Inflation/Deflation

Highlights U.S. growth will soon rebound thanks to robust drivers of domestic activity, and strengthening money and credit trends. The U.S. Federal Reserve will maintain an easing bias and will expand its balance sheet again. A growing Fed balance sheet will catalyze an underlying improvement in global liquidity conditions and boost the global economy. Brexit, China and Iran are key risks. The dollar will depreciate, bond yields will rise further and silver will outperform gold. Equities will surpass bonds on both cyclical and structural investment horizons. Financials and energy are more attractive than tech and healthcare. Thus, Europe is becoming increasingly appealing relative to the U.S. Feature Global equities are only 5% below their January 2018 all-time highs and the S&P 500 is close to breaking out above its July 2019 record. Meanwhile, yields are rebounding and value stocks are crushing momentum plays. Are these trends durable? Global growth is the key. If economic activity around the world can stabilize and ultimately improve, then stocks will break out and bond prices will suffer in the coming year. Otherwise, these recent financial market developments will undo themselves. Even if current activity remains weak, the outlook for global growth is looking up, despite trade wars, Brexit, Middle East tensions and problems in the interbank market. Therefore, we continue to favor stocks over bonds, because the backup in yields has further to go. If the dollar weakens, our pro-risk stance will only strengthen. U.S. Growth Drivers Are Healthy Chart I-1Recession Indicators Are Flashing A Yellow Flag The U.S. is near the end of a potent mid-cycle slowdown, but a recession will be avoided. Current conditions support an improvement in U.S. activity next year, even if key recessionary indicators, such as the yield curve and the annual rate of change of the Leading Economic Indicator, are still sending muddy signals (Chart I-1). U.S. growth will intensify because of five fundamental factors that will ultimately push the LEI higher and force the yield curve to re-steepen: A budding housing rebound, robust household spending, a stabilizing manufacturing sector, limited inflationary pressures, and a pick-up in money and credit trends. Housing The housing market has stabilized, buoyed by strong household formation, decent affordability, passing of the shock created by the cap in state and local tax deductions, and a 110-basis point collapse in mortgage yields since November 2018. Housing market indicators are finally catching up with leading variables, such as mortgage applications. In the past nine months, the NAHB housing market index has recovered nearly two-thirds of its decline since December 2018. Building permits and housing starts are at their highest levels since 2007, despite a significant fall last year. Even existing home sales have increased by 11% since December and are tracking the stimulation offered by lower borrowing costs (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Housing Recovery Is Real Residential investment should soon boost economic activity after curtailing the level of GDP by 1% over the past six quarters. Moreover, rebounding housing activity implies that policy is not constraining growth. The real estate sector is historically the most sensitive to monetary conditions. Households Are Still Doing Well Core U.S. real retail sales continue to grow at a more than 4% annual pace and the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model forecasts a healthy 3.1% annual rise in consumer spending in the third quarter. This resilience is particularly impressive in the face of economic uncertainty and an ISM Manufacturing index below the 50 boom-bust line. Strong balance sheets are crucial to households. After 12-years of deleveraging, household debt has contracted by 37 percentage points to 99% of disposable income. Consequently, debt-servicing costs only represent 10% of disposable income, the lowest level in more than 45 years. Moreover, the household savings rate is a healthy 7.9% of after-tax income, which is particularly high in the context of the highest net worth ever and the lowest debt-to-asset ratio since 1985. Household income creates an additional support to consumption. Real disposable income is expanding at a 3% annual rate, despite slowing job creation. A tight labor market explains this apparent paradox. The employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers is our favorite measure of labor market slack, and it has escalated to 79.7%, a level consistent with the 2.9% pace of annual growth in wages and salary (Chart I-3). The UAW strike at GM, the quits-rate at an 18-year high, and the difficulties small firms face to find qualified workers, all suggest that wages (and thus, consumption) will remain well underpinned (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Improving Manufacturing Outlook Manufacturing activity is set to rebound, despite the weakness in the ISM Manufacturing index. Recent industrial production numbers have already improved. Monthly IP expanded at a 0.6% monthly pace in August, but as recently as April, it was shrinking at a -0.6% rate. U.S. monetary conditions will continue to support asset prices and worldwide economic activity for the coming 18 months or so. The car sector will soon bottom. Weak auto production has been a primary diver of the recent global manufacturing slowdown. The automotive component of GDP contracted at a stunning 29.1% annual rate in the second quarter. However, U.S. light-vehicle sales are essentially flat. This dichotomy implies that the automobile sector’s inventories are contracting briskly (Chart I-4). Chart I-3A Tight Labor Market Supports Consumption Chart I-4Will Auto Production Rebound Soon?   Capex should also recover. Last quarter, investment in structures and equipment subtracted from GDP growth. Before this, capex intentions had fallen significantly, now, the Philly Fed’s capital expenditure component is trying to stabilize. Capex must stop falling if global manufacturing is to strengthen. Limited Inflationary Pressures Inflationary pressures remain muted in the U.S., which supports growth in two ways. First, muted inflation allows the Fed to maintain accommodative monetary conditions. In the absence of crippling debt-servicing costs, easy policy guarantees a continued expansion. Secondly, low inflation keeps real income growth higher and increases the welfare of households. At 2.4%, core CPI is perky, but will soon roll over. Core goods prices have been driving fluctuations in aggregate core prices in the past three years, while service sector inflation has been stable at 2.7% during this period. Goods inflation will soon weaken for the following reasons: Chart I-5The Trade War Is Masking The Economy's Deflationary Tendencies Soft global economic activity will drive down global inflation. Inflation lags real activity and proxies for the global economy, such as Singapore’s GDP, point to weaker core CPI in the OECD (Chart I-5). This weakness will act as a drag on U.S. inflation because U.S. goods prices have a large international component. U.S. import prices peaked 15 months ago and they normally lead goods inflation by roughly a year and a half. The strength in the broad trade-weighted dollar, which has climbed by nearly 15% in the past 18 months to an all-time high, will hurt goods prices. U.S. capacity utilization declined through 2019 and remains well below the 80% level that historically causes core goods prices to overheat. The White House’s tariffs on China are boosting inflation but this effect will prove transitory. The tariffs are pushing up inflation for goods touched by the levies, while unaffected goods are experiencing deflation (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Given that tariffs have a one-off impact and that inflation expectations are hovering near record lows, inflation for tariffed-goods will converge toward the underlying trend in non-tariffed goods. Stronger Money And Credit Trends Money and credit trends indicate that the recent slump will not translate into a recession. Moreover, improving U.S. private-sector liquidity conditions argues that the mid-cycle slowdown is ending. Chart I-6Liquidity Indicators Point To A Growth Rebound U.S. broad money is recovering. After falling to 0.9% last November, U.S. real M2 growth is expanding at a 3% annual rate, a pace in keeping with the end of mid-cycle slowdowns. Moreover, money is also accelerating relative to credit issuance, which historically has pointed to quicker industrial activity. Similarly, our U.S. financial liquidity index is rapidly escalating, a development that normally precedes turning points in the ISM manufacturing (Chart I-6) index. Credit activity is also picking up. Corporate bond issuance is firming and, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, demand for loans is rebounding across the board. The yield collapse is boosting credit growth across the G-10. Gold is outperforming bonds, which confirms that a mid-cycle slowdown occurred. If inflation is not a problem, then the yellow metal always underperforms bonds ahead of recessions. However, before mid-cycle slumps, gold consistently outperforms bonds (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Bonds Outperform Gold Ahead Of Recession More Fed Easing Imminent U.S. monetary conditions will continue to support asset prices and worldwide economic activity for the coming 18 months or so. The Fed will ease policy further and is a long way from tightening. Last week, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) curtailed the fed funds target rate by 25 basis points to 2%. Additionally, while the median projection shows that Fed members expect no more rate cuts for at least the next 18 months, the reality is more subtle. Among 17 FOMC members, 7 expect to cut the fed funds rate by another 25 basis points by year end, and 8 foresee a lower policy rate in late 2020. The greenback is very expensive and will decline as global liquidity conditions improve. We are still on track for three 25-basis-point rate cuts this year. The Fed remains highly data dependent and is particularly sensitive to depressed inflation expectations. This means the Fed is acutely aware of the danger created by a sudden tightening in financial conditions. If by year-end the market has not moved away from discounting another cut in 2019, the FOMC will likely deliver this easing. Otherwise, financial conditions could suddenly tighten, which would hurt inflation expectations and the economic outlook. If global growth does not recover in early 2020, the Fed would probably cut rates an additional time in the first quarter, which would validate the current 12-month pricing in the OIS curve. Chart I-8Not Enough Excess Reserves The Fed will again increase the size of its balance sheet. Interbank markets have boxed the FOMC into adding welcomed stimulus to the global economy. Allowing commercial bank excess reserves to grow anew will have a greater positive impact for global growth compared with rate cuts alone. Last month, we highlighted the risks to the repo market created by the combination of the dwindling of excess reserves, the bloated securities inventory of primary dealers financed via repo transactions, and the growth in the issuance of Treasurys.1 These risks materialized last week, when the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) suddenly spiked above 5% (Chart I-8). To calm the market, the Fed injected $75 billion each day last week starting Tuesday to bring repo rates closer to the Interest Rate on Excess Reserves (IOER). But this is not a long-term solution. Chart I-9Higher Excess Reserves Will Hurt The Dollar And Boost Global Growth Paradoxically, the crystallization of the repo market tensions is good news for the global economy because it will force the Fed to again expand its balance sheet as soon as next month. The supply of funds to the repo market needs to increase permanently, which means that banks’ excess reserves must re-expand. As we showed last month, higher excess reserves will hurt the U.S. dollar, lift EM exchange rates and boost global PMIs (Chart I-9). Higher excess reserves ease global liquidity conditions. The money injected will find its way to the rest of the world. The dollar trades 25% above its long-term, fair-value estimate of purchasing power parity. Therefore, a growing fiscal deficit indirectly financed by a larger Fed balance sheet will lead to a larger U.S. current account deficit, which in turn, will lift global FX reserves. As a result, the Fed’s custodial holdings of securities on behalf of other central banks will rise. Thus, global dollar-based liquidity will stop contracting relative to the stock of U.S. dollar-denominated foreign currency debt it supports (Chart I-10). Higher excess reserves will also ease global financial conditions. By boosting dollar-based liquidity, a larger Fed balance sheet will dampen offshore dollar interest rates. Moreover, rising excess reserves depreciate the greenback, which further cuts the cost of credit for foreign entities borrowing in U.S. dollars. This phenomenon is especially significant for EM. Therefore, we should see an easing of EM financial conditions, which are heavily dependent on EM exchange rates. Historically, looser EM financial conditions lead to stronger global growth (Chart I-11). Chart I-10High-Powered Liquidity Set To Improve Chart I-11Easier EM FCI Should Lead To Faster Growth   Risks: The U.K., China And Iran While the outlook generally points to a rebound in global growth, which will create a positive environment for risk assets, the situations in the U.K., China, and Iran should be closely monitored. The U.K. Brexit remains a potential danger for the world even though our base case calls for a benign outcome. