2016/17 and 2017/18, respectively, to 51.7mm MT in the 2018/19. As a result, global ending stocks will swell to a record 112.1mm MT in the next crop year. Thus, even if there is a swift resolution to the trade war, soybean supplies will remain abundant, keeping a lid on prices. Even so, a resolution to the trade war likely would return the spread between Brazilian and American bean prices to their historical mean. In fact, globally the soybean market is projected to remain in a surplus again next year – the volume of which represents 4% of total production (Chart 9). As such, inventories measured in terms of stocks-to-use, are projected to continue rising, setting a new record surpassing 30% (Chart 10). Given that soybean supply is in abundance globally, a resolution in the trade war likely will not be accompanied by a significant rebound in soybean prices. Chart 9Another Global Surplus In Beans... Chart 10... Will Push Inventories To New Record High On the other hand, corn and wheat, which are less susceptible to trade disputes with China, are expected to be in deficit next year which will bring down their inventories. However, since global stocks levels are already so elevated, we don’t expect much upside on the back of these deficits. Bottom Line: It is too early to call an end to Sino - U.S. trade tensions just yet. However, an increase in Chinese purchases of U.S. ags will go a long way in reversing the inefficiencies created by the 25% tariffs announced last summer. This will move ags traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange more in line with their global counterparts. The Other Factors Driving Ags In addition to the trade war, which has created winners and losers out of Brazilian and American farmers, respectively, currency markets are also more favorable for the former compared with the latter. As such, U.S. financial conditions will remain an important determinant of ag prices. The Fed’s monetary policy decisions impact ags both directly – through changes in real rates – as well as indirectly, through the U.S. dollar. We expect the Fed will make decisions consistent with its mandate to contain inflation. As such, there will likely be more interest rate hikes over the coming twelve months than the market’s current expectation of two. This will affect agricultural markets as follows: Higher real rates increase borrowing costs for farmers, discouraging investment, and research and development. Tighter credit can weigh on growth. This depresses consumption and demand for goods and services in general, and to some extent agricultural commodities as well. In addition to this direct channel of impact of Fed policy on the agricultural markets, U.S. monetary policy decisions vis-à-vis the rest of the world will drive ags through its impact on the U.S. dollar. Moreover, weak global growth in 1H19 will keep a floor under the dollar. When global growth lags U.S. growth, it is usually associated with a strong dollar. These factors suggest upside potential for the dollar over the coming 6 months. This will continue as long as U.S. growth outperforms the rest of the world. Since farmers’ costs are priced in local currencies while commodities – and thus sales -- are priced in U.S. dollars, a stronger dollar vis-à-vis domestic currency raises revenues of non-U.S. farmers. This incentivizes plantings, raising supply, and in turn weighing down on prices (Chart 11). This explains the inverse relationship observed between the U.S. dollar and agricultural prices (Chart 12). Chart 11A Strong Dollar Will Incentivize Planting... Chart 12...And Weigh Down On Prices As always, weather is the wildcard in agricultural markets and can destroy and damage crops. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) recently lowered its wheat production forecast by 11% on the back of a drought. This will be the smallest crop in a decade. The El Niño event expected this winter will likely prolong the drought into early next year. Thus the risk of an El Niño event is especially relevant. This weather phenomenon occurs when there is an increase in sea surface temperatures in the central tropical Pacific Ocean which increases the chances of heavy rainfall and flooding in South America and drought in Africa and Asia. According to the World Meteorological Organization, there’s a 75-80% chance of a weak El Niño forming this winter. This raises the possibility of damage or destruction to crops, which could bid up agricultural prices. Bottom Line: A stronger dollar, at least into 1H19, will weigh on ags. Thus, ag markets will be hit with headwinds as the market begins to appreciate the possibility of a greater number of rate hikes than is currently priced in. This will mute the impact of positive news on the trade front.   Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals,” dated July 26, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled “Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift?” dated December 3, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3      The USDA has not changed its plan to provide the second round of its aid package to farmers in attempt to offset losses from the trade war. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table TRADES CLOSED IN 2018 Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Downside risks to EM assets remain substantial. Stay put. EM stocks, credit and currencies will underperform their DM counterparts in the first half of 2019. The key and necessary condition for a new secular EM bull market to emerge is the end of abundant financing. The latter is imperative to compel corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization as well as structural reforms. The cyclical EM outlook hinges on China’s business cycle. The slowdown in China is broad-based and will deepen. The slowdown in China/EM will likely lead to global trade contraction. The latter is negative for global cyclicals yet bullish for the U.S. dollar. Feature As we head into 2019, the past decade is shaping up to be a lost one for emerging markets (EM) assets. In particular: EM stocks have underperformed DM markets substantially since the end of 2010 (Chart I-1). In absolute terms, EM share prices are at the same level as they were in early 2010. Chart I-1EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM For Eight Years EM currencies have depreciated substantially since 2011, and the EM local currency bond index (GBI-EM) on a total-return basis has produced zero return in U.S. dollar terms since 2010 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A Lost Decade For Investors In EM Local Currency Bonds? Finally, EM sovereign and corporate high-yield bonds have not outperformed U.S. high-yield corporate bonds on an excess-return basis. Will 2019 witness a major reversal of such dismal EM performance? And if so, will it be a structural or cyclical bottom? The roots underneath this lost decade for EM stem neither from trade wars nor from Federal Reserve tightening. Therefore, a structural bottom in EM financial markets is contingent neither on the end of Fed tightening nor the resolution of current trade tussles. We address the issues of Fed tightening and trade wars below. A Lost Decade: Causes And Remedies What led to a lost decade for EM was cheap and plentiful financing. When the price of money is low and financing is abundant, companies and households typically rush to borrow and spend unwisely. Capital is misallocated and, consequently, productivity and real income growth disappoint – and debtors’ ability to service their debts worsens. This is exactly what has happened in EM, as easy money splashed all over developing economies since early 2009. There have been three major sources of financing for EM: Source 1: Chinese Banks Chinese banks have expanded their balance sheets by RMB 198 trillion to RMB 262 trillion (or the equivalent of $28.8 trillion) over the past 10 years (Chart I-3, top panel). When commercial banks expand their balance sheets by lending to or buying an asset from non-banks, they create deposits (money). Consistently, the broad money supply has expanded by RMB 175 trillion to RMB 234 trillion (or the equivalent of $25.5 trillion). Chart I-3Enormous Boom In Chinese Banks' Assets And Money Supply Notably, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) has increased commercial banks’ excess reserves by RMB 1.5 trillion to RMB 2.8 trillion (or the equivalent of $0.22 trillion) (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Hence, the meaningful portion of money supply expansion has been due to the money multiplier – money created by mainland banks – not a provision of excess reserves by the PBoC (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Attribution Of Rise In Money Supply To Excess Reserves And Money Multiplier Not only has such enormous money creation by commercial banks generated purchasing power domestically, but it has also boosted Chinese companies’ and households’ purchases of foreign goods and services. The Middle Kingdom’s imports of