Economy

Special Report

Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. In the medium-to-long run the trade war with China should reaccelerate while the U.S. should back away from war with Iran. But for now the opposite is happening. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall. Feature Two significant geopolitical events occurred over the past week. First, U.S. President Donald Trump declared his third pause to the trade war with China. The terms of the truce are vague and indefinite, but it has given support to the equity rally temporarily. Second, Iran edged past the limits on uranium stockpiling, uranium enrichment, and the Arak nuclear reactor imposed by the 2015 nuclear pact. Trump instigated this move by walking away from the pact and re-imposing oil sanctions. If these events foreshadow things to come, global financial markets should position for lower odds of a deflationary trade shock and higher odds of an inflationary oil shock in the coming six-to-18 months. But is this conclusion warranted? Is the American “Pivot to Asia” about to shift into reverse? If the White House pursued a consistent strategy to contain China, it would bring Americans together and require forming alliances. In the short run, perhaps – but the conflict with China is ultimately the greater of the two geopolitical risks. We expect it to intensify again, likely in H2, but at latest by Q3 of 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election. Our highest conviction call on this matter, however, is that any trade deal before that date will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on June 14 to account for the expected resumption of negotiations at the G20, can be found in Diagram 1. The combined risk of further escalation is 68%. Diagram 1Trade War Decision Tree (Updated June 13, 2019 To Include G20 Tariff Pause) The risk to the view? The U.S.-Iran conflict could spiral out of control and the Trump administration could get entangled in the Middle East. This would create a very different outlook for global politics, economy, and markets over the next decade than a concentrated conflict with China.  The Missing Corollary Of The “Thucydides Trap” The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1  This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2).    Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order.   Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4).  China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 2. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 2Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 3). Diagram 3Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers.  Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant market-mover. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Iran Is The Wild Card A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While short-term events are pushing toward truce with China and war with Iran, the Trump administration is likely to downgrade the conflict with Iran and upgrade the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 4). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 4Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Over the past week, developments point toward the former scenario, meaning that Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, we think the latter scenario will prevail.  We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).  

Highlights The EM equity and currency rebounds should be faded. When corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. This is the case in EM and China. Our leading indicators for the Chinese business cycle continue to point to intensifying profit contraction in both China and EM. The ratio of global broad money supply to the current value of securities worldwide is at an all-time low. This casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. Feature Chart I-1EM Share Prices: Decision Time EM share prices are at a critical juncture (Chart I-1). Their ability to hold their recent lows and break above their April highs will signify that a sustainable cyclical rally is in the making. Failure to punch through April’s highs will pose a major breakdown risk. In brief, EM is facing a make-it-or-break-it moment. Fundamentally, the outlook for EM risk assets and currencies largely hinges on economic growth in general and corporate profits in particular. In our June 20 report, we illustrated that the primary drivers of EM risk assets and currencies have historically been their business cycles and profit growth – not U.S. interest rates. Falling interest rates are positive for share prices when profits are expanding, even if at a slower rate. However, when corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. Hence, lower global interest rates in of themselves are not a sufficient condition to foster a sustainable cyclical EM rally. As to EM corporate profits, the rate of their contraction will continue deepening. Since early this year, we have been arguing that expectations of recovery in the Chinese economy and global trade are unwarranted. That