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s gambit to push for a No-Deal Brexit to force the EU to make concessions could result in a miscalculation. Such a turn of events would plunge a European economy – already damaged by weak global trade – into recession. The dollar would strengthen and global financial conditions would tighten. Global growth would take another hit. Chart I-12U.K.: No Clear Winner Ahead Of A Potential Election Following this week’s Supreme Court unanimous ruling against Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament, No-Deal carries a less than 10% probability. Johnson lacks a majority in a Parliament staunchly against a hard Brexit and he is unable to call an election prior to the October 31st deadline to leave the EU. Therefore, a delay is the most likely outcome, which will allow the EU and the U.K. to reach a deal on the Irish backstop that Parliament can then ratify. Ultimately, the U.K. needs another election to break the current logjam, which could materialize in November or December. However, the Remain vote is split between Labour, Lib Dems, and the SNP, but the Brexit vote is not nearly as divided. (Chart I-12). Hence, Brexit will remain a risk lurking in the background even if it does not morph into a full-blown assault on global growth. China Chart I-13Chinese Stimulus Remains Too Tepid To Move The Needle China’s economic activity continues to soften. In August, industrial production and fixed-asset investment decelerated to 4.4% and 5.5%, respectively. Moreover, total social financing growth slowed on an annual basis and overall Chinese credit flows decreased as a share of GDP (Chart I-13). Chinese policy reflation remains too tepid to undo the drag created by trade uncertainty and the weakness in the marginal propensity to spend (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Sino-U.S. trade tensions have significantly decreased in recent months, but they will remain an important source of uncertainty for China and the world. China and the U.S. will again hold high-level talks next month, U.S. President Donald Trump has again postponed some of the tariff increases, and China is again buying mid-Western soybeans and pork. But last Friday’s cancelation of U.S. farm visits by Chinese officials reminds us that the situation is very fluid. Ultimately, China and the U.S. are long-term geopolitical rivals. Trump may be constrained by the 2020 election, but China could still drive a hard bargain. Hence, it is prudent to expect a stop-and-go pattern in the negotiations. Chart I-14Deflation Unleashes A Vicious Circle Of Higher Real Borrowing Costs A weak China will sow the seeds of its own recovery. In addition to the negative effect on capex intentions and credit demand of trade uncertainty, Beijing faces deteriorating employment and producer price inflation of -0.8% (Chart I-14, top panel). As PPI inflation becomes more negative, heavily indebted corporate borrowers face rising real interest rates (Chart I-14, bottom panel). This higher cost of debt weakens an already vulnerable economy, unleashing a vicious circle. Chinese policymakers are unlikely to tolerate this situation for much longer. The cumulative 400-basis point cuts in the reserve requirement ratio since April 2018 are steps in the right direction, but are not yet enough. The dovish change to the Politburo’s and State Council’s language indicates that greater stimulus is forthcoming. Thus, credit expansion, local government special bonds issuance and fiscal stimulus will become even more prevalent in the final quarter of 2019. This policy should noticeably goose economic activity in 2020, which will help global growth accelerate. Iran Tensions are re-flaring and a spike in oil prices would threaten the fragile global economy. However, this remains a risk, not a central case. In the July issue of The Bank Credit Analyst, we warned that tensions with Iran were the greatest visible risk to global growth and risk assets.2 This danger came into focus last week with the drone attacks on the Khurais oil field and Abqaiq oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia, which curtailed global oil supply by an unprecedented 5.7 million bbl/day, or 5.5% of global demand. Unsurprisingly, Brent prices quickly surged by 12% to $68/bbl. Chart I-15Higher Energy Efficiency Makes The World More Robust A durable spike in oil prices would push the global economy into a recession, especially while the global economy is already on weak footing. Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou reminded his clients3 that according to a seminal 2011 paper by Prof. James D. Hamilton, a doubling of oil prices preceded all but one of the post-war recessions.4 However, an oil-induced recession would likely be shallow because the oil intensity of the global economy has significantly declined in the past 30 years (Chart I-15). Moreover, global fiscal authorities would respond forcefully to an economic contraction, which would also limit the impact of the shock. There is a low likelihood that oil will double by year-end. It would require Brent prices to surge to $100/bbl. Saudi Arabia has already stated that production will return to pre-crisis levels in the coming days and not a single shipment will be missed. This promise implies further inventory drawdowns. Aramco also expects to achieve maximum output by late November. Moreover, higher oil prices will encourage further activity in the U.S. shale patch. Consequently, oil prices are unlikely to surge by another $35/bbl in the next three months. However, Brent prices could climb to $75/bbl next year, because while oil demand is set to recover, investors must also embed a greater risk premium against Saudi supply disruptions. A military conflict with Iran is a tail risk, but if it were to materialize, crude prices would surge by $35/bbl or more in an instant. According to Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical strategist, the appetite for such a conflict is low in the U.S.5 President Trump has isolationist instincts and does not want to be mired in another conflict. Investment Implications The Dollar The dollar has significant downside. The greenback is very expensive and will decline as global liquidity conditions improve (Chart I-16). These dynamics reflect the countercyclical nature of the dollar and also lead to strong greenback momentum, both on the way up and down. The dollar would weaken in response to improving global growth and liquidity conditions, the lower dollar would ease global financial conditions, further stimulating the global economy. A virtuous circle could then emerge. Chart I-16Increasing Financial Liquidity Will Hurt The Greenback Repatriation flows will also move from a tailwind to a headwind for the greenback. Prompted by both rising risk aversion and the Trump tax cuts, U.S. economic agents have repatriated $461 billion in the past 18 months. This has created powerful support for the USD (Chart I-17). The effect of the tax cut is vanishing and rising global growth will incentivize U.S. households and firms to buy foreign assets more levered to the global business cycle. In the process, they will sell the dollar. Chart I-17Repatriation Will Not Support The Dollar For Much Longer The euro will continue to behave as the anti-dollar, a consequence of the pair’s plentiful market liquidity. Moreover, the euro trades at a 17% discount to its purchasing power parity equilibrium. After last week’s rate cut and QE announcement, the European Central Bank has no more room to ease. Instead, the recent fall in peripheral bond spreads is loosening European financial conditions, which is boosting European growth prospects. This makes the euro more attractive. Bonds And Precious Metals Safe-haven yields will have significant upside in the coming 12 to 18 months. As we highlighted last month, bonds are so expensive, overbought and over-owned that they suffer from an extremely elevated probability of negative cyclical returns (Chart I-18, left and right panels). Moreover, excess reserves will once again grow when the Fed re-starts to expand its balance sheet. Higher excess reserves lead to a steeper yield curve slope (Chart I-19). Short rates have limited downside, therefore, the curve can only steepen via higher 10-year yields. Chart I-18AValuation And Technicals Point Toward Higher Yields In 12 Months (I) Chart I-18BValuation And Technicals Point Toward Higher Yields In 12 Months (II)   Chart I-19Fed Purchases Will Steepen The Curve Short-term dynamics are more complex. Treasury yields have climbed by 21 basis points since their September 3rd low, mostly on the back of decreasing trade tensions. In previous mid-cycle slowdowns, bond price tops only emerged after the ISM bottomed. We are not there yet. We expect substantial short-term volatility in yields in view of the unpredictable Sino-U.S. negotiations and the current lack of pick-up in global growth. During this transition process, cyclical investors should use bond rallies such as the current one to build below-benchmark duration positions in their fixed-income portfolios. Within precious metals, we continue to prefer silver to gold. We have favored precious metals since late June,6 but higher bond yields are negative for gold. However, central banks are maintaining a dovish bias aimed at lifting inflation breakevens back to their historical norm of 2.3% to 2.5%. This process increases the chance that the economy will overheat late next year. For the next 12 months, rising inflation expectations, not higher real rates, will push up bond yields. Combined with a weaker dollar, this configuration is mildly bullish for gold. Silver has a higher beta and more industrial uses than gold, which will allow for a period of outperformance if global growth increases. In this context, the silver-to-gold ratio, which stands at its 6th percentile since 1970, is an attractive mean-reversion play (Chart I-20). Chart I-20The Silver-Gold Ratio Is A Bargain Equities Investors should continue to favor stocks relative to bonds in the next year. Equities perform well up to six months before a recession starts (Table I-1). Moreover, our monetary and technical indicators are upbeat (see Section III). Additionally, sentiment surveys do not show rampant investor complacency (see Section III), which limits risks from a contrarian perspective. Meanwhile, yields have upside, which implies an outperformance of stocks versus bonds. Table I-1The S&P 500 Doesn’t Peak Until Six Months Before A Recession The short-term picture is more complex. P/E ratio expansion powered 90% of the S&P 500’s gains since it bottomed in December 24, 2018, and according to our model, U.S. operating earnings will contract for at least eight more months (Chart I-21). Thus, if yields mount through the rest of the year, multiples will likely contract. The S&P 500 is set to continue to churn over that time frame. Chart I-21U.S. Profits Still Have Downside In this context, strategy dictates investors focus on internal stock market dynamics. Namely, investors should favor financials and energy at the expense of tech and healthcare for the following reasons: Rising bond yields lift financials’ net interest margins. They also hurt multiples for tech stocks, which carry a large percentage of their intrinsic value in long-term cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, rising yields correlate with an outperformance of financials relative to tech (Chart I-22). Moreover, financials’ valuations and technicals are very depressed relative to tech, while comparative earnings estimates are equally morose (Chart I-23). Finally, our U.S. Equity Strategy team expects buybacks by financials to increase significantly.7 Chart