goods and services have grown to $2.5 trillion compared with $3.2 trillion for the U.S. (Chart I-5). China’s spending has boosted growth considerably in many Asian, Latin American, African, Middle Eastern, and even select advanced economies. Chart I-5Imports Of Goods And Services: China And The U.S. Source 2: DM Central Banks’ QE By conducting quantitative easing, the central banks of several advanced economies have crowded out investors from fixed-income markets, incentivizing them to search for yield in EM. The Fed, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have in aggregate expanded their balance sheets by $10 trillion (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Quantitative Easing In DM This has led to massive inflows of foreign portfolio capital into EM, and reflated asset prices well beyond what was warranted by their fundamentals. Specifically, since January 2009, foreign investors have poured $1.5 trillion on a net basis into the largest 15 developing countries excluding China, Taiwan and Korea (Chart I-7, top panel). For China, net foreign portfolio inflows amounted to $560 billion since January 2009 (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Chart I-7Cumulative Foreign Portfolio Inflows Into EM And China Source 3: EM Ex-China Banks EM ex-China began expanding their balance sheets aggressively in early 2009, originating new money (local currency) and thereby creating purchasing power. This was especially the case between 2009 and 2011. Since that time, money creation by EM ex-China banks has decelerated substantially due to periodic capital outflows triggering currency weakness and higher borrowing costs. Out of these three sources, China’s money/credit cycles remain the primary driver of EM. The mainland’s imports from developing economies serves as the main nexus between China and the rest of EM. Essentially, Chinese money and credit drive imports, influencing growth and corporate profits in the EM universe (Chart I-8). Chart I-8China's Credit Cycle Leads Its Imports In turn, EM business cycle upturns attract international capital. Meanwhile, credit creation by local banks in EM ex-China – primarily in economies with high inflation or current account deficits – is a residual factor. In these countries, domestic credit creation is contingent on a healthy balance of payments and a stable exchange rate. The latter two, in turn, transpire when exports to China and international portfolio capital inflows are improving. The outcome of easy financing is over-borrowing and capital misallocation. The upshot of the latter is usually lower efficiency and productivity growth. Not surprisingly, productivity growth in both China and EM ex-China has decelerated considerably since 2009 (Chart I-9). EM return on assets has dropped a lot in the past 10 years and is now on par with levels last seen during the 2008 global recession (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Falling Productivity Growth In EM And China =... Chart I-10... = Low Profit Margins And Low Return On Capital Accordingly, the ability to service debt by EM companies has deteriorated considerably in the past decade – the ratios of cash flows from operations to both interest expenses and net debt have dropped (Chart I-11). Chart I-11EM: Deteriorating Ability To Service Debt These observations offer unambiguous confirmation that money has been spent inefficiently – i.e., misallocated. Credit booms and capital misallocations warrant a period of corporate restructuring and banking sector recapitalization. Without this, a new cycle cannot emerge. A secular bull market in equities and exchange rates arises when productivity growth and hence income-per-capita growth accelerates, and return on capital begins to climb. This is not yet the case for most developing economies. The end of cheap and abundant financing is imperative to compel corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization as well as structural reforms. These are necessary conditions to create the foundation for a new secular bull market. Ironically, the best remedy for an addiction to easy money is a period of tight money. For example, U.S. share prices would not be as high as they currently are if the U.S. did not go through the Lehman crisis. This 10-year bull market in U.S. equities was born from the ashes of the Lehman crisis. Vanished financing and the private sector’s tight budgets in 2008-‘09 compelled corporate restructuring as well as a focus on efficiency and return on equity. Has EM financing become scarce and tight? Cyclically, China’s money creation and credit flows have slowed, pointing to a cyclical downturn in EM share prices and commodities (please see below for a more detailed discussion). International portfolio flows to EM have also subsided since early this year. There has been selective corporate restructuring post the 2015 commodities downturn, including in the global/EM mining and energy sectors, China steel and coal industries as well as among Russian and Brazilian companies. However, there are many economies and industries where corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms have not been undertaken. Yet from a structural perspective, China’s money and credit growth remain elevated and excesses have not been purged. Besides, international portfolio flows to EM have had periodic “stop-and-gos” but have not yet retrenched meaningfully (refer to Chart I-7 on page 4). Consequently, structural overhauls and corporate restructuring in China/EM have by and large not yet occurred – in turn negating the start of a new secular bull market. Bottom Line: Conditions for a structural bull market in EM/China are not yet present. EM/China: A Cyclical Bottom Is Not In Place From a cyclical perspective, China is an important driving force for the majority of EM economies, and its deepening growth slowdown will continue to weigh on EM growth and global trade. In fact, odds are that global trade will contract in the first half of 2019: In China, tightening of both monetary policy as well as bank and non-bank regulation from late 2016 has led to a deceleration in money and credit growth. The latter has, with a time, lag depressed growth since early this year. Policymakers have undertaken some stimulus since the middle of this year, but it has so far been limited. Stimulus also works with a time lag. Besides, even though the broad money impulse has improved, the credit and fiscal spending impulse remains in a downtrend (Chart I-12). Therefore, there are presently mixed signals from money and credit. Chart I-12China's Stimulus Leads EM And Commodities As illustrated in Chart I-12, the bottoms in the money and combined credit and fiscal spending impulses, in July 2015, preceded the bottom in EM and commodities by six months and their peak led the top in financial markets by about 15 months in January 2018. Besides, in 2012-‘13, the rise in the money and credit impulses did not do much to help EM stocks or industrial commodities prices. Hence, even if the money as well as credit and fiscal impulses bottom today, it could take several more months before the selloff in EM financial markets and commodities prices abates. Additionally, the ongoing regulatory tightening of banks and non-bank financial institutions will hinder these institutions' willingness and ability to extend credit, despite lower interest rates. We discussed in a recent report that both the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism and the time lag between policy easing and a bottom in the business cycle are contingent on the money multiplier (creditors' willingness to lend, and borrowers' readiness to borrow) and the velocity of money (the marginal propensity to spend among households and companies). Growth in capital spending in general and construction in particular have ground to a halt (Chart I-13). Chart I-13China: Weak Capital Spending Not only has capital spending decelerated but household consumption has also slowed since early this year, as demonstrated in the top panel of Chart I-14. Chart I-14China: A Broad-Based Slowdown Finally, mainland imports are the main channel in terms of how China’s growth slowdown transmits to the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, EM share prices and industrial metals prices correlate extremely well with the import component of Chinese manufacturing PMI (Chart I-15). Chart I-15China's Imports And EM And Commodities Bottom Line: The slowdown in China is broad-based, and our proxies for marginal propensity to spend by households and companies both point to further weakness (Chart I-14, middle and bottom panels). Constraints And Chinese Policymakers’ Dilemma Given the ongoing slowdown in the economy, why are Chinese policymakers not rushing to the rescue with another round of massive stimulus? First, policymakers in China realize that the stimulus measures of 2009-‘10, 2012-‘13 and 2015-‘16 led to massive misallocations of capital and fostered both inefficiencies and speculative excesses in many parts of the economy – the property markets being among the main culprits. Indeed, policymakers recognize that easy money does not foster productivity growth, which is critical to the long-term prosperity of any nation. For China to grow and prosper in the long run, the economy’s addiction to easy financing should be curtailed. Second, policymakers are currently facing a dilemma. The real economy is saddled with enormous debt and is slowing. This warrants lower interest rates – probably justifying bringing down short-term rates close to zero. Yet, despite enforcing capital controls, it seems the exchange rate has been correlated with China’s interest rate differential with the U.S. since early 2010 (Chart I-16). Given the ongoing growth slowdown and declining return on capital in China, there are rising pressures for capital to exit the country. Notably, the PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion are only equivalent to 10-14% of broad money supply (i.e., all deposits in the banking system) (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Chinese Currency And Interest Rates Chart I-17China: Foreign Currency Reserves Are Very Low Compared To Money Supply/Deposits The current interest rate differential is only 33 basis points. If the PBoC guides short-term rates lower and the Fed stays on hold or hikes a few more times, the spread will drop to zero or turn negative. Based on the past nine-year correlation, the narrowing interest rate spread suggests yuan depreciation. This will weigh on EM and probably even global risk assets. In a scenario where policymakers prioritize defending the yuan’s value, they may not be able to reduce borrowing costs and assist indebted companies and households. As a result, the downtrend in the real economy would likely worsen. Consequently, EM and global growth-sensitive assets will drop further. Given the constraints Chinese policymakers are facing, reducing interest rates and allowing the yuan to depreciate further is the least-bad outcome. Yet this will rattle Asian and EM currencies and risk assets. What About The Fed And Trade Wars? The Fed and EM: Fed policy and U.S. interest rates are relevant to EM, but they are of secondary importance. The primary driver of EM economies are their own domestic fundamentals as well as global trade – not just U.S. growth. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the fed funds rate has been mixed, albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-18). On this chart, we have shaded the five periods over the past 38 years when EM stocks rallied despite a rising fed funds rate. Chart I-18The Fed And EM Share Prices: A Historical Perspective There were only two episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates: the 1982 Latin American debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals – elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-1998. However, these late-1990s crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Trade Wars: China’s current growth slowdown has not originated from a decline in its exports. In fact, Chinese aggregate exports and those to the U.S. have been growing at a double-digit pace, largely due to the front running ahead of U.S. import tariffs. More importantly, China’s exports to the U.S. and EU account for 3.8% and 3.2% of its GDP, respectively (Chart I-19). Total exports amount to 20% of GDP, with almost two-thirds of that being shipments to developing economies. This compares with capital spending that makes up 42% of GDP and household consumption of 38% of GDP. Hence, capital expenditures and household spending are significantly larger than shipments to the U.S. Chart I-19Structure Of Chinese Economy There is little doubt that the U.S.-China confrontation has affected consumer and business sentiment in China. Nevertheless, the slowdown in China has - until recently - stemmed from domestic demand, not exports. Investment Recommendations It is difficult to forecast whether the current EM down leg will end with a bang or a whimper. Whatever it is, the near-term path of least resistance for EM is to the downside. “A bang” scenario – where financial conditions tighten substantially and for an extended period – would likely compel corporate and bank restructuring as well as structural reforms. Therefore, it is more likely to mark a structural bottom in EM financial markets. “A whimper” scenario would probably entail only moderate tightening in financial conditions. Thereby, it would not foster meaningful corporate restructuring and structural reforms. Hence, such a scenario might not mark a secular bottom in EM stocks and currencies. In turn, the EM cyclical outlook hinges on China’s business cycle. If and when Chinese policymakers reflate aggressively, the mainland business cycle will revive, producing a cyclical rally in EM risk assets. At the moment, Chinese policymakers are behind the curve. With respect to investment strategy, we continue to recommend: Downside risks to EM assets remain substantial. Stay put. EM stocks, credit and currencies will underperform their DM counterparts in the first half of 2019. The slowdown in China/EM will likely lead to global trade contraction. The latter is negative for global cyclicals yet bullish for the U.S. dollar. For dedicated EM equity portfolios, our overweights are: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Russia, central Europe, Korea and Thailand. Our underweights are: South Africa, Peru, Indonesia, India, the Philippines and Hong Kong stocks. We are neutral on the remaining bourses. In the currency space, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, IDR, MYR and KRW. The latter is a play on RMB depreciation. The full list of our recommendation across EM equity, fixed-income, currency and credit markets is available on pages 14-15. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) may consider a rate hike in 2019 if additional tightening of labor markets leads to higher wage inflation, which would help lift core inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band.  Reflation in China could also embolden the RBA to tighten monetary policy – though the odds of a more aggressive stimulus package will decline as long as China’s overall economy remains stable and the U.S. maintains its tariff ceasefire. The Labor Party is favored to win the federal election, which is most likely to occur in May. This is a low-conviction view, as polls are tight and economic improvement will help the ruling Liberal-National Coalition. Feature 2018 has been a challenging year for global financial markets, as investors have had to deal with greater economic uncertainty, less dovish central banks and more volatile asset prices. One country that has bucked the trend to some degree is Australia. The nation has famously avoided a recession since 1991 and last saw a tightening of monetary policy in 2010. While the recession streak is unlikely to be broken in 2019, there are growing risks that the era of interest rate tranquility will soon end. In this Special Report, jointly published with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we update our views on Australia for 2019 – a year when the investment backdrop has the potential to become far more interesting, and volatile, due to election year uncertainty and a potential shift to a more hawkish bias for monetary policy. The Bond Outlook: What To Watch To Turn Bearish BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy has maintained an overweight stance on Australian government bonds since the end of 2017. That high-conviction view stemmed from our expectation that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would keep policy rates on hold for longer due to sluggish economic growth and underwhelming inflation. This recommendation has performed well, with Australian government bonds returning 2.4% (currency-hedged into U.S. dollars) in 2018 year-to-date, beating the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index by 190bps. The benchmark 10-year Australian government is now yielding 36bps below the equivalent 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, the tightest spread since 1980 (Chart 1). Chart 1Australian Bonds Have Outperformed Looking ahead, we still have a positive opinion on Australian debt relative to its global peers over the next six months. The RBA is unlikely to make any adjustments to the Cash Rate - which remains at a highly-accommodative level of 1.5% - without seeing some signs of accelerating inflation in both the Q4 2018 and Q1 2019 CPI reports. This is especially true given the political uncertainty with another federal election due by May 18,1 which could change the outlook for fiscal policy (as we discuss later in this report) and impact the RBA’s economic projections. In our view, the RBA will only be able to seriously consider an interest rate hike, warranting a downgrade of our recommended overweight stance, if all three of the following conditions occur: Australia’s underemployment rate falls below 8% China’s economy shows