is why BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team contends that EM risk assets and currencies, as well as China-plays, face the risk of a breakdown. This differs from BCA’s house view, which is positive on global risk assets in general. Global And Chinese Business Cycles: No Recovery So Far Chart I-2Chinese A-Share EPS Is Heading Into Contraction The rebound in EM risk assets and currencies since last December has occurred despite no improvement in both China’s business cycle and global trade, and despite the deepening contraction in EM corporate profits. Since early this year, we have been arguing that expectations of recovery in the Chinese economy and global trade are unwarranted. So far, our baseline economic view has played out – mainland growth has been rather weak, and global trade has contracted. Yet EM financial markets have done better than we had anticipated. China’s domestic industrial new orders lead Chinese A-share earnings per share growth rate by about nine months and point to intensifying profit slump into early 2020 (Chart I-2). Furthermore, China’s adjusted narrow money(M1+)1 growth leads Chinese investable stocks earnings per share (EPS) by about nine months, and is also pointing to further compression (Chart I-3). Finally, Korea’s exports are shrinking, as are EM EPS (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-3Chinese Investable Companies' EPS Is Already Shrinking Chart I-4Korean Exports And EM EPS   Notably, both Korean exports values and EM EPS in U.S. dollars terms are on par with their early  2011 levels (Chart I-4, bottom panel). This indicates that neither Korean exports nor EM EPS have expanded sustainably over the past eight years. Chart I-5Global Stocks Did Not Lead Global PMI Historically Is it possible that the current gap between global share prices and global manufacturing is due to the fact that financial markets are forward-looking and lead business cycles? Historical evidence suggests that global share prices have not led the global manufacturing PMI, as exhibited in Chart I-5. In fact, global share prices have actually been coincident with the global manufacturing PMI not only throughout this decade but before that as well. The de-coupling between share prices and the manufacturing PMI is currently also present in EM, albeit in a less-striking form. Chart I-6 illustrates that the EM manufacturing PMI has slipped below 50 line, yet share prices have recently rebounded and sovereign spreads have tightened. In a nutshell, the divergence between global share prices and the global manufacturing PMI is unprecedented. This cannot be explained by falling global bond yields either. The latter were falling in the previous business cycle downtrends (2011-12 and 2015), yet share prices did not deviate from the global manufacturing PMI during those episodes (Chart I-5). Chart I-6EM PMI And EM Risk Assets Chart I-7The Rest Of World's Exports To China Will Continue Shrinking It seems that the global equity and credit markets expect an imminent recovery in the global business cycle in general and in China in particular. As we elaborated in the previous reports, the current global manufacturing recession stems primarily from China. Our leading indicators of the mainland business cycle suggest that more growth disappointments are likely before China’s growth and other economies’ shipments to the mainland hits a bottom (Chart I-7). For example, Korea’s exports to China in June were still dropping by 24% from a year ago. The primary reason for the lack of revival in growth is that China’s stimulus efforts have so far not been large enough, and the marginal propensity to spend among households and companies is diminishing, offsetting the positive effect of the stimulus, as we have discussed in previous reports. Will the recent G20 trade truce between the U.S. and China boost business confidence worldwide and in China? In our view, it is unlikely to produce a quick and meaningful recovery in business confidence among multinational companies and Chinese businesses. Corporate managers have probably come to realize that the U.S.-China row is not about import tariffs but rather geopolitical confrontation between the existing hegemon and a rising superpower. Hence, there is no easy solution that will satisfy both parties. An acceptable resolution for China will be unacceptable for the U.S., and vice versa. Hence, it will be hard to find a formula that gratifies both sides politically and economically. Overall, we reckon there are low odds in the next six months of an agreement between the U.S. and China that removes tariffs, addresses structural issues and satiates both nations. Korea’s exports are shrinking, as are EM EPS. Finally, even though the S&P 500 is hovering around its previous highs, under-the-surface dynamics have been less upbeat. Specifically, the equal-weighted share price index of U.S. high-beta stocks in cyclical sectors such as industrials, technology and consumer discretionary versus the S&P 500 has been tame and has not yet broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-8, top