I-22If Yields Rise, Financials Will Beat Tech Chart I-23Valuations, Technicals And Sentiment Favor Financials Over Tech     Rising yields also hurts healthcare stocks. Additionally, the rising popularity of Democratic progressives like Senator Elizabeth Warren requires investors embed a risk premium in the price of healthcare stocks (Chart I-24). The progressives want to nationalize healthcare insurance and compress healthcare profit margins, from drugs to hospitals. Chart I-24The Rise Of The Progressives Requires A Risk Premium In Health Care Stocks We have used energy stocks as a hedge against rising tensions in the Middle East. Now, our U.S. Equity Strategy colleagues have become more positive on this sector. Energy valuations and technicals are very attractive relative to the S&P 500 (Chart I-25).8 Energy stocks will outperform if global growth recovers and lifts global bond yields These sectoral recommendations argue investors should soon begin to favor European relative to U.S. stocks. Financials and energy are overrepresented in European equities while tech and healthcare are large overweight’s in the U.S. (Table I-2). Moreover, European activity is more sensitive to global economic momentum than the U.S. Thus, when global yields rally and the world economy stabilizes, European stocks will outperform their U.S. counterparts (Chart I-26). Additionally, European banks trade at 0.6-times book value which makes them the ultimate value play, one highly geared to easier European financial conditions and higher yields. Chart I-25Energy Is A Compelling Buy Table I-2Overweighting Europe Is Consistent With Our Sectoral RecommendationsChart I-26Europe Will Soon Outperform The U.S. Chart I-27Long-Term Investors Should Favor Stocks Over Bonds These sectoral biases are also consistent with value stocks outperforming growth equities. However, as Xiaoli Tang from BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service argues in Section II, the value-versus-growth question is a complex one that needs to be differentiated across geographies and equity size. Finally, long-term investors should also favor stocks over bonds. According to BCA Chief Global Strategist Peter Berezin, global stocks at their current valuations offer an expected 10-year real return of 4.2%. By historical standards, these are not elevated returns, but they are still much more generous than government bonds. Based on their dividend yields, U.S., Japanese and European equities need to fall by 18%, 28% and 40% before underperforming bonds on a 10-year basis, respectively.9 This is a large margin of safety (Chart I-27). We prefer foreign stocks with their more attractive valuations and local-currency expected returns. Additionally, the dollar is expensive and will weaken in a 5- to 10-year investment horizon. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 26, 2019 Next Report: October 31, 2019   II. Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Investors should pay particular attention to definition and methodology when evaluating value versus growth strategies, both academically and in practice. Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap universe. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large- and mid-cap investors should not be making bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels.  GAA remains neutral on value versus growth, but prefers to use sector positioning (cyclicals versus defensives, financials versus tech and health care) and country positioning (euro area versus U.S.) to implement style tilts. Investing by way of style is as old as investing itself. Value versus growth has been one of the most frequently asked questions among our clients of late, particularly given the sharp style reversal in recent weeks. In this report, we attempt to answer some of the most often-asked questions on value versus growth. We have arranged these questions into five separate sections: First, we look at 93 years of history of the Fama-French value and growth portfolios to see how value, growth, and size have interacted over time, because academics have mostly used the Fama-French framework. Second, we look at how comparable U.S. style indices are, including the S&P, the Russell and the MSCI, since practitioners mostly use these commercial indices as their benchmarks. Third, we investigate if international markets share the same value-growth performance cycles as the U.S., using the MSCI suite of value-growth indices (since MSCI is the only index provider that produces value-growth indices for each market under its global coverage). Fourth, we investigate if pure exposure to value and growth can actually improve the value-growth performance spread by comparing the pure style indices from the S&P and the Russell to their standard counterparts. Finally, we present the GAA approach to style tilts in a section on our investment conclusions. 1. Is It True That Value Outperforms Growth In The Long Run? There has been overwhelming academic evidence supporting the existence of the value premium.10 Academically, the “value premium”, also known as the HML (high minus low) factor premium, or the value outperformance, is defined as the return differential between the cheapest stocks and the most expensive. Even though Fama and French used book-to-price as the sole valuation criterion,11 many researchers have combined book-to-price with other valuation measures such as earnings-to-price, sales-to-price, dividend yield,12 and so on.  There is also academic evidence suggesting that “value outperformance is almost non-existent among large-cap stocks.”13 What is more, in 2014 Fama and French caused a huge stir by publishing “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model” working paper demonstrating that “HML is a redundant factor” because “the average HML return is captured by the exposure of the HML to other factors” (such as size, profitability, and investment pattern) based on U.S. data from 1963 to 2013.14 Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth. For non-quant practitioners, especially the long-only investors, value and growth are two separate investment styles, even though the style classification shares the same principle as the academic “value factor.” Their definitions vary, as evidenced by how S&P Dow Jones, FTSE Russell, and MSCI define their value and growth indexes (see next section on page 7). In general, value stocks are cheap, with lower-than-average earnings growth potential, while growth stocks have higher-than-average earnings growth potential but are very expensive. The indices published by commercial index providers do not have very long histories, however. Fortunately, Fama and French also provide value-growth-size portfolios on their publicly available website.15 Table II-1 shows that for 93 years, from July 1926 to June 2019, U.S. value portfolios in both large-cap and small-cap buckets based on the well-known Fama-French approach have returned more than their growth counterparts, no matter whether the portfolios are equal-weighted or market-cap-weighted. Most strikingly, equal-weighted small-cap value outperformed its growth counterpart by over 10% a year in absolute terms, and has more than doubled the risk-adjusted return compared to its growth counterpart. Table II-1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Portfolio Performance* Some media reports have claimed that value stocks are “less volatile” because they are on average “larger and better-established companies.”16 This may be true for some specific time periods. For the 93 years covered by Fama and French, however, this common belief is not supported. In fact, value portfolios in both the large- and small-cap universes have consistently had higher volatility than growth portfolios, no matter how the components are weighted. The excess returns, however, have more than offset the higher volatilities in three out of four pairs, with the exception being market cap-weighted large-cap growth, which has a slightly higher risk-adjusted return due to much lower volatility than its value counterpart. From a very long-term perspective, the value outperformance does come from taking higher risk. Further investigation shows that the superior long-run outperformance of value relative to growth came mostly in the first 80 years of Fama and French’s 93-year sample. In more recent years since 2007, however, value has underperformed growth significantly in three out of the four Fama-French value-growth pairs, with the equal-weighted small-cap value-growth pair being the sole exception, as shown in Table II-2. Even though the equal-weighted small-cap value has still outperformed its growth counterpart in the most recent period, the hit ratio drops to 54% compared to 76% in the first 80 years, while the magnitude of average calendar-year outperformance drops to a meager 1.3%, compared to 12.5% in the first 80 years. Table II-2The Fight Between Value And Growth* Statistical analysis is sensitive to the time period chosen. How have value and growth been performing over time? Chart II-1 shows the long-term dynamics among value, growth, and size. The following conclusions are clear: Chart II-1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Value investors should favor small caps over large caps, while growth investors should do the opposite, favoring large caps over small caps, albeit with much less potential success (Chart II-1, panel 1). Small-cap investors should favor value stocks over growth stocks (panel 2). Value outperformance in the large-cap space (panel 3) is much weaker than in the small-cap space (panel 2). Fama and French define small and large caps based on the median market cap of all NYSE stocks on CRSP (Center for Research In Security Prices), then use the NYSE median size to split NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ (after 1972) into a small-cap group and a large-cap group. The value and growth split is based on book-to-price, with stocks in the lowest 30% classified as growth, and the highest 30% as value. Interestingly, small-cap value and small-cap growth account for only a very small portion of the entire universe, as shown in Charts II-2A and II-2B. Value stocks’ average market cap is about half of that of growth stocks, in both the large- and small-cap universes (panel 3 in Charts II-2A and II-2B). Again, this does not support some media claims that value stocks are larger and better-established companies. However, it does add further support to the claim that all investors should favor small-cap value stocks. Unfortunately, “small-cap value” is a very small universe. As of June 2019, the CRSP total U.S. equity market cap was $26.2 trillion, with small-cap value accounting for only 1.5% (about $383 billion); even large-cap value comprises only a relatively small weight, 13% (US$3.5 trillion). Chart II-2ASmall-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios* Chart II-2BLarge-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios*   The U.S. market is dominated by large-cap growth stocks with a heavy weight of 56% (US$14.7 trillion, as of June 2019). This is encouraging because academic research does show that the value premium among large caps is weak. But the large-cap value weakness mostly started from 2007, after 80 years of strength relative to large-cap growth (Chart II-1, panel 3). The Fama-French approach is widely used in academic research, partly due to its long history from 1926. For non-quant practitioners, especially long-only investors, however, commercial indexes from FTSE Russell, S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI are more often used as performance benchmarks. In this report, we study a series of commercial value-growth indexes in the U.S. and globally to shed light on value-growth dynamics, and how asset allocators can incorporate them into their decision-making processes. 2. Not All U.S. Style Indexes Are Created Equal Three major index providers have style indices. They are FTSE Russell (which launched the industry’s first set of value-growth indexes in 1987), S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI. MSCI is the only provider that has a full suite of value-growth indices for all individual markets under coverage. While all three provide “standard” style indices that include the full component of the parent index, the FTSE Russell and the S&P Dow Jones also provide “pure” style indices. There are two major differences between “standard” and “pure” style indices: 1) the standard indices are market-cap weighted, while the “pure” indices are weighted based on style score. 