convincing evidence of reacceleration, especially in commodity-intensive industries like construction Core CPI inflation rises back to at least the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band We will now discuss each of these in turn. Underemployment Australia is a fairly open economy with a large export sector, but consumer spending is still the largest share of GDP (60%) so it matters most for growth. On that front, real consumption has grown in a narrow and uninspiring range between 2-3% over the past five years. Anemic wages and disposable incomes have been the problem, with the growth of both (in nominal terms) struggling to grow faster than low realized inflation, which now sits below the RBA’s inflation target range of 2-3% (Chart 2). Households have been forced to deploy a greater share of that modest income growth just to maintain spending, with the savings rate plunging from 8% at the end of 2014 to 1% this year and consumer debt piling up. Chart 2An Income-Fueled Pickup In Consumer Spending The dynamics may be changing in a more positive direction, however. Growth rates of nominal wage (+2.3%) and disposable income (+3.1%) have accelerated this year to a pace faster than inflation. With real incomes perking up, the year-over-year growth rate of real consumer spending growth accelerated to 3% in Q3/2018, driving real GDP growth to similar levels. A sustained pickup in wage growth is necessary before the RBA would even contemplate a rate hike. For that to occur, there must be decisive evidence of a tightening Australian labor market and increased resource utilization. While the headline unemployment rate of 5.0% is below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU for Australia (5.3%), broader measures of labor market slack are still at elevated levels. Specifically, the “underemployment” rate, which includes workers who are working fewer hours than they would like or at jobs below their skill levels, is still at an elevated 8.3% (Chart 3). That is down from the peak of just below 9% seen in early 2017, but well above the 2012 trough near 7% (when wage growth was close to 4%).  Chart 3UNDERemployment Rate Matters More For Australian Wages Australian wage growth tends to correlate more with the underemployment rate than the traditional unemployment rate (middle panel). This suggests that the recent blip higher in wage growth could be the beginning of a new trend, given that it has occurred alongside the recent drop in underemployment. Already, underemployment is back below the levels that prevailed when the RBA did its last interest rate cut back in 2016 (bottom panel).  A further dip lower in the underemployment rate to below the 8% threshold would likely confirm that wage growth has more upside. That outcome would give the RBA greater confidence that consumer spending will gain more strength even with a low savings rate, and that CPI inflation will return back into the target range – both outcomes that would justify some removal of the RBA’s highly stimulative monetary accommodation. China Stimulus The main connection from China’s economy to Australia is through Chinese demand for Australian exports. There is also an indirect, but very important, link between Chinese demand boosting industrial commodity prices. The latter boosts Australian growth through positive terms-of-trade effects and increased capital spending in commodity-related sectors like mining. Iron ore is the most important of those commodities, representing 18% of total Australian goods exports, with 85% of those iron ore exports going to China. Australian export growth has decelerated during 2018 from the very robust 15% year-over-year pace to a still solid 10% rate. This has mirrored the trends seen in many other economies, where exports have slowed alongside diminished demand from China. If Chinese authorities change their current policy trajectory, and embrace more aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus, then they will reaccelerate the country’s flagging demand, which should benefit Australian exporters. If the increase in spending occurs in commodity-intensive parts of China’s economy, like construction, then Australia can also benefit from a terms-of-trade impact if commodity prices rise. However, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy remain skeptical that China will launch a major economic stimulus package along the lines of what occurred in 2015-16. That surge not only boosted Chinese GDP and import demand but also triggered a boost to global industrial commodity prices that benefitted many commodity exporters, including Australia. In recent months, there has been a pickup in overall Chinese import growth, as well as some acceleration of higher frequency growth indicators like the Li Keqiang index (Chart 4). Australian exports to China have not picked up though, and Chinese iron ore imports are contracting. Part of that is due to the elevated levels of Chinese iron ore inventories. More likely, there is little demand for additional iron ore given China’s reform agenda and the struggles of its construction sector (which accounts for roughly 35% of Chinese steel demand). Chart 4China Stimulus Not Helping Australia...Yet? Our colleagues at BCA China Investment Strategy2 have noted that both weakening sales and tighter funding sources for real estate developers point to declining growth in property starts and construction. This will be negative for construction-related commodity markets and construction-related machinery. This is coming at a time when the Chinese government is trying specifically to address over-indebted industries like construction. As for the U.S.-China trade truce, a permanent de-escalation of tensions – which has not yet occurred – could provide a boost to Australian export demand, as with other export-focused countries. But the negative impact of bilateral U.S.-China tariffs on the global economy is much smaller than that of China’s attempt to limit indebtedness. Moreover, a trade truce will remove China’s primary incentive to adopt more aggressive stimulus. Nevertheless, from the RBA’s perspective, any boost to China’s construction-related activity would have a big impact on Australia’s economy and would strengthen the case for a rate hike in 2019.  Core Inflation Australia’s headline CPI inflation has struggled to hit even the bottom end of the RBA’s 2-3% target band since 2015, reaching only 1.9% in Q3 of this year (Chart 5). The story is even worse for inflation excluding food and energy, with core CPI inflation now only at 1.2% after having drifted lower in two consecutive quarters. Both market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations are also hovering near 2%. Chart 5Australian Inflation Well Below RBA Target When breaking down the CPI into tradeables (i.e. more globally-focused) and non-tradeables (i.e. more domestically-focused), the two types of inflation have not been accelerating at the same time since the 2009-11 period. Since then, faster tradeables inflation has occurred alongside slowing non-tradeables inflation, and vice versa.  While volatility on the tradeables side should be expected given the correlation to swings in commodity prices and the Australian dollar, the weakness in non-tradeables is more directly related to the spare capacity in the domestic economy. Therefore, if wage growth continues to pick up as the labor market tightens, then non-tradeables inflation should follow suit and boost Australian CPI inflation back towards the RBA target range. The implication for the RBA is that a move in core CPI inflation back towards 2.5% (the midpoint of the RBA band), occurring after an acceleration in wage growth as described above, would give the central bank confidence that a higher Cash Rate is required. Bottom Line: The RBA has kept interest rates on hold for over two years, but may consider a rate hike in 2019 if additional tightening of labor markets leads to higher wage inflation, which would help lift core inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band. A more aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus package in China, while not our base case, would also embolden the RBA to tighten monetary policy. Risks From Australian Banks? Throughout 2018, the Australian financial industry has had to endure the slings and arrows of a government inquiry into its questionable business practices and misconduct. Revelations of bribery, fraud, the charging of fees for no service and from the accounts of deceased people, as well as board-level deception of regulators, have roiled Australia's financial sector since the explosive inquiry began in February. The final report of the Australian Financial Services Royal Commission will be published in February, but the impact is already being felt throughout the industry. Bank CEOs have been publically shamed, while other senior financial sector executives have been forced from their jobs. The chairman of National Australia Bank stated before the inquiry that customers’ trust in