panel). The same holds true for the relative performance of an equal-weighted stock index of global cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials and semiconductors against the overall global equity benchmark (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Conversely, despite its recent setback, the U.S. dollar has technically not yet broken down (Chart I-9, top panel). In fact, our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted dollar has troughed at zero – a sign that downside is limited and another up-leg will likely emerge soon (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-8Cyclical Stocks Have Been Underperforming Chart I-9The U.S. Dollar Has Technically Not Broken Down   Bottom Line: The EM equity and currency rebounds should be faded. As EM currencies depreciate, sovereign and corporate credit spreads will likely widen. Asset allocators should continue underweighting EM equities and credit markets relative to their DM peers. Too Much Money Chasing Too Few Assets? Many investors identify “liquidity” as the main reason why global equity and credit markets have done so well this year, despite the relapsing global business cycle. Yet there are as many definitions of “liquidity” as there are investors. Many commentators use the term “liquidity” to denote balance sheet expansion by global central banks. As part of their quantitative easing programs, central banks in the U.S., U.K., Japan, the euro area, Switzerland and Sweden have expanded their balance sheets enormously. In line with their asset expansion, their liabilities – the monetary base, consisting primarily of commercial banks’ excess reserves – have also mushroomed. Nevertheless, broad money supply has grown only modestly in these economies.2 The principal reason behind this phenomenon has been a collapse in the money multiplier due to both banks’ unwillingness to boost lending proportionally to their swelling excess reserves, and a persistent lack of demand for credit among households and businesses. This computation casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. Broad money supply includes all types of deposits at commercial banks and cash in circulation. Crucially, it does not include commercial banks’ excess reserves at central banks. This differentiation between broad money and excess reserves at central banks is vital because excess reserves are not used to purchase goods, services or assets/securities. Hence, a true measure of purchasing power for assets, goods and services is broad money supply. Consistently, the pertinent liquidity ratio for financial markets can be computed by dividing global broad money supply by the value of all securities outstanding excluding those owned by central banks. The top panel of Chart I-10 depicts the ratio of the sum of broad money supply in 12 economies3 - excluding China - to the market value of investable global equities and bonds. The latter is calculated as the market cap of the Datastream World Equity Index plus the market value of the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, excluding securities owned by central banks (Chart I-11). Bonds include both government and corporate issues. Chart I-10Comparing Global Broad Money And Market Value Of Outstanding Securities Chart I-11Broad Money, Securities Absorbed By QEs And Value Of Outstanding Securities   We exclude China from this calculation because its money supply (deposits) is not internationally “mobile” – i.e., due to capital controls, Chinese residents cannot convert their renminbi deposits to other currencies, or use them to purchase international securities. Likewise, we exclude Chinese on-shore equity and bond markets from the calculation because they are not easily accessible to all foreign investors. This broad money supply-to-asset values ratio can be regarded as a rough proxy for available liquidity for financial markets.4 Our interpretation is that a lower ratio means investors have lower cash balances relative to the value of financial assets they hold, and vice versa. Interestingly, the ratio of global broad money to the current value of securities worldwide is at an all-time low (Chart I-10, top panel). Hence, this computation casts doubt on the “too much money chasing too few assets” hypothesis. By flipping this ratio, we compute the ratio of market value of all investable securities (excluding the ones owned by central banks) to broad money supply (Chart I-10, bottom panel). It is at all-time high entailing that the market value of globally investable publically-traded securities has expanded much more than global broad money supply/deposits. Bottom Line: We recognize that this is a simplistic macro exercise, and a more comprehensive methodology is required to compute global cash balances that are available to purchase securities worldwide. However, at minimum the above casts doubt on the hypothesis that “too much money is chasing too few assets”. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      M1+ is calculated as M1 plus household demand deposits and deposits at third-party payment platforms. 