2) Standard value and standard growth have overlapping components, while pure value and pure growth do not share any common components. We prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts tactically. Other than book-to-price, the value variable used by the Fama-French approach, the three providers have added different variables in the determination of value and growth, as shown in Table II-3. This also reflects the evolution of the industry’s understanding on value and growth. For example, when MSCI first launched its style index in 1997, it used only book-to-price, but changed its approach in May 2003 to the current “multi-factor two-dimension” framework. Table II-3Value-Growth Index Criteria Because of the differences in index construction methodology, value-growth indices for the U.S. have behaved differently. The S&P 500, the Russell 1000, and the MSCI standard (large and mid-cap) indices are widely followed institutional benchmarks, with back-tested history dating to the 1970s. Chart II-3 shows the relative value/growth performance dynamics from the three index providers, together with that from Fama and French (market value-weighted, to be consistent with the approach from the index providers). One can observe the following: Chart II-3Which Value/Growth? None of the three pairs looks exactly like Fama-French’s market-cap value-weighted value/growth. This raises the question of how historical analysis based on the long history of Fama-French value/growth portfolios can be applied to the commercial indices. In the first cycle from 1975 to February 2000, all three index pairs made a round trip, with flat performance between value and growth. Also, even though the S&P 500 and Russell 1000 were more closely correlated with one another than with the MSCI, the three were quite similar. In the current cycle that began in February 2000, however, Russell value/growth has rebounded much more strongly than the other two. But in the down period that started in 2007, the three indices performed in line with each other, as shown in Table II-4. Table II-4U.S. Style Index Performance* In addition, the difference between S&P and Russell does not just lie between the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000. It actually exists in every market-cap segment, as shown in Chart II-4. Unfortunately, MSCI does not provide history from 1975 for the detailed cap segments. In the current cycle since February 2000, S&P value rebounded the least between 2000 and 2006. Why? Chart II-4Know Your Benchmark Further investigation reveals some interesting observations, as shown in Chart II-5. Chart II-5Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P At the aggregate level, the S&P 1500, the Russell 3000 and their respective style indices have performed largely in line with one another in the most recent cycle starting from February 2000 (Chart II-5, panel 4), reflecting the industry trend of index convergence. In different market cap segments, however, the divergence is still prominent, especially in the small-cap space (panel 1). The S&P 600 has consistently outperformed the Russell 2000 in both the value and growth categories. In addition to different style factors, this consistency also reflects different universes, size distribution, and sector exposure, as explained in an earlier GAA Special Report on small caps.17 Managers with Russell 2000 as their performance benchmark could simply beat it by doing a total-return-performance swap between the Russell 2000 and the S&P 600. Bottom Line: Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth.  3. How Have Value And Growth Performed Globally? MSCI is the only index provider that also produces value-growth indices for each equity market under its global coverage, using the same methodology. Unfortunately, only the “standard” (i.e., large- and mid-cap) universe has a long history, dating from December 1974. Charts II-6A and II-6B show the value/growth dynamics in major DM and EM markets. The relative performance of MSCI DM value versus growth shares a similar pattern to that of the U.S. in the latest cycle since 2000, but looks very different in the period before 2000 (Chart II-6A). The ratio of EM large- and mid-cap value versus growth did not peak until February 2012, about five years after the peak of its DM peer (Chart II-6B, panel 1). On the other hand, EM small-cap value has resumed its outperformance versus growth since early 2016 after having peaked around the same time as its large-cap counterpart. Chart II-6AIs Value Dead In DM? Chart II-6BIs Value Dead In EM?   The global value/growth dynamics also show that the “value outperforming growth” effect is more prominent in the small-cap space. But why has small value also underperformed small growth in most DM markets? Our explanation is that the EM universe is much less efficient than the DM universe because there are not many quant funds dedicated to the EM small-cap space – in addition to the fact that, in general, EM small caps are much smaller than those in DM markets. This is also in line with our finding that, in general, factor premia are more prominent in the EM universe.18 Bottom Line: Value premium is more prominent in non-U.S. markets, especially the EM small-cap universe. 4. Do Pure Style Indices Improve Performance? Both S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell provide pure-value and pure-growth indices. Unlike the standard value-growth indices, which target about 50% of the parent market cap, the pure-style indices include only stocks with the strongest value and growth characteristics. There is no overlap between the two. In theory, the pure-style indices should outperform the standard-style indices because of their concentrated exposure to style factors. How do they do in reality? Table II-5 shows that in terms of absolute return, this is indeed the case for 14 out of the 18 pairs of indices from S&P and Russell for the period between 1998 and 2019. However, the higher returns from greater exposure to style factors have largely come from much higher volatility in 17 out of the 18 pairs. Pure style has higher volatility than standard style in general, the only exception being the Russell mid-cap value space. As such, on a risk-adjusted basis, pure style is not necessarily better. Table II-5Purer Is Not Necessarily Better Charts II-7A and II-7B show the different performance dynamics for the S&P and Russell families of style indices. For the S&P indices, pure growth has outperformed standard growth for the entire period in all three market-cap segments, but only the S&P 500 pure value outperformed its standard counterpart. Therefore, more concentrated exposure to style characteristics has improved the value-growth spread only in the large-cap space, but it has actually worsened the value-growth spread in the mid- and small-cap universes (Chart II-7A). Chart II-7AS&P Pure Styles* Chart II-7BRussell Pure Styles*   For the Russell indices, it’s clear that there were a lot more tech stocks in its pure-growth indices leading up to the 2000 tech bubble, because pure growth shot up significantly more than the standard growth before the bubble burst, and also crashed more severely following it. Overall, only in the small-cap space did the value-growth spread improve by the more concentrated exposure to style factors. However, this improvement was not because of the outperformance of the pure-style relative to the standard indices. In fact, both pure value and pure growth in the small-cap universe underperformed their standard counterparts, but pure growth performed even worse (Chart II-7B and Table II-5). 5. Investment Conclusions Value and growth can mean very different things and behave very differently. Investors should pay special attention to the definitions and methodologies when evaluating style indices or strategies, both academically and in practice. Depending on an investor’s mandate, the following is recommended: Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap space. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large-and mid-cap investors should not make bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels. Price-to-book is the only common variable used in the determination of value and growth by academics and practitioners. Its track record as a systematic return predictor has been poor, as shown in panel 2 of Charts II-8A and II-8B. Another factor we have a long history for is dividend yield. Its predictive power is even worse than that of price-to-book (panel 3). Chart II-8AValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool In The U.S. Chart II-8BValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool Globally   Many factors have been used in conjunction with price-to-book by both academics and practitioners to time the rotation between value and growth. However, the results have been mixed. Regression models that correctly predicted in the past may not work in the future. For example, a regression model based on valuation spread and earnings-growth spread using data from January 1982 to October 1999 successfully predicted the rebound of value outperformance starting in early 2000,19 but the universal suffering of value funds over the past several years implies that this model may have given many false signals. Chart II-9 demonstrates how difficult it is to use regression models as a timing tool for value and growth rotation. A simple regression is conducted between value and growth return differentials (subsequent 60-month returns) and relative price-to-book. For data from December 1974 to July 2019, the r-squared for the MSCI world is 0.38 and for the U.S. it is 0.09. In hindsight, both models predicted the value outperformance starting in early 2000. However, the gaps between actual value and fitted value started to open, long before 2000. By late 1998, the gaps were already wider than the previous cycle lows, yet they continued to widen as value continued to underperform growth until February 2000. Chart II-9How Good Is The Fit? What should investors currently do, based on these models? The gaps are large, but not as large as in early 2000. At which point should investors start to shift into value given its more than 12 years of underperformance? We have often written that we prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts.20, 21  This preference has not changed. Value and growth indices have sector tilts that change over time. Currently, the S&P Dow Jones large- and mid-cap value indices have a clear overweight in financials but an underweight in tech and health care compared to their growth counterparts (Table II-6). Table II-6Sector Bets In Value And Growth Indices* Chart II-10Prefer Sector And Country Positioning To Style We have been neutral on value and growth, but would likely change this view if we change our country equity allocation between the U.S. and the euro area, and our equity sector allocation between cyclicals and defensives as well as between financials and information technology (Chart II-10). Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President Global Asset Allocation III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 will continue to churn this year. U.S. stocks have rebounded sharply through the month of September, yet, sentiment is neutral. Nonetheless, for now, stocks are likely to find it hard to meaningfully break above their July highs. Short-term momentum oscillators are overbought and U.S. profits still have downside. Because this year’s equity rally has been nearly entirely driven by multiples, this leaves equities vulnerable to any back-up in yields. As yields have not priced in any pick-up in growth, potential positive economic surprises are more likely to lift yields than stock prices. However, if growth disappoints, weak rates will cushion to blow to expected earnings. In line with this picture, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continues to shun stocks. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if strong market momentum is not supported by valuations and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Global growth remains the biggest problem for stocks. Until the global economy finds a floor, the outlook for profits will be poor and our RPI will argue against buying equities. The outlook for next year remains constructive for stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan is markedly improving. However, it continues to deteriorate in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Global yields remain very depressed at highly stimulatory levels. Moreover, money growth has picked up around the world, and global central banks are cutting rates and expanding their balance sheets again. As a result, our Monetary Indicator remains at its most accommodative level since early 2015. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator might not be improving anymore but it is still very much in constructive territory. Therefore, unlike four years ago, equities are more likely to avoid the headwind created by their overvaluation, especially as our BCA Composite Valuation index continues to improve.  