lenders had been “pretty well eroded to zero”, and that it could take as long as a decade to successfully overhaul the culture within the banks. The biggest impacts from the Commission will come through hits to banks’ earnings and funding costs, as well as the potential impact on lending standards for new loans. Australian banks will be less profitable because of fines, customer refunds, setting aside provisions for potential misconduct penalties and the government wanting increased competition. If banks also choose to be more conservative with the marking of loans, then higher loan-loss provisions could be an additional drag on bank earnings. Already, Australian bank stocks have severely underperformed the overall domestic market, and there has been some slowing of domestic credit growth (Chart 6). There are also signs of bank funding stresses from contracting bank deposit growth (second panel) and wider offshore funding costs like relatively elevated LIBOR-OIS spreads (bottom panel). Considering how heavily Australian banks rely on offshore funding, any squeeze in those markets could severely influence the availability of credit within the Australian economy. Chart 6Australian Banks Under Some Stress... Looking ahead, if banks do tighten up their lending standards in response to the criticism and findings of the Commission, that will be from a starting point of very accommodative levels. In other words, getting a loan will likely still be “easy”, rather than “incredibly easy”. The reason is that Australian bank balance sheets remain in excellent condition. Credit crunches begin when banks are undercapitalized and are forced to retrench new loan activity as losses on existing loans pile up. That is not the case in Australia, where the major banks have Tier 1 capital ratios in the 10-12% range and non-performing loans are a tiny share of total lending. In our view, a true credit crunch would likely only occur after the Australian housing bubble bursts and the economy enters a severe downturn. That outcome would most likely be triggered by monetary policy tightening via multiple RBA rate hikes. Importantly, some of the steam has already been taken out of Australian house prices thanks to changes in regulations on new lending (Chart 7), potentially reducing some of the immediate risks to growth from a sharp plunge in home values.  Chart 7...But No Credit Crunch Expected Bottom Line: In 2019, the Australian government and its key financial regulators will have to work together to enforce responsible lending without triggering a catastrophic property market unwind. RBA policymakers are less likely to hike rates given their desire to maintain financial stability in the aftermath of the Commission – or at least until the inflation story forces their hand, as outlined in this report. The Federal Election: Polling Slightly Favors Labor Scandals in the financial sector are of utmost importance to the other major factor that could make 2019 a year of significant change in Australia: the federal election that looms most likely in the spring. Parliament is balanced on a knife’s edge, with the Australian Liberal Party’s loss of former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s parliamentary seat in a Sydney by-election on October 20. The ruling Liberal-National Coalition no longer has a majority and must rely on independent MPs to survive any no-confidence vote. This precarious situation suggests that the election could come even sooner than May and that the slightest twist in the campaign could deliver at least a small majority to either of the top two parties. Indeed, at this early stage, a high-conviction view on the election outcome is not warranted. After all, the 2016 election was decided in the Coalition’s favor only after a shift in opinion in the final month! Chart 8Labor Party Narrowly Leads All-Party Opinion Polls Nevertheless, with all due caveats, our baseline case is for a Labor majority in 2019, however slim it may be.3 Labor is slightly ahead of the Coalition in the primary opinion polling, which includes all parties (Chart 8). In two-party preference polling, Labor has gradually widened its general lead since the July 2016 election and now holds a 10% advantage in the federal polls – albeit only a 6% lead when a moving average is taken (Chart 9). Labor is also winning or tied in every major state. Chart 9Labor Has Large Lead In Two-Party Preference Polls The dramatic shift in polling since August is significant because that is when the knives came out and the Coalition ousted Turnbull in favor of the current Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The purpose of this move was to give the party a facelift ahead of the election. It is true that public opinion views Morrison as the preferred prime minister to Labor’s Bill Shorten. Shorten has a negative net approval rating and has never been viewed as an inspiring politician, while Morrison is just barely net positive. This perception works against Labor’s lead in the party polling – which is very competitive anyway – and suggests the election will be close. Critically, the Liberal-National Coalition’s polling as a whole has not benefited from the change in leadership. And in fact the data does not support the two major Australian parties’ abiding belief that a leadership coup will boost their popularity: Australia has seen four of these coups since 2010, two from Labor and two from the Coalition, and the party in question lost an average of 8% of the popular vote and 14 seats in parliament in the succeeding election (Table 1). Table 1Intra-Party Coups Don’t Win Votes Turnbull’s ouster also calls attention to another detrimental factor for the Coalition: the challenge on the right flank from minor and anti-establishment parties. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has a relatively low support rate both historically and in today’s race, currently at 8%, but anti-establishment feeling may have forced the Coalition into an error. Judging by the party’s weak polling since August, the negative response to Turnbull’s ouster has been more detrimental than the nomination of Morrison, an immigration hardliner and social conservative, has been beneficial. Meanwhile, Labor’s momentum has been corroborated by a string of surprise victories in by-elections and a sweeping win in the Victoria state elections on November 24. In the latter case, the party not only defended its hold on government, as one might expect in this progressive state, but exceeded expectations to win 56 seats out of 88 in the lower House, while the Coalition lost nearly half of its seats, falling from 37 to 21. Still, Labor’s lead is by no means decisive. In the average of the various primary polls its edge over the Coalition is within the margin of error. Moreover, the Coalition holds more “safe” (uncompetitive) seats than Labor.4 The bottom line is that a small swing in either party’s favor can produce a thin majority. The Coalition’s best case is the economy. But as concerns about unemployment and job creation recede, voters will make other demands. The top issues in recent polling are the cost of living, health care, housing affordability, and wages. Some polls also emphasize social mobility and climate change and renewable energy. Will Shorten’s Labor Party be able to capture the median voter? It is highly significant that the party has taken a rightward turn on immigration and taxes even as it holds out a more left-wing agenda on health, education, regulation, and social benefits. Immigration has played a major role in Australian politics and Labor is currently positioned near the political center – in other words, if Morrison hardens his line to guard against populists, he risks over-hardening and moving away from the median voter (Chart 10). Shorten has proposed a large bipartisan task force to determine the proper limits to immigration and how to deal with congestion and infrastructure pressures. Shorten’s platform also calls attention to abuse of temporary visas by foreign workers. Chart 10Labor Is Not Too Soft On Immigration On taxes, Shorten has attempted to separate small and big companies, again in a bid for the political center. When Prime Minister Morrison sought to establish his anti-tax credentials (Chart 11), Shorten met him halfway and proposed relief for middle class families and small and medium-sized enterprises. Yet he doubled down on higher taxes for multinational corporations and high-income earners. Chart 11Liberal-National Coalition Cutting Corporate Tax Rates Critically, the latter redistributive stances are more in line with the median voter than the Liberal Party’s more conservative, supply-side, tax cut agenda. All of Australia’s parties, including the increasingly popular “minority parties,” have a more favorable attitude toward redistribution than the Coalition, which is the outlier (Chart 12). Indeed, the National Party is closer in line with the others than the Liberals, highlighting the divisions within the Coalition that have been jeopardizing