2      Note that when a central bank purchases securities from commercial banks, this operation originates excess reserves, but not a new deposit at commercial banks. However, when a central bank acquires securities from a non-bank entity, such as a pension fund or an insurance company, this transaction creates both excess reserves and a bank deposit that did not exist before. Hence, QE programs have created some deposits but less so than excess reserves. 3      Economies included into this aggregate are the U.S., the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. 4      This calculation does not strip out transactional demand for money, i.e., how much money is required to finance regular  economic activity. Given transactional demand for money is not stable, it is hard to estimate and adjust for it.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The Chinese economy slowed in May following two months of improvement, but the June PMI data suggests that the pace of decline is moderating. Still, the economy remains highly vulnerable in a full-tariff scenario. This weekend’s agreement to continue trade talks was a weaker result compared with what emerged from the G20 meeting in Argentina, and did not represent any real progress toward a final trade agreement that includes a substantial tariff rollback. Our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged: Chinese stocks face potentially acute near-term risks, but are likely to outperform global stocks over the coming year as mounting economic weakness forces policymakers to overcome their reluctance to act and to ultimately stimulate as needed. Feature The Caixin PMI decline in June appears to have been preceded by the official PMI in May. No change in the latter in June is thus somewhat encouraging. Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, May’s activity data shows that the economy slowed following two months of improvement, which underscores that the budding, credit-driven recovery in China’s investment relevant economic activity remains in its infancy and is vulnerable to a further deterioration in external demand. The Caixin manufacturing PMI fell back below the 50 mark in June, but this appears to have simply confirmed the prior decline in the official PMI. June’s official PMI was flat on the month, which in combination with only a modest further decline in new export orders, implies that the May slowdown in activity noted above did not repeat itself in June (at least not in terms of magnitude) Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, Chinese stocks actively outperformed the global benchmark over the past month as the latter rallied. The rally was in response to assurances from the PBoC about the capacity to ease further if needed, and the steadily rising odds over the course of the month that a new tariff ceasefire would be reached at the G20 meeting in Osaka. While this expectation was indeed validated, our view is that the agreement to continue talks was a weaker result compared with what emerged from the G20 meeting in Argentina, and did not represent any real progress toward a final trade agreement that includes a substantial tariff rollback. As such, our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged: Chinese stocks face potentially acute near-term risks, but are likely to outperform global stocks over the coming year as mounting economic weakness forces policymakers to overcome their reluctance to act and to ultimately stimulate as needed. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1A Sharp Decline In Electricity Production China’s economy slowed in May according to the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index, after having picked up for two months in a row. While both electricity production and rail cargo volume fell in May, the former fell sharply, almost into negative territory (Chart 1). This underscores that the budding, credit-driven recovery in China’s investment relevant economic activity remains in its infancy, and that economic activity is set to deteriorate meaningfully in a full-tariff scenario. Our LKI leading indicator rose modestly in May, with all six components showing an improvement. Still, the uptrend in the indicator is slight, and is being held back by the money supply components, particularly the growth in M2. Much stronger money & credit growth will be required if Chinese economic activity relapses and no deal to end U.S. import tariffs has occurred, but policymakers are likely to be reactive rather than proactive in this regard. The picture painted by China’s housing data continues to be a story of weak housing demand arrayed against seemingly strong housing construction and stable growth in house prices. However, we noted in a May 9 joint Special Report with our Emerging Market Strategy service that the strength observed in floor space started over the past year reflected a funding strategy by cash-strapped real estate developers.1 Launching new projects aggressively last year – i.e., more property starts – allowed real estate developers to pre-sell property units in order