10-year Treasurys may have cheapened a bit since last month, but they remain very expensive. Moreover, when current overvaluation levels are met by our technical indicator being as massively overbought as it is today, safe-haven bonds experience significant price declines over the following 12 months. That being said, the timing of a backup in yields is uncertain. If previous mid-cycle slowdowns are any guide, yields might need to wait for a bottom in the global manufacturing PMIs before rising freely. Nonetheless, the current setup argues against adding to long-duration bets. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar is only growing more expensive and the U.S. current account is deteriorating anew. For now, weak global manufacturing activity has helped the dollar stay well bid. However, our Composite Technical Indicator has lost momentum and has formed a negative divergence with the Greenback’s level. This means that the dollar is highly vulnerable to any stabilization in growth. In fact, we would argue that the USD might prove to be the best variable to evaluate whether global growth is forming a durable bottom or not.   EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings   Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “September 2019,” dated August 29, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “July 2019,” dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Oil Factor,” dated September 23, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 4              J. D. Hamilton, "Historical Oil Shocks," NBER Working Paper No. 16790. 5       Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Policy Risk, Uncertainty Cloud Oil Price Forecast," dated September 19, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 6       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “July 2019,” dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Rotation,” dated September 16, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Oil Factor,” dated September 23, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?,” dated August 23, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 10     Antti Ilmanen, Ronen Israel, Tobias J. Moskowitz, Ashwin Thapar, Franklin Wang, “Factor Premia and Factor Timing: A Century of Evidence,” AQR Working Paper, July 2, 2019. 11     Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Common risk factors in the return on stocks and bonds,” Journal of Financial Economics, 33 (1993). 12     Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 42 No.1, Fall 2015. 13     Ronen Israel and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “The Role of Shorting, Firm Size and Time on Market Anomalies,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 108, Issue 2, May 2013 14      Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Working Paper, University of Chicago, September 2014. 15             Fama-French value-growth-size portfolios. 16     Mark P. Cussen, “Value or growth Stocks: Which are Better?” Investopedia, Jun 25, 2019. 17     Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled “Small Cap Outperformance: Fact or Myth?” dated April 7, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 18     Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled, “Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?” dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 19    Clifford S. Asness, Jacques A Friedman, Robert J. Krail and John M Liew, “Style Timing: Value versus Growth,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 2000. 20     Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - March 2016,” dated March 31, 2016, and available at gaa. bcaresearch.com. 21     Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - April 2019,” dated April 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Fed: The Fed will cut rates by 25bps this week, accompanied by a balanced message on future moves given firm domestic U.S. growth amid global uncertainties. This could trigger additional near-term increases in Treasury yields if the market prices out future expected rate cuts. More likely, higher Treasury yields will manifest via higher inflation expectations, as investors price in Fed accommodation amid the recent acceleration of realized inflation. ECB: The ECB’s easing package last week fell short of market expectations, as policymakers face the operational constraints of cutting already-negative interest rates and restarting asset purchases. Portfolio Recommendations: Return to below-benchmark on overall interest rate duration on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, with global leading economic indicators bottoming and U.S.-China trade tensions easing. Within country allocation, maintain an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries versus German Bunds on a USD-hedged basis. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be publishing a joint Special Report on the U.K. with our colleagues at BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy and BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The report will be sent to clients this Friday, September 20, on the regular publishing day of the other two services. Thus, Global Fixed Income Strategy clients will be receiving their next report a few days early. We will return to our usual publishing schedule on Tuesday, October 1. Best regards, Rob Robis Chart of the WeekA Fundamental Bottoming Of Bond Yields The bond market has been full of surprises over the past year, and the price action so far this month is no exception. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has climbed +42bps from the September 3 inter-day low of 1.43%, while the 10-year German Bund yield also rose by +23bps over that same period, even as the ECB announced a fresh set of policy easing measures last week. There are several possible reasons for this increase in yields: profit-taking in deeply overbought government bond markets; global central bankers delivering incrementally less dovish surprises; and hints of progress in the U.S-China trade negotiations. We prefer a more fundamental explanation – bond markets may be sniffing out an end of the 2019 global growth downturn. The message from the improving trend in both our global leading economic indicator (LEI) and our Duration Indicator is that global growth (Chart of the Week) is stabilizing, which should help boost government bond yields from current depressed levels. The recent attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia does represent a near term risk to this potentially more optimistic narrative on the world economy. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy do expect a military response from the U.S., although U.S. President Trump will attempt to keep it limited. A full-blown U.S.-Iran conflict would likely further raise the risk premium on global oil prices, potentially creating the kind of major spike that has preceded past global recessions – an outcome that Trump would prefer to avoid heading into an election year. For now, we prefer to heed the message from our cyclical indicators, which point to additional increases in bond yields in the next few months. For now, we prefer to heed the message from our cyclical indicators, which point to additional increases in bond yields in the next few months, led by some improvement in inflation expectations and a reduction in the amount of monetary easing discounted in markets – most notably, in the U.S. We now see less of a need for the cautious near-term view on overall duration exposure that we’ve maintained since the announcement of fresh U.S. tariffs on China in early August, especially given the recent easing of U.S.-China trade tensions ahead of the next round of talks in early October. Thus, we recommend shifting to a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, bringing that view back in line with our cyclical (up to 12 months) call, which has remained bearish on bonds (see the table on Page 12 for changes to our model bond portfolio). FOMC Preview: 25bps This Week, With No Promises After That While there is still a lot of investor angst over the underlying health of the global economy, the “recession narrative” appears to be receding. The New York Fed’s recession probability model, based on the slope of the U.S. Treasury curve, has seen the odds of a 2020 downturn fall from a peak of 42% in August to 32% today. At the same time, there has been a sharp drop in the number of Google searches involving the word “recession” (Chart 2). Chart 2Hold Off On That Inevitable Recession A similar message can be seen in financial markets, where classic risk-off/save haven assets like gold, and the VIX index have pulled back a bit from recent highs (Chart 3). Government bond volatility measures like the MOVE index remain elevated, though, as fixed income markets continue to price in expectations of low inflation and easier monetary policy – especially in the U.S. Chart 3Yields Discount A Lot Of Risk-Aversion This week’s FOMC meeting, including an update to the committee’s own growth and rate forecasts, will shed light on the Fed’s latest thinking. A modest downgrade of the Fed’s U.S. growth projections is likely given the downturn in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Yet with U.S. financial conditions easing (Chart 4) and the U.S. consumer remaining confident and willing to spend – purely a function of a robust labor market and despite media coverage of the growing threat of recession – the risk is that the Fed does not end up downgrading its growth projections much. Already, the annual growth rate of core U.S. retail sales is up to a solid 5.3%, after the nearly 10% (annualized) surge seen over the June-August period. Chart 4U.S. Domestic Economic Growth Is Rebounding Chart 5U.S. Inflation Is Accelerating Inflation Could Use A Boost A similar story exists in realized U.S. inflation measures, the majority of which are accelerating. Core CPI in August rose to 2.4% on year-over-year basis, after a surge of 3.4% annualized over the previous three months – the fast such rate over such a short window since May 2006 (Chart 5). Core PCE inflation has also picked up, and is now up 1.6% year-over-year and 2.2% – above the Fed’s 2% target – on a 3-month annualized basis. Wage growth, measured using average hourly earnings, continues to grow at a solid 3.6% year-over-year rate. Given these readings, combined with a persistently low unemployment rate, the FOMC is likely to make few (if any) changes to its inflation forecasts at this week’s meeting. Chart 6Stretched Treasury Yields Can Keep Climbing Given the underlying firm trends in the U.S. economic and inflation data, odds are low that the Fed will deliver an incremental dovish surprise to markets. The reverse is more likely. At the same time, the Fed is keenly aware of the fragility of non-U.S. economic growth, and U.S. financial markets, amid the persistent drag on U.S. manufacturing activity and business confidence from the U.S.