votes. As for tax cuts on middle income earners and small businesses, Labor’s acceptance of them speaks to voter concerns about living costs, jobs, and wages. Chart 12The Coalition Is Out Of Synch On Taxes Labor is also closer to the median voter on the aforementioned financial sector scandals. The Coalition stands to suffer because it has developed a reputation for being too cozy with the banks (Chart 13). This is one of the biggest perceived differences between the two major parties – in addition to the negative perception of intra-Coalition betrayal – and it is possibly one of the most salient issues in the election. This presents a serious danger for the Coalition. Chart 13Banks: The Coalition’s Ball And Chain What would a Labor government bring? The market will be jittery about Shorten’s attempts to increase tax revenue, which threatens a non-negligible tightening of fiscal policy. Shorten wants to raise taxes on high income earners; remove or lower deductions and discounts (such as on capital gains); crack down on tax evasion; and tighten control over a range of tax practices specific to Australia (limiting “negative gearing” and cutting cash refunds for “franking credits”). He is also taking a tough position on banks and the energy sector. At the same time, it is clear from Labor’s proposals in 2016 (Chart 14) that there will be a hefty amount of new spending coming down the pike if a Labor government is formed – primarily on education, health, infrastructure and job training. The tax cuts that Shorten does support will go to those with a higher propensity to consume, as well as to SMEs that are responsible for job creation. Chart 14Labor’s Spending Plans Unlikely To Change Much Ultimately, Australia’s recent history, taken in consideration with the global business cycle, does not suggest that the Labor Party is all that much more fiscally profligate than the Coalition – but the current budget balance does suggest that there is substantial room to increase deficits, which is convenient for a government that is predisposed to give voters more services (Chart 15). Hence fiscal easing is the path of least resistance - one that could make the RBA even more comfortable in raising interest rates if the conditions laid out earlier in this report come to pass. Chart 15Australia's Next Government Will Have Room To Spend! Bottom Line: The Australian Labor Party is slightly favored to win the next Australian election. This is a low-conviction call given the tight competition in public opinion polling and other mixed indicators. Broadly speaking, Labor’s shift to the political center on immigration and some tax issues makes the party more electable relative to the Coalition; meanwhile its promise of more government services fits with voter demands. We do not accept the narrative that Shorten’s Labor Party will engage in substantial fiscal tightening. The path of least resistance is for tax cuts as well as revenue collection, and for greater government spending. On the other hand, if the Coalition capitalizes on the incumbent advantage and stays in power, larger tax cuts will be in store. Hence we expect Australia to see marginally larger-than-expected budget deficits and fiscal thrust as the one reliable takeaway of next year’s election. Fixed Income Investment Implications We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Australian government bonds in currency-hedged global bond portfolios. While we have laid out the conditions that would make us change that view in this report, it is still too soon to position for such a move. Our RBA Monitor, which measures the cyclical pressures on the central bank to change monetary policy settings, is modestly below the zero line (Chart 16). This indicates a need for easier policy, although the indicator is starting to rise driven by the inflation components in the Monitor (bottom panel). In terms of market pricing, there are only 15bps of rate hikes over the next year discounted in the Australian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve, so markets are exposed to any shift to a more hawkish bias by the RBA as 2019 progresses. Chart 16Our RBA Monitor Starting To Turn Less Dovish Looking purely at Australian government bond yields, the forward curves are priced for very little change in yields over the next year (Chart 17). This suggests that outright duration trades in Australia look uninteresting from a carry perspective of betting against the forwards. We continue to prefer Australian bonds on a relative basis to global developed market peers until there is more decisive evidence pointing to convergence of Australian growth and inflation to the other major economies (bottom panel). Chart 17Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds Over the past year, Global Fixed Income Strategy has recommended tactical trades in Australian money market futures to fade the pricing of RBA hikes that we did not expect to materialize. Specifically, we entered a long position in December 2018 Australian 90-Day Bank Bill futures on October 17, 2017, then switched to a long October 2019 90-Day Bank Bill futures position on May 29, 2017. The latter contract is now trading at implied interest rate levels just above the RBA’s 1.5% Cash Rate (Chart 18), suggesting that there is no more value in this trade.  Chart 18Taking Profits On Our Long Bank Bill Futures Trade We therefore take a profit of 21bps on the Bank Bill futures trade, while awaiting evidence from the “RBA Hike Checklist” introduced in this report before considering trades that will benefit from a more hawkish central bank.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Technically the House of Representatives election could occur as late as November 2, while the half Senate election is due May 18, but the norm is to hold the election simultaneously. The 2016 election was a “double dissolution” involving the election of the entire Senate and House of Representatives.  2      Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?” dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcareserach.com. 3      We would slightly favor Labor leading a slim majority in the Senate as well as in the House. In the Senate, the half of the seats that are up for grabs are evenly split and the polling at this early stage favors Labor over the Coalition. The poor performance of the Greens, in recent polling and in the Victoria state election, suggests a positive development for Labor on the margin, whereas One Nation, whose polls are improving, poses a threat to the Coalition. 4      Labor is fighting for 15 “marginal” (hotly contested) seats and 28 “fairly safe” seats, while the Coalition is only fighting for 12 marginal seats and 14 fairly safe seats.  

Highlights Chart 1Looking For Peak Credit Spreads   The sell-off in spread product continued through November, driven by that toxic combination of weakening global growth and tightening Fed policy. With spreads now looking more attractive, we have begun to search for catalysts that could throw the current sell-off into reverse. Chart 1 shows two catalysts that called the peak in credit spreads in early 2016: A move higher in the CRB Raw Industrials index – a sign of improving global demand – and a shift down in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – a sign of easier Fed policy. The recovery in the CRB index is so far only tentative, and despite Chairman Powell’s dovish tone last week, the Fed will need to see more credit market pain before hitting pause on the rate hike cycle. As such, we anticipate further spread widening during the next few months. On a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries and, given that the market is only priced for 44 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 120 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -216 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 19 bps on the month and currently sits at 137 bps. Corporate bonds are no longer expensive. The 12-month breakeven spread for Baa-rated debt is almost back to its average historical level (Chart 2). However, as was noted in last week’s report and on the first page of this report, the combination of weakening global growth and Fed tightening makes further widening likely in the near term.1 Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview A period of outperformance will follow the current bout of spread widening once global growth re-accelerates and/or the Fed adopts a more dovish policy stance. Therefore, on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon we maintain a neutral allocation to corporate bonds. Pre-tax corporate profits grew 22% (annualized) in Q3 and a stunning 16% during the past year, well above the rate of corporate debt accumulation (bottom panel). But going forward, the stronger dollar and accelerating wages will cause profit growth to slow in the first half of 2019, triggering a renewed increase in gross leverage (panel 4). With that in mind, we continue to recommend that investors maintain an up-in-quality bias within a neutral allocation to corporate bonds. We prefer to pick-up extra spread by favoring the long-end of the credit curve.2 High-Yield: Neutral High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 155 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +4 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 47 bps on the month, and currently sits at 418 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for default losses is currently 308 bps, nicely above its long-run average of 250 bps (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast during the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 308 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. Factoring-in enough spread compression to bring the default-adjusted spread back to its historical average leads to an expected excess return of 534 bps. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview For a different perspective on valuation, we can also calculate the default rate necessary for the High-Yield index to deliver 12-month excess returns in line with the historical average. As of today, this spread-implied default rate is 3.20%, well above the 2.26% default rate anticipated by Moody’s (panel 4). While the elevated spread-implied default rate is certainly a sign of improved value, our sense is that the actual default rate will end up closer to the spread-implied level than to the level expected by Moody’s. Job cut announcements – an excellent indicator of corporate defaults – have put in a clear bottom (bottom panel) and the third quarter Senior Loan Officer Survey showed a decline in C&I loan demand, often a precursor of tighter lending standards.3  Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation*   Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities performed in line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in November, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at -43 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread was flat on the month. A basis point widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was offset by a basis point drop in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Although very low mortgage refinancings have kept overall MBS spreads tight, the option-adjusted spread has widened in recent months, bringing some value back to the sector (Chart 4). Chart 4MBS Market Overview In last week’s report we ran a performance attribution on excess MBS returns for 2018.4 We found that interest rate volatility had been a drag on MBS returns early in the year, but the sector’s most recent underperformance was almost entirely due to OAS widening. Mortgage refinancing risk, typically the most important risk factor, contributed positively to excess returns throughout most of the year. With Fed rate hikes likely to keep refinancings low, and with mortgage lending standards still easing from restrictive levels (bottom panel), the macro back-drop remains very supportive for MBS spreads. We maintain a neutral allocation to the sector for now, but will likely upgrade when it comes time to further pare our allocation to corporate credit. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -50 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 70 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -188 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed by 68 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -128 bps. Local Authorities underperformed by 51 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +11 bps. Supranationals outperformed Treasuries by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +1 bp. Sovereign debt has underperformed this year, but spreads remain expensive compared to U.S. corporate credit and the dollar’s recent strength suggests that the sector will continue to struggle (Chart 5). Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview In a recent report we looked at USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt by country and found that only a few nations offer excess spread compared to equivalently-rated U.S. corporates.5 Those countries are Argentina, Turkey, Lebanon and Ukraine at the low-end of the credit spectrum and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE at the upper-end. We continue to view the Local Authority sector as very attractive. The sector offers similar value to Aa/A-rated corporate debt on a breakeven spread basis (bottom panel), and it is also dominated by taxable municipal securities that are insulated from weak foreign economic growth. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +99 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 2% in November, and currently sits at 86% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly above the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1975, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps (where it stands today) investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of -11 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +156 bps before adjusting for the tax advantage. We attribute this mid-cycle outperformance to the fact that state & local government balance sheet health tends to lag the health of the corporate sector. At present, our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory, consistent with an environment where ratings upgrades will outpace downgrades (bottom panel). Meanwhile, corporations are already deep into the releveraging process. Treasury Curve: Favor The 2-Year Bullet Over The 1/5 Barbell Treasury yields fell in November, led by the 5-10 year maturities. The 2/10 slope flattened 7 bps to end the month at 21 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 5 bps to end the month at 46 bps. In a recent report we demonstrated that the best place to position on the Treasury curve has shifted from the 5-7 year maturity point to the 2-year maturity point.6 Our sense is that the 2-year note offers the best combination of risk and reward of any point on the Treasury curve, both in absolute and duration-neutral terms. The 2/5 Treasury slope was 31 bps at the beginning of 2018, but has flattened all the way down to 4 bps over the course of this year. Factoring in the greater roll-down at the short-end of the curve, we find that the 2-year note would actually outperform the 5-year note in an unchanged yield curve scenario. This sort of carry advantage in the 2-year note is relatively rare, and tends to occur only when the yield curve is inverted. Attractive compensation at the front-end of the curve provides an opportunity for investors to buy the 2-year note and short a duration-matched 1/5 barbell. Our model shows that the 2 over 1/5 butterfly spread is priced for 18 bps of 1/5 flattening during the next six months (Chart 7). In other words, if the 1/5 slope steepens or flattens by less than 18 bps, our position long the 2-year and short the 1/5 will outperform.   Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview TIPS: Overweight TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 54 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +21 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.97%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 3 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.17%. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates finally capitulated and have fallen sharply alongside the prices of oil and other commodities during the past two months. Breakevens continue to grapple with the competing forces of falling commodity prices on the one hand, and relatively strong U.S. inflation on the other. Eventually, the decisive factor in the TIPS market will be core U.S. inflation continuing to print close to the Fed’s 2% target. This will drive both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates back into a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, although the headwind from weak commodity prices could persist for a while longer. In a recent report we showed that the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is very close to the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 8).7 This model is based on a combination of long-run and short-run inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. In other words, the market will need to see core inflation print close to the Fed’s target for some time before deciding that it will remain there on a sustained basis.    