to raise cash in a tight credit environment. On the demand side, the annual change in the PBOC’s pledged supplementary lending injection has strongly predicted floor space sold over the past four years; it remains deeply in negative territory and our measure declined in May for the 8th month in a row. Given that housing construction cannot sustainably decouple from housing demand, we expect floor space started to slow meaningfully over the coming several months absent a major pickup in housing sales. Chart 2The Flat Official PMI In June Is Somewhat Encouraging The Caixin manufacturing PMI fell back below the 50 mark in June, but this appears to have simply confirmed the prior decline in the official PMI (Chart 2). The official PMI was flat in June with only a modest further decline in new export orders, which implies that the May slowdown in activity noted above did not repeat itself in June, at least not in terms of magnitude. Chinese stocks have rallied 8-9% over the past month in U.S. dollar terms, outpacing the EM and global equity benchmarks. The rally initially followed comments from Governor Yi Gang that the PBoC had “tremendous” room to ease monetary policy if needed, and was sustained by expectations later in the month of a second tariff truce emerging from the G20 meeting in Osaka. For China-exposed investors, the issue is not whether Chinese policymakers have the capacity to support China’s economy, but rather the willingness to ease materially. From our perspective, the renewal of trade talks with the U.S. does not represent material progress towards the ultimate removal of tariffs. But the existence of talks is likely to give Chinese authorities a reason (for now) to avoid aggressively stimulating the economy, meaning that our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged. Chart 3The BAT Stocks Will Outperform China If Chinese Stocks Outperform Global The significant outperformance of the investable consumer discretionary has been the most meaningful equity sector development over the past month. We have noted in past reports that changes last December to the global industry classification standard (GICS) mean that trends in investable consumer discretionary are now largely driven by Alibaba’s stock price, and Chart 3 highlights that the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) have indeed risen relative to the overall investable index. We noted in last month’s macro & market review that investors appeared to be wrongly conflating the risks facing Huawei (U.S. supply chain reliance) with those facing the BATs (the outlook for Chinese consumer spending), and the outperformance of the latter over the past month, as expectations mounted of another tariff truce emerging from the G20, would appear to validate this view. This implies that the outlook for the relative performance of the BATs versus the Chinese equity benchmark is likely to be the same as that of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark: near-term risk, but likely to outperform over a 6-12 month time horizon. Chinese interbank rates fell over the past month, in response to an injection of liquidity by the PBoC following the collapse and takeover of Baoshang bank. The event marked the first takeover of a commercial bank in China since 1998, and has been described by authorities as an isolated event that was caused, in part, by the illegal use of bank funds. Market participants have clearly been concerned that Baoshang is not an isolated event; China’s 3-month interbank repo rate rose nearly 60bps from early-April to mid-June, and the PBoC’s response was intended to help prevent a significant tightening in credit conditions for China’s smaller lenders. While bad debt concerns have clearly impacted the interbank market over the past several weeks, there has been little impact on China’s onshore corporate bond market (Chart 4). Spreads on bonds rated AA+ did rise meaningfully in June, but have since nearly returned to late-May levels. We continue to recommend an overweight stance towards Chinese onshore corporate bonds, on the basis that market participants are pricing in a much higher default rate than we expect over the coming 6-12 months. The risk to Hong Kong is not the stability of the peg, but the impact of higher interest rates on an extremely leveraged economy. Chart 4The Onshore Corporate Bond Market Is Not Concerned By The Baoshang Takeover Chart 5HKD Strength Reflects More Than Just Falling U.S. Rate Expectations The Hong Kong dollar has strengthened significantly over the past month, with USD-HKD having retreated to the midpoint of its band. This has occurred in part because of declining U.S. interest rate expectations, but also because of a sharp rise in 3-month HIBOR versus the base rate (Chart 5). The strengthening in HIBOR seems linked to the anti-extradition bill protests, implying that HKD has strengthened due to anti-capital flight measures by the HKMA. We see no major risk to the currency peg at the moment, but discussed the negative implications of higher interest rates in Hong Kong on the region’s property market