-China tariff war. Once again, Fed Chair Jerome Powell will have to thread the needle with a message that sounds neither too dovish nor too hawkish. We fully expect another 25bp rate cut to be delivered this week. However, we also expect forward guidance to reflect a balanced outlook for a strong U.S. economy juxtaposed against concern for non-U.S. growth. In other words, the same message the Fed has been giving the markets since mid-year. Given the current stretched momentum of Treasury yields/prices, amid large overweight positioning according to measures like the J.P. Morgan client duration survey, any sign of a less dovish Fed should trigger some increase in Treasury yields (Chart 6). This is especially true with the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve still discounting 71bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months – an amount of easing that is unlikely to be delivered. In our view, though, the bigger near-term threat of rising Treasury yields will not come from the Fed being too hawkish, but from appearing too dovish amid accelerating inflation and firm U.S. economic growth. In our view, though, the bigger near-term threat of rising Treasury yields will not come from the Fed being too hawkish, but from appearing too dovish amid accelerating inflation and firm U.S. economic growth. Market-based inflation expectations remain depressed, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate now at 1.68%. That is well below levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE inflation target despite the persistent tightness of the U.S. labor market and the acceleration seen in realized inflation measures. We recommend that clients shift back to a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S. this week, while maintaining the maximum exposure to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries to position for higher inflation expectations that will also result in some steepening of the Treasury yield curve. Bottom Line: The Fed will cut rates by 25bps this week, accompanied by a balanced message on future moves given firm domestic U.S. growth amid global uncertainties. This could trigger additional near-term increases in Treasury yields if the market prices out future expected rate cuts. More likely, higher Treasury yields will manifest via rising inflation expectations, as investors price in Fed accommodation amid the recent acceleration of realized inflation. ECB: Take It To The Limit One More Time Last week’s much anticipated policy easing announcement by the European Central Bank (ECB) was comprehensive in scope, but disappointing in size. Short-term interest rates were cut, but only through a modest -10bp reduction in the overnight deposit rate. The Asset Purchase Program (APP) was restarted, but only at a pace of €20bn per month, well off the €80bn peak pace of the 2015-18 APP (Chart 7). Chart 7A Relatively Modest Easing Package From The ECB Those new initiatives fell short of the consensus forecast of a -20bp cut and €30bn of new APP. The ECB did introduce some tools to help struggling euro area banks - allowing some portion of banks’ excess reserves to Chart 8No Wonder There Is Disagreement With The ECB avoid the negative deposit rate (a.k.a. “tiering”) and extending the maturity of the TLTRO III program announced earlier this year from two to three years. Nonetheless, the overall stimulus package fell short of a “big bazooka” that did not break new ground on policy instruments (like buying equities in the APP). The biggest change from previous ECB easing initiatives was by making these new programs “open-ended”, with no specific expiration date. Instead, the asset purchases and lower interest rates would be maintained until euro zone inflation sustainably converged to the ECB’s inflation target of just under 2%. With the ECB’s newly revised forecasts calling for headline inflation to only climb to 1.5% by 2021, the new program has already been mockingly branded “QE Forever” by those who do not expect inflation to ever return to 2%. A big reason why the ECB was unable to deliver a bigger package was the disagreement within the ECB Governing Council on the need for more aggressive stimulus. Prior to last week’s meeting, several ECB officials publically voiced their reluctance to restart asset purchases and deliver deeper interest rate cuts, believing that they would have little impact on future euro area growth and inflation. While the opposition to fresh bond buying came from predictable sources like Germany and Austria, there was also an unprecedented level of public dissent after the ECB meeting, with the heads of the Dutch, Austrian and French central banks publically expressing doubts on the effectiveness of the new easing measures. This came after outgoing ECB President Mario Draghi noted in his post-meeting press conference last week that the consensus on restarting APP within the Governing Council was so broad that “there was no need to take a vote.” Given the diverging economic and inflation trends within the euro area, it should not be a surprise that a broad consensus within the Governing Council was hard to produce. For example, Germany is suffering through a much deeper manufacturing downturn than the other major euro area countries, judging by the trends in manufacturing PMIs (Chart 8). At the same time, Germany has a much lower unemployment rate and higher inflation rates than Italy and Spain. Focusing only on the German manufacturing downturn when setting monetary policy may produce results that are too stimulative – especially when the services sides of euro area economies appear in better shape (most notably in Germany). The ECB will run into some difficulties on running a “QE Forever” program of asset purchases given the current self-imposed constraints on the APP. Looking ahead, the ECB will run into some difficulties on running a “QE Forever” program of asset purchases given the current self-imposed constraints on the APP. The ECB cannot own more than 33% of the outstanding pubic debt of any single country (counting both sovereign debt and government agency bonds). At the moment, the ECB ownership shares are below that 33% threshold for the largest countries, based on our calculations that are presented in Chart 9. Chart 9"QE Forever" Is Not Credible Under Current Constraints However, that 33% limit will be threatened by the end of 2020 in several countries: the ECB will buy €15bn per month of government bonds under the new APP1 the ECB continues to allocate its bond buying in line with the size of each country (as determined by the ECB Capital Key) the stock of debt eligible for the APP expands at the same rate as consensus forecasts of nominal GDP growth Draghi also noted in his press conference that there was “relevant headroom to go on for quite a long time at this rhythm without the need to raise the discussion about limits.”2 We disagree, as our calculations show that the 33% threshold will be at threat of being reached by the end of next year in Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Finland & Ireland (see the gray bars of Chart 9). If the ECB truly wants to commit itself to buying bonds until inflation returns to just under 2%, however long that takes, then one of three things must happen: the ECB must raise the issuer limit from 33% the ECB must allocate its bond buying using different weights than the Capital Key the supply of available government debt must increase through easier fiscal policy. Chart 10The ECB Will Have To Raise Issuer Limits To BoJ Levels Of those three options, altering the country weights away from the Capital Key is the most politically contentious, as it would involve more purchases from countries with weaker government finances, like Italy and Spain. Raising the issuer limit from 33% is a more realistic option, as that is a completely self-imposed rule with no economic grounds, although it raises the risk of the ECB bond ownership approaching Bank of Japan type levels (Chart 10). Solving the ECB’s “headroom” constraint by issuing more government debt through fiscal expansion is the one option that could truly help Europe get out of its low inflation trap. Yet that is also an option fraught with political tension in places like Germany where keeping low levels of government debt has been a politically popular choice. With the new ECB President, Christine Lagarde, set to take over from Draghi in November, the policy debate within Europe will turn toward the need for more fiscal stimulus. Already, there have been media reports suggesting the German government is considering new stimulus measures to boost a Germany economy that is now in a technical recession. Solving the ECB’s “headroom” constraint by issuing more government debt through fiscal expansion is the one option that could truly help Europe get out of its low inflation trap. Chart 11Inflation Expectations & Bund Yields Are Stabilizing If the ECB’s APP capacity issues are not eventually resolved, then the market will soon come to the realization that there can be no “QE Forever”. Combined with the known limitations on pushing policy rates deeper into negative territory - for fears of reaching a “reversal rate” that will cause banks to horde cash and make fewer loans - there is limited scope for additional declines in euro area bond yields from the deeply depressed current levels under the new policy announcements made last week. For now, we continue to favor overweighting core euro area government debt in global fixed income portfolios, on a currency-hedged basis. Despite the persistent negative yields on offer, those can be transformed into positive-yielding assets when the currency exposure is swapped into U.S. dollars. Furthermore, the so-called “convexity buying” of longer-dated euro area government bonds by asset-liability managers like insurers and pension funds will continue to anchor the long-end of euro area yield curves (Chart 11) – although that same factor can potentially hyper-charge a rise in yields as convexity buying turns into convexity selling if the economic fundamentals were to swing in a bond-bearish fashion (which is a topic we plan on covering in a future report). Bottom Line: The ECB’s easing package last week fell short of market expectations, as policymakers face the operational limits of cutting already-negative interest rates and restarting asset purchases. Yet for now, the economic/inflation backdrop in Europe remains bond friendly. Maintain a strategic overweight stance on Germany versus the U.S. in global government bond portfolios, with Bunds still supported by ECB buying and with USD-hedged Bund yields continuing to offer a yield pickup over Treasuries.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The other €5bn per month is assumed to go towards the purchases of corporate debt. 2 The full transcript of Draghi’s press conference can be found here: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2019/html/ecb.is190912~658eb51d68.en.htm The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions and swing toward positive data surprises are enough for us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation, on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. While not our base case, a continued deterioration in the Manufacturing PMI or CRB Raw Industrials, or a significant appreciation of the U.S. dollar would cause us to question our view. Credit: Corporate debt levels are elevated, but still-low inflation expectations will ensure that monetary conditions remain accommodative for the time being. Easy Fed policy will support interest coverage ratios and prevent banks from tightening lending standards. Stay overweight corporate bonds, focusing on the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. Fed: The Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points tomorrow and Chairman Powell will do his best to sound dovish and prevent a tightening of financial conditions. Core inflation has strengthened in recent months, but the Fed needs to see a rebound in inflation expectations before turning hawkish. Feature Move Back To Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration The sensitivity of bond yields to U.S./China trade policy was on full display last week. President Trump took significant steps to de-escalate tensions between the two nations, delaying the October 1st tariff hike and scheduling talks between principal negotiators for October. The result is that the bond market sold off dramatically. The 10-year Treasury yield rose from 1.55% at the start of the week to 1.90% as of last Friday. As we go to press, the yield has fallen back to 1.85% in response to the drone attacks in Saudi Arabia and resulting spike in oil prices. Chart 1Has The Tide Turned? Our Geopolitical Strategy service discussed the near-term outlook for U.S. / China trade negotiations in last week’s report.1 Our main takeaway is that the President has shifted into dealmaker mode, hoping to secure some “wins” in advance of next year’s election. Talk of a looming recession in the mainstream media is doubtless also encouraging the President to adopt a more conciliatory strategy. Our political strategists view a comprehensive U.S. / China trade agreement as unlikely. But if the U.S. and China can reach a détente where tariffs are no longer rising every few months and the immediate threat to economic growth dissipates, then U.S. bond yields have a lot of upside. Chart 1 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield fell much more sharply in recent months than would have been expected given the U.S. economic data. The chart also shows that economic data are now beating expectations for the first time since February. Positive data surprises usually coincide with rising Treasury yields, and the chart suggests that yields still have a lot of catching-up to do. The de-escalation of trade tensions and shift in data surprises is enough for us to remove our tactical “at benchmark” duration stance, which had been in place since August 6. Investors should keep portfolio duration low on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. Risks To The Duration View There are three main risks to our below-benchmark duration positioning. The first is that the global manufacturing data – Manufacturing PMIs and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have not yet rebounded (Chart 2). We have written extensively about why we expect a bounce-back before the end of the year, and an ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions will only speed that process along, as firms gain more confidence in the outlook and initiate long-delayed investments.2 However, until we actually see the data improve we cannot be certain. It’s notable, and concerning, that the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold did not increase alongside Treasury yields during the past week (Chart 2, bottom panel). If the dollar continues to appreciate as Treasury yields move up, it will limit how high yields rise.  