Chart 8Inflation Compensation ABS: Neutral Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +21 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 4 bps on the month and now stands at 42 bps, 8 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q3 showed that average consumer credit lending standards eased for the first time since early 2016 (Chart 9). Consistent with a somewhat more supportive lending environment, the consumer credit delinquency rate has been roughly flat on a year-over-year basis. However, given the continued uptrend in household interest coverage, consumer credit delinquencies are biased higher (panel 4). Chart 9ABS Market Overview The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that consumer ABS offer greater expected returns than Domestic Agencies and Supranationals, though with a commensurate increase in risk. The Map also shows that Agency CMBS offer very similar return potential with much less risk. We maintain a neutral allocation to consumer ABS for now. As consumer credit delinquencies continue to rise, our next move will likely be a reduction to underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +82 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 80 bps (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Market Overview A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards on commercial real estate loans as well as falling demand. The Fed’s Q3 Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that lending standards are close to unchanged and that demand deteriorated. All in all, a slightly negative macro picture for CMBS that will bear close monitoring in the coming quarters. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +14 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 56 bps. The Bond Maps on page 15 show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of November 30, 2018)   Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of November 30, 2018)   Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of November 30, 2018)   Table 5Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) ​​​​​​​   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst JeremieP@bcaresearch.com​​​​​​​ Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads”, dated November 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “What Kind Of Correction Is This?”, dated October 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads”, dated November 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk”, dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Sweet Spot On The Yield Curve”, dated November 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Special Report

Dear Commodity & Energy Strategy clients, We went into the G20 meeting this past weekend expecting the leaders of OPEC 2.0 to instruct their ministers to cut oil output by 1.0mm – 1.4mm b/d at their upcoming meeting in Vienna. However, we could see higher cuts: News reports suggest OPEC 2.0 – the OPEC/non-OPEC coalition lead by Saudi Arabia and Russia – could agree to re-instate its original production-management accord agreed in November 2016, under which 1.8mm b/d of output was taken off the market. In addition to the G20 news, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley served notice an 8.7% production cut – 325k b/d of crude and oil-sands output in the province – will commence January 1. The province also intends to secure rail transport to move 120k b/d. In this update, we reprise the events that led to the price collapse of the past month, and present what we consider the most likely outcome of the OPEC 2.0 Vienna meeting on December 6. As was the case in 2015, this agreement will be one of the critical determinants of oil prices next year. First a brief review of the price collapse of the past month. Toward end-October, the Trump administration – likely the State Department – realized the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran could remove as much as 1.7mm b/d of exports from the market. Our own estimate had 1.25mm b/d of Iranian exports being lost to the market under the re-imposition of the Iran sanctions. At the upper end of market estimates, the amount of crude removed from the market could have exceeded total global spare capacity to meet any unplanned oil-production outage. Such an outage – e.g., losing 500k b/d from Iraq, Libya or Nigeria, or the total collapse of Venezuela, which would take ~ 1mm b/d off the market – would have produced a supply shock. In such a scenario, prices would rally through $100/bbl, and likely would push even higher if a large unplanned outage occurred while Iranian exports were falling. With U.S. shale supplies growing 1.3mm b/d, and demand growing 1.45mm b/d next year, per our modeling, demand destruction would have ensued, with higher prices required to allocate increasingly scarce supply, if such an outage hit the market. Following what appears to have been a lengthy internal debate on the sanctions at the end of October and beginning of November, the Trump administration ended up granting waivers on the sanctions to Iran’s eight (8) largest importers. In so doing, a potential supply shock that almost surely would have resulted in a price spike was transformed into a short-term supply glut, which collapsed prices. The waivers, in other words, were a supply shock to the downside.  Little if any detail has been made available regarding the waivers by the Trump administration. Markets literally were left to scramble to calibrate new supply-demand balances in the dark (Chart 1). Chart 1Waivers Were A Downside Supply Shock to Markets ... Following the waivers, longer-dated futures followed the front of the curve lower and backwardated markets – reflecting increasingly tight supply-demand balances – became contango to flat markets (Chart 2). The immediate shock of the waivers likely was compounded by speculative liquidation along the curve, not just at the front (Chart 3). The vertical jump in implied volatilities suggests the entire market – hedgers and speculators – was caught off guard by the waivers (Chart 4). The waivers likely prompted producers to accelerate hedging programs, as speculators unwound long positions. In addition, upward revisions of U.S. production – following the addition of more than 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity from the Permian Basin by the end of 2019 – likely played a role in accelerating longer-dated hedging programs. It is worthwhile noting the backwardation in Brent returns to the forward curve in 2H19 then flattens, while for WTI, the curve carries slightly month-on-month to the end of 2020, then pretty much flattens out thereafter (Chart 5). It also is worthwhile noting the back of the curve fell less than the front of the curve, as the graphs above show. Chart 2... And Backwardations Disappeared, As Supply Suddenly Increased Chart 3Speculators Exited Oil Chart 4Volatility Surged Following Waivers Chart 5Waivers Flatten Forward Curves Markets Still Are In The Dark OPEC 2.0 member states – having access to their customers’ demand schedules – have some idea of what the waivers entail, and are adjusting their supply schedules accordingly. We went into the G20 meeting expecting production cuts of between 1.0mm and 1.4mm b/d. All the same, we could see higher cuts: News reports suggest OPEC 2.0 could re-instate its original production-management accord agreed in November 2016, under which 1.8mm b/d of output was taken off the market. Nonetheless, we continue to expect cuts to come in on either side of 1.2mm b/d from OPEC 2.0 following its Vienna meeting. In Alberta, as we discussed in last week’s CES, the government’s action was undertaken to narrow the sometimes-massive basis differentials between WTI, the U.S. benchmark, and WCS, the Canadian benchmark for crude-oil pricing. The WTI – WCS spread has been under persistent pressure due to a lack of storage and takeaway capacity. According to the CBC, the government is losing $80mm per day due to the takeaway and storage constraints. The 8.7% cuts will remain in place until some 35mm barrels of oil in storage is shipped to refining markets, most likely in the Spring, according to the CBC. By the end of next year, the production cuts are expected to fall to 95k b/d, following the opening of new takeaway pipeline capacity. There are a few caveats to keep in mind going forward: Production cuts from OPEC 2.0 could be larger than the upper estimate we are working with (1.4mm b/d). The Iranian import waivers are expected to expire in 2H19. However, the Trump administration could unilaterally extend them, given the expansion of Permian takeaway capacity will not be fully completed till 4Q19. Also, U.S. crude oil export capacity will not be sufficient to move surplus crude from the U.S. to global markets for a couple of years at best. This likely is what underlies the forward market’s flattening post-2020. Venezuela is still subject to larger-than-expected decrease in production: We attach a 33% probability to the total collapse of Venezuela over the next year, which could remove ~ 800k b/d of exports from the market, and severely test OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity. On the demand-side, the market (and BCA Research) expect a slowdown in global growth next year. However, the Trump – Xi talks at the G20 this past weekend pointing toward a greater willingness to resolve trade differences could revive global trade and commodity demand, particularly for oil and base metals. This is not a given, however, and we are not adjusting our demand expectation of 1.46mm b/’d of growth next year because of it.       Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com