and share prices in last week’s joint report with our Emerging Market Strategy service.2   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Making Sense Of Divergences”, dated May 9, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Hong Kong’s Currency Peg: Truths And Misconceptions”, dated June 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Current activity indicators are now losing momentum, or outright rolling over. This confirms that European (and global) growth is now entering a down-oscillation. Why? It is the rate of decline in the bond yield that has driven the current up-oscillation in growth and it is mathematically impossible for the rate of decline in the bond yield to keep increasing, or even stay where it is. Equity investors should rotate from pro-cyclical to pro-defensive sectors. But the support to risk-asset valuations from low bond yields will keep the aggregate European equity market in a sideways channel. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Interest Rate Impulse And Credit Impulse Are Both Entering ##br##Down-Oscillations If the level of interest rates drove economic growth then, let’s face it, the economies of Japan and Switzerland would have reached the moon by now! In both Japan and Switzerland, the policy rate and long bond yield have been at ultra-low levels for decades (Chart I-2). This is true for both the nominal level and the real level of the interest rate and bond yield. But we all know that the level of interest rates does not drive economic growth. Chart I-2Japan And Switzerland Have Had Ultra-Low Bond Yields For Decades If Interest Rates Decline At A Reduced Pace, Growth Slows Most people understand that it is the change in interest rates that can drive economic growth. The main transmission mechanism is by adding to or subtracting from credit creation. For example if, in a given period, a -0.5 percent decline in the interest rate added €50 billion to credit creation, then the extra €50 billion would constitute additional economic demand. Many people struggle to understand the subtle and counterintuitive follow-on point. If interest rates decline, but at a reduced pace, it can slow economic growth. To understand why, let’s continue the example. If, in the following period, a further -0.5 percent decline in the interest rate added another €50 billion of credit-sourced demand, it would constitute the same rate of growth as in the first period. But a further -0.25 percent decline in the interest rate which added €25 billion to demand would result in the growth rate halving. The counterintuitive thing is that the interest rate has continued to decline, yet it has caused growth to slow! If interest rates decline, but at a reduced pace, it can slow economic growth. This counterintuitive dynamic is about to unfold in the European and global economy during the second half of this year. The pace of change in the interest rate (inverted) drives the credit impulse, and thereby drives short-term growth oscillations (Chart I-3). Of course, other influences on credit creation can sometimes swamp the interest rate impact. But not in the latest cycle. From the fourth quarter of 2018, both the pace of decline in the interest rate – or more precisely, the bond yield – and the credit impulse were in a synchronised and closely connected up-oscillation. Chart I-3The Pace Of Change In the Bond Yield (Inverted) Drives The Credit Impulse Unfortunately, it is mathematically impossible for the pace of decline in the bond yield to keep increasing, or indeed stay where it is. Hence, both the interest rate and credit impulses are now on the cusp of down-oscillations, which will bear on economies and financial markets in the second half of the year (Chart of the Week). Growth Rebounded, But Will Now Fade From the fourth quarter of 2018, European and global growth very clearly entered an up-oscillation. Let’s list all the evidence: First and foremost, quarter-on-quarter GDP growth rates picked up: by 2.5 percent in Germany; by 1 percent in the euro area; and by 1 percent in the developed economies (Chart I-4).1 The stark evidence that growth rebounded, but is now rolling over. The best current activity indicators rebounded: specifically the ZEW economic sentiment indicators for both Germany and the euro area (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6); the euro area composite PMI picked up too, albeit very modestly. Chart I-4Global Growth Rebounded... But Is Now Likely To Roll Over Chart I-5Current Activity Indicators ##br##Rebounded... Chart I-6...But Are Now Rolling Over The aforementioned interest rate impulses (inverted) and 6-month credit impulses picked up, and sharply in China (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Short-Term Impulses Rebounded... But Are Now Rolling Over The equity sector that is most exposed to growth – the industrials – strongly outperformed the broader market, especially in the euro area (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Industrials Outperformed Strongly... But Are Now Rolling Over In fact, just the first item on our list, the pick-up in GDP growth, should suffice to demonstrate the up-oscillation in growth, and that should be that. After all, GDP – after revisions – is the broadest measure of economic activity. Nevertheless, for the sceptics, the corroboration of four independent pieces of evidence should, once and for all, confirm that growth rebounded late last year and early this year. Now though, all of these indicators are losing momentum, or outright rolling over. This confirms that growth is now entering a down-oscillation. Why? To repeat, it is the rate of decline in the bond yield that has driven the current up-oscillation in growth and it is mathematically impossible for the rate of decline in the bond yield to keep increasing, or even stay where it is. The ultimate test of a good theory is its predictive power. In the case of investment strategy this means calling the markets right. Our bond yield and credit impulse oscillation framework passes this test with flying colours, especially at the last two turning-points. On February 1, 2018 at the onset of the last down-oscillation we correctly recommended: “Downgrade banks to underweight versus healthcare” Then on August 30 2018 at the onset of the last up-oscillation we correctly recommended:  “Take profits in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks” Now, at the onset of a new down-oscillation, we recommended last week that equity investors should as a first step go underweight European industrials and switch once again to the less economically-sensitive and less price-sensitive healthcare sector. Sector rotation has huge implications for equity market regional and country allocation. Nowadays, regional and country relative performance just comes from the dominant stock and sector fingerprints of each stock market. Next week, we will advise on what the onset of a new down-oscillation means for Europe as a region relative to the world as well as for equity market allocation within Europe. Enhancing The ‘Rule Of 4’ And The ‘Rule Of 3’ The level of interest rates does not drive economic growth, but the level of interest rates – or more precisely, bond yields – does drive the valuations of equities and other risk-assets. Moreover, it does so in a viciously non-linear way. Essentially, at a tipping point, higher bond yields can suddenly undermine the valuation support of equities, triggering a plunge in the stock market and other risk-assets which threatens a disinflationary impulse on the economy. How can we sense this tipping point? Previously we defined it as when the sum of the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB is at 4 percent, the ‘rule of 4’. Conversely, when the sum is below 3 percent, the ‘rule of 3’, the seemingly rich valuation of equities and other risk-assets is well underpinned.2 Higher bond yields can suddenly undermine the valuation support of equities. Did this framework work? Yes, perfectly. On September 13 2018 when the global bond yield was approaching danger level, our framework was spot-on in forecasting that: “Using the 10-year T-bond yield as a roadmap, a short trip to the uplands of 3.5 percent would precede a longer journey down to 2 percent” Nevertheless, today we are enhancing the rule. The global bond yield must include China and it must include the aggregate euro area rather than just Germany. Hence, our enhanced metric is the simple average of the 10-year yields of the U.S., the euro area, and China. But to simplify matters, we can proxy the 10-year yield of the aggregate euro area with the 10-year yield of France. So calculate the simple average of the 10-year yields of the U.S., France, and China (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Rules Of 4 And 3 Become The Rules Of 2.5 And 2 A value approaching 2.5 equates to danger for equities and risk-assets. A value below 2.0 equates to an underpinning for equities and risk-assets. Today, the value stands at 1.8. So to sum up, European (and global) growth will experience a down-oscillation in the second half of 2019, but the support to risk-asset valuations will keep the aggregate European equity market in a sideways channel. For equity investors, the big game in town will be sector rotation, as well as regional and country rotation. Of which, more next week. Stay tuned. Fractal Trading System*  This week we note that the spectacular rally in the Greek stock market this year is now ripe for a countertrend move. We prefer to play this on a hedged basis, so this week’s recommended trade is short Athex versus the Eurostoxx 600. Set the profit target at 7 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Chart I-10 The Fractal Trading System now has five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Based on a GDP weighted average of the U.S., euro area, and Japan. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘The Rule Of 4 Becomes The Rule Of 3’ dated March 21, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Relative Growth & Inflation: Underlying U.S. and European economic growth momentum remains surprisingly similar, with weakness concentrated in manufacturing industries most exposed to trade uncertainty. Realized inflation readings are also fairly close, although there is less spare capacity in the U.S. where wages are growing at a much faster rate. UST-Bund Spread: The yield gap between 10-year U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds is now fairly valued after the larger decline in U.S. yields seen in 2019. The Fed is more likely to deliver less easing relative to market expectations than the ECB, leaving the UST-Bund spread susceptible to a rebound over the 6-12 months. Hedged Vs Unhedged: We continue to recommend overweighting German Bunds vs U.S. Treasuries in global currency-hedged bond portfolios, given the substantial yield pickup gained by hedging into U.S. dollars out of euros. Feature “We should have Draghi instead of our Fed person.” – U.S. President Donald Trump Chart of the WeekIt’s Tough To Get A Weaker USD, Mr. President In his own inimitable way, President Trump in the above quote has called out the glaring difference between the ECB, which seems very willing to deliver more policy stimulus to a struggling euro area economy, and the Fed, which is reluctantly being pulled towards a rate cut. Yet while the current ECB President will be looking for a new job in a few months after his term expires, the reality is that President Trump will have to live with the current Fed leadership for the foreseeable future. Our Central Bank Monitors do indicate a need for easier monetary policy on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart of the Week). The signal from our ECB Monitor is stronger than that of our Fed Monitor, but U.S. Treasury and German bund yields have both fallen sharply with markets pricing in lower inflation expectations and new policy stimulus. The result is a relatively modest narrowing of U.S.-European expected interest rate differentials that has had little impact in weakening the U.S. dollar (USD) versus the euro. With both the Fed and ECB now in play for rate cuts, this is a good time to review the drivers of the spread between U.S. Treasury (UST) yields and German government bond yields – specifically, the widely-followed 10-year Treasury-Bund spread. A Quick Trans-Atlantic Comparison Of Growth, Inflation & Interest Rates The global bond rally seen this year has driven the 10-year UST yield fall back to the 2% level last seen in 2016. The 10-year Bund yield, on the other hand, has plummeted to a new all-time low of -0.3%. The yield move in the U.S. was larger, thus the UST-Bund spread has narrowed from a 2019 peak of 253bps to the current level of 233bps. Breaking down the nominal 10-year yields into the real yield and inflation expectations components illustrates how the current wide UST-Bund spread is almost purely a “real” phenomenon (Chart 2). 10-year CPI rates are 1.9% and 1.4% in the U.S. and euro area, respectively, accounting for 50bps of the overall 233bps UST-Bund spread. Adjusting the nominal yields by those CPI swap rates leaves a real 10-year Treasury yield of +0.1%, compared to -1.7% in Europe (using the 10-year German yield versus 10-year euro CPI swap). Thus, the market-implied real yield differential is 180bps, accounting for the bulk of the nominal UST-Bund spread. Our proxy for the market’s expectation of the real neutral interest rate – the 5-year Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward – is indicating that investors now think the neutral real fed funds rate is 0% and the neutral real ECB rate is around -1% (Chart 3). Chart 2Real Yields Dictating UST-Bund Spread Chart 3Global Yields Discounting Fresh ECB QE? Those market-implied measures typically follow the path of our estimate of the term premium for the 10-year Treasury and Bund. For both markets, however, the term premium is now at a much more negative level than suggested by the past relationship with our real neutral rate proxy. The gap between the 10-year UST term premium (-60bps) and the 10-year German Bund term premium (-124bps) now contributes about 64bps to the nominal UST-Bund spread. When looking at the relative cyclical state of the U.S. and European economies at present, there are surprisingly few differences that show up in the data. Term premia are heavily influenced by investor risk aversion and the demand for safe assets during periods of uncertainty. Given the numerous headline risks that investors are faced with at the moment (U.S.-China trade, slowing global growth, U.S.-Iran military tensions, the start of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election cycle), it is understandable that money has flooded into the safety of developed market government debt. Yet when looking at the relative cyclical state of the U.S. and European economies at present, there are surprisingly few differences that show up in the data (Chart 4). The euro area manufacturing PMI is now at 47.8, below the 50 line that indicates an expanding industrial sector, but may be starting to stabilize. The U.S. ISM manufacturing index, at the same time, now sits at 52.1 and is closing in on the levels seen in Europe. Meanwhile, consumer confidence measures remain