The second risk to our view comes from the dollar. If it continues to appreciate as Treasury yields move up, it will limit how high yields rise. Treasury yields can increase alongside a stronger dollar when global leading indicators are improving, as was the case in the second half of 2016 (Chart 3). But a strong dollar will eventually undermine global growth and cap the upside in yields. Chart 2Risk 1: Global Manufacturing Still Weak Chart 3Risk 2: Stronger Dollar The third risk is that the recent attack on Saudi oil installations prompts a military response from the U.S. government that escalates into all-out war. The lesson from the oil crash of 2014 is that any negative effects on the U.S. consumer from a spike in the oil price will be offset by greater investment from U.S. energy firms. However, if the situation dissolves into a significant military conflict, then U.S. bonds would benefit from flight to quality flows. Our Geopolitical and Commodity teams discussed the still-unfolding situation in a Special Alert yesterday.3   Bottom Line: The ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions and swing toward positive data surprises are enough for us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation, on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. While not our base case, a continued deterioration in the Manufacturing PMI or CRB Raw Industrials, or a significant appreciation of the U.S. dollar would cause us to question our view.   Corporate Bonds: Weak Balance Sheets Vs. Easy Money The slope of the yield curve is an important and useful indicator for corporate bond investors. In fact, our research has demonstrated that corporate bond excess returns versus Treasuries tend to be highest early in the recovery when the yield curve is steep. On the flipside, we’ve also shown that an inverted yield curve is often a good signal to scale back exposure.4 Corporate balance sheets are highly levered today, as they were in the mid-1990s. For this purpose, our preferred measure of the yield curve has been the 3-year/10-year slope, calculated on a monthly basis using average daily closing values. Chart 4 shows this slope with vertical lines denoting the first inversion of each cycle. Notice that we have not yet received an inversion signal from this measure in the current cycle, but it is getting close. Chart 4Yield Curve & Corporate Spreads Even if we get an inversion signal in the next few months, Chart 4 reveals an interesting contrast between the mid-2000s cycle and the mid-1990s cycle. In the mid-1990s, 3/10 curve inversion was an excellent signal to reduce corporate credit exposure. Spreads widened almost immediately, and didn’t peak until four years later. Conversely, spreads continued to tighten for another year after the yield curve inverted in 2006. So how should we view the current cycle in relation to these prior two episodes? Should we expect further outperformance after the yield curve inverts, as in the mid-2000s? Or should we prepare to reduce corporate bond exposure as soon as the yield curve sends a signal, as in the 1990s? Balance Sheets Are In Poor Health … Chart 5Firms Carrying A lot Of Debt The first thing to consider is how corporate balance sheets stack up compared to each of these prior two episodes. Chart 5 makes it apparent that balance sheets are highly levered today, as they were in the mid-1990s. Net debt-to-EBITDA for the median high-yield firm in our dynamic bottom-up sample is above 4.0x, even higher than in the late 1990s. Similarly, the median firm’s debt-to-assets ratio is reminiscent of the 1990s. Chart 5 clearly shows that balance sheets were in poor health in the 1990s, and are in a similar state today. This is in sharp contrast to the mid-2000s, when balance sheets were pristine. The sole exception is interest coverage, which remains robust (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is the result of still-accommodative monetary policy (more on this below). … But The Monetary Environment Is Supportive While today’s corporate balance sheets have more in common with the mid-1990s than the mid-2000s, today’s monetary environment looks more like the mid-2000s, and is probably even more supportive. Chart 6Supportive Monetary Environment: Reminiscent Of The Mid-2000s Chart 6 shows that when the yield curve inverted in the 1990s, banks’ commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards were on the cusp of tightening, as were the terms that banks offered on C&I loans. In contrast, C&I lending standards and loan terms continued to ease for some time after the curve inverted in the mid-2000s. Today, C&I lending standards and C&I loan terms are both in “net easing” territory. But most crucially, inflation expectations are extremely depressed (Chart 6, bottom panel). Low inflation expectations mean that the Fed must ensure that monetary policy stays accommodative until inflation expectations are re-anchored at levels closer to its target. Accommodative Fed policy will keep firms’ interest costs down, and give lenders the confidence to extend credit, even if firms are already loaded with debt. Bringing it all together, we find that both credit quality metrics and monetary indicators help explain the corporate default rate (Chart 7). Our top-down measure of gross leverage (total debt over pre-tax profits) lines up well with the default rate over time, but has diverged during the past few years (Chart 7, top panel). Meanwhile, C&I lending standards also correlate tightly with the default rate, and this relationship continues to track (Chart 7, panel 3). Chart 7Drivers Of The Corporate Default Rate Overall, we find the divergence between gross leverage and the default rate concerning, and reminiscent of 2007/08 when it predicted a surge in the default rate. However, unlike in 2007/08, lending standards are moving deeper into “net easing” territory and interest coverage remains steady. Considering all the evidence, we are inclined to remain bullish on corporate credit spreads for the time being. Yes, corporate debt levels are a worry, as they were in the 1990s. But, with inflation expectations still very low, the Fed has a strong incentive to keep policy easy. Historically, banks do not tighten lending standards unless the monetary environment is restrictive. Our sense is that, in this cycle, banks will turn a blind eye to corporate debt levels until inflation expectations rise and the Fed moves interest rates into restrictive territory. Credit Investment Strategy Chart 8Focus On The Baa And High-Yield Credit Tiers Our relatively bullish assessment of the credit cycle means that we will continue to abide by the spread targets we introduced in February.5 To obtain those targets we calculated the median 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier during periods when the yield curve was very flat (less than 50 bps), but not yet inverted.6  We then converted those breakeven spreads into option-adjusted spread targets using current index duration and the current index credit rating distribution. Chart 8 shows that investment grade spreads are slightly above target, but this is only due to the cheapness of Baa-rated debt. Aaa, Aa and A-rated credits all trade at spreads below our targets, and we recommend focusing investment grade exposure on the Baa space. Chart 8 also shows that high-yield spreads are much more attractive relative to target. This is partly because the negatively convex nature of high-yield debt means that index duration fell sharply as bonds rallied this year (Chart 8, bottom panel). All else equal, lower index duration means that more spread widening is required before investors see losses. Thus, spreads appear more attractive. Bottom Line: Corporate debt levels are elevated, but still-low inflation expectations will ensure that monetary conditions remain accommodative for the time being. Easy Fed policy will support interest coverage ratios and prevent banks from tightening lending standards. Stay overweight corporate bonds, focusing on the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. FOMC Preview: Fed Will Do Its Best To Stay Dovish The results of this week’s FOMC meeting will be made public tomorrow afternoon. A 25 basis point rate cut is widely anticipated, and we expect that is what will be delivered. A 25 basis point rate cut is widely anticipated, and we expect that is what will be delivered. Judging from recent remarks, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is well aware that easy financial conditions will encourage a recovery in economic growth.7 He also understands that in order for financial conditions to stay easy, the market must continue to believe that monetary policy is supportive. We therefore think that Chairman Powell will do everything he can to prevent a hawkish surprise following tomorrow’s FOMC statement and press conference. However, the Chairman cannot control the placement of each FOMC participant’s interest rate forecast (or “dot”), and there is a risk that the end-of-2019 forecasts don’t fall enough to appease markets. Chart 9 shows the fed funds rate along with a projection based on current pricing in the fed funds futures market. It shows that the market expects a 25 bps rate cut tomorrow, followed by one more 25 bps cut before the end of the year. We don’t expect the majority of FOMC participants to forecast such a dovish outcome, but as long as a significant number of participants forecast one more cut before the end of the year, a hawkish surprise should be avoided. Chart 9Can The Fed Avoid Sounding Hawkish? Case in point, the Fed avoided a hawkish surprise following the June meeting. Heading into that meeting the market was priced for an end-of-2019 funds rate of 1.75% (denoted by the ‘X’ in Chart 9). The June FOMC dots show that 7 FOMC participants expected a similar outcome (also shown in Chart 9). If around 7 participants place their 2019 dot in the 1.50%-1.75% range following tomorrow’s meeting, it should be enough to prevent a hawkish surprise. Will Strong Inflation Sway The Fed? There has been some speculation that the recent spate of strong inflation data might prevent the Fed from delivering a sufficiently dovish message. We think this is unlikely. It’s true that core inflation has rebounded sharply, but inflation expectations remain downtrodden (Chart 10). At this juncture, the Fed is principally concerned with re-anchoring inflation expectations near target levels. It may require an overshoot of the actual inflation target to achieve this goal. Investors should focus more on inflation expectations to assess Fed policy going forward. Chart 10Still Well Anchored? Chart 11Unsustainable Uptrend in Goods   Further, if we dig into the details of the recent inflation prints, we find some reason to believe that the recent uptrend is not sustainable. Chart 11 shows that a substantial portion of inflation’s rise has been driven by the core goods component, which tracks non-oil import prices with a lag of about 1½ years (Chart 11, panel 2). For their part, import prices have already rolled over and will continue to decelerate unless we see a significant depreciation of the dollar (Chart 12). Chart 12Import Prices & The Dollar Bottom Line: The Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points tomorrow and Chairman Powell will do his best to sound dovish and prevent a tightening of financial conditions. Core inflation has strengthened in recent months, but the Fed needs to see a rebound in inflation expectations before turning hawkish.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trump’s Tactical Retreat”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?”, dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy / Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raise Questions About U.S. Response”, dated September 16, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required before a corporate bond sees losses versus a duration-matched Treasury bond on a 12-month horizon. It can be calculated roughly as the option-adjusted spread per unit of duration. 7  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/06/watch-fed-chairman-jerome-powells-qa-in-zurich-live.html Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The fundamental backdrop continues to be mixed, but last week’s key data releases were encouraging on balance: While the U.S. manufacturing ISM survey entered contraction territory, and European manufacturing PMIs remained moribund, the services surveys were quite strong, and services contribute much more to developed economies’ total output. The U.S. economy should be able to grow at trend for the next six to twelve months: Consumption is underpinned by a robust labor market, federal government spending will not flag ahead of the 2020 elections, and state and local revenues are well supported. Investment is unlikely to sabotage the other two pillars of the U.S. economy. The view that inflation is deader than New York Mayor de Blasio’s presidential ambitions is widespread and entrenched: Participating on a panel at an inflation-themed conference last week, we were struck by the conviction that inflation is going nowhere over the next few years. The risk-reward of taking the other side of that debate may be quite attractive. Feature Another week, another mixed set of data releases. Last Tuesday, the bears’ most cherished fantasies seemed to be within reach as the ISM Manufacturing Index slid below the boom-bust line in a print that fell well short of consensus expectations. The S&P 500, which had probed around August’s 2,945 resistance level in the final pre-Labor Day session, quickly shed more than a percentage point in response. The U.S. data confirmed the message from the previous day’s European manufacturing PMIs: global manufacturing remains in a deep funk, and a turnaround is not yet at hand. It’s hard to get a recession without tight monetary policy, and it’s hard to get a bear market without a recession, ... Wednesday’s European services PMI releases gave the bulls a lift. Though manufacturing activity truly stinks (Chart 1), it shows no signs of contaminating the services sector, which is still expanding at a solid clip (Chart 2). The U.S. ISM Non-Manufacturing Index surged in August, beating consensus expectations by the same two-point margin by which manufacturing fell short. U.S. equities were already trading higher on the back of an imminent resumption of U.S.-China negotiations when the series was released Thursday morning, and the combination helped the S&P 500 decisively break through the level that had held it in check for a month (Chart 3). Chart 1Global Manufacturing ##br##Is Ailing ... Chart 2... But The Service Sector Is Expected To Expand Chart 3Breakout Taking a step back from the consistently mixed data, recessions don’t occur when monetary conditions are easy. Equity bear markets rarely occur outside of recessions, so our default position is to remain at least equal weight equities in a balanced portfolio. We estimate that the equilibrium fed funds rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 3.25%, so the monetary backdrop remains comfortably accommodative with fed funds at 2.25% and seemingly heading to 2% or lower in the coming months. Our estimate of equilibrium is no more than an estimate, however, so we are reprising our analysis of where consumption, investment and government spending are headed over the next six to twelve months. We remain constructive on the basis of that analysis. The GDP Equation GDP is the sum of consumption, investment, government spending and net exports. Rendered as an equation, GDP = C + I + G + (X-M). Net exports are not terribly meaningful for the comparatively closed U.S. economy, and we take a small fixed trade deficit as a given, so we reduce the equation to GDP = C + I + G. Ex-trade, consumption accounts for two-thirds of output, and fixed investment and government spending for one-sixth each. At four times each of the other components’ weight, consumption is the dominant driver of U.S. activity. Investment is considerably more variable, however, making it more likely to wipe out trend growth from the other drivers (Chart 4). As we showed the first time we performed the (C+I+G) analysis, investment would only have to fall to 0.83 standard deviations below its long-run mean to zero out 2% growth in consumption and government spending.1 Chart 4Investment Is The Wild Card In a normal distribution, events 0.83 or more standard deviations below the mean are expected to occur randomly about 20% of the time. It would take a -1.31-sigma consumption event (probability ≈ 10%) to zero out 2% growth in the rest of the economy. An expansion-killing decline in government spending would be a -1.86-sigma event (probability ≈ 3%). Investment is most likely to be the swing factor tilting the economy in the direction of a recession. Consumption Both retail sales and personal consumption expenditures have accelerated since early April (Chart 5). A robust labor market should continue to support consumption spending, as our payroll model projects a pickup in hiring (Chart 6, top panel), thanks to more ambitious NFIB hiring plans (Chart 6, second panel) and falling initial unemployment claims (Chart 6, bottom panel). Job openings are at their highest level in the 19-year history of the series, indicating that demand for new employees is high, and an elevated quits rate indicates that employers are paying up to poach workers from each other to satisfy that demand. We reiterate that more Americans will be working at the end of 2019 than at the end of 2018, and that all of them will be getting paid more, on average. A robust labor market will give household incomes a boost, and solid balance sheets will give them leave to spend it. Households don’t have to spend income gains, however. If they choose instead to save them, or divert them to paying down debt, consumption won’t get much of a near-term boost. The state of household balance sheets is also a driver of consumption’s direction, and they’ve improved at the margin since our last review. The savings rate moved sharply higher in the interim (Chart 7, top panel) and household debt as a share of GDP ticked lower (Chart 7, second panel), while the burden of servicing existing debt remains light (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 5Consumption Is Healthy Chart 6Hiring Is Poised To ##br##Tick Higher, ... Chart 7... And Households Are In A Position To Spend Bottom Line: Consumption remains well supported and will likely continue to be over a six- to twelve-month horizon. Investment Despite hopes that the reduction in corporate income tax rates and immediate expensing of qualified investments would promote capital expenditures, growth in nonresidential fixed investment has been uninspiring. Looking ahead, surveys of corporate investment intentions are decent coincident indicators of capex, and their monthly releases provide some leading insights into quarterly GDP investment. Capital spending plans in the NFIB small business survey have bounced since early April (Chart 8, top panel), but capex plans in the regional Fed surveys have weakened (Chart 8, bottom panel). Although both surveys have turned down, they remain at fairly elevated levels, suggesting that an investment plunge capable of negating trend growth in consumption and government spending is unlikely. Chart 8Neither Here Nor There Residential investment is less than a quarter of nonresidential investment and therefore typically only has a marginal impact on investment. It remains in a slump, with momentum in starts and permits sputtering (Chart 9, top panel); existing home sales running in place (Chart 9, middle panel); and inventories of homes for sale up since April, albeit still at low levels relative to history (Chart 9, bottom panel). Despite a sharp decline in mortgage rates since the end of last year, housing activity has failed to revive. Conversations with various market participants lead us to believe that zoning restrictions, sparse quantities of affordable land, difficulty in assembling construction crews, and a general idling of smaller developers in the wake of the crisis have all contributed to insufficient supplies of the entry-level and first-move-up homes for which there is ample demand. Chart 9Housing Is Weaker Than It Should Be, But It Doesn't Mean The Economy Is In Trouble Bottom Line: Neither nonresidential nor residential investment appears vulnerable enough to spark a decline in investment that could cause the economy to stall out. Government Spending All systems are go from a fiscal perspective. The federal spending taps will surely be open in a hotly contested presidential election year. State income and sales tax revenues have improved since our last review in April (Chart 10, top two panels), and should be well supported by a strong labor market. Solid home price appreciation will nudge the appraisals underpinning property taxes higher (Chart 10, third panel), supporting municipal tax receipts. Government spending will continue to hold up its end. Chart 10State And Local Revenues Will Hold Up Is Inflation Dead? Chart 11Another Upleg Is Coming We participated in a panel discussion last week at an inflation-linked products conference. The panel included Fed researchers and a veteran inflation-products trader turned investment manager. After a wide-ranging discussion that touched on U.S. economic prospects, the message from the yield curve, the impact of trade tensions and the continuing relevance of the Phillips Curve, each panelist was asked if inflation has already peaked for the cycle. The response was a resounding unanimous yes until we got our turn. The other panelists were not laypeople, traders, bottom-up analysts, or anyone else with only a passing interest in macroeconomics. They were experts, and we were struck by the conviction with which they dismissed the possibility that inflation could yet break out in the current cycle. Judging by the shrinking scale of the annual conference (this year’s edition was half the size of the previous two years’), the idea that inflation is dead for the foreseeable future has found a wide following. We do not think that inflation, and bond yields, will go anywhere in the immediate future, but it is far from assured that they will remain moribund for the rest of the expansion (Chart 11). Taking the other side looks attractive to us, given the preponderance of inflation-is-dead opinions. It is not terribly surprising that wide output gaps opened following an especially job-destructive downturn. With economic capacity considerably ahead of aggregate demand across the major economies, inflation had little chance of taking hold at an economy-wide level. The picture is changing, however, with the IMF estimating that the U.S. output gap closed in 2017 and in the advanced economies as a whole sometime last year (Chart 12). Goods inflation is primarily a global phenomenon, and with the IMF estimating that output gaps persist in Australia, Canada, Japan and the U.K., international slack can still mitigate domestic price pressures, though new tariff barriers would bind inflation more closely to domestic conditions. Services inflation, which is much more domestically driven, could begin to perk up now that unemployment is below NAIRU in the Eurozone as well as the U.S. (Chart 13). Finally, while central banks are hardly omnipotent, Milton Friedman’s always-and-everywhere admonition leaves little doubt that the monetary authorities can boost inflation expectations if they really want to. Chart 12Demand Has Caught Up To Capacity Chart 13Mind The Gap Investment Implications The investing backdrop is hardly ideal. Spreads are tight, stocks aren’t cheap, the two largest standalone economies are trying to inflect pain on each other, the U.K. can’t agree on how to get divorced from the EU, and the fate of the longest U.S. expansion on record is in doubt. The risks are well known, however, and save-haven assets have gotten pretty crowded. While the danger that shaky confidence could become self-fulfilling is real, our base case is that the expansion will trundle along, allowing stocks to rise as the worst-case scenarios fail to come to pass. It is at least possible that rumors of inflation’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. We continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios and at least equal weight spread product within bond allocations. We enthusiastically endorse our bond colleagues’ overweight TIPS recommendation. When nearly everyone agrees that a particular outcome cannot happen, it is often worth carving out some space in a portfolio in the event it actually does.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Table 1 of the April 8, 2019 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “If We Were Wrong,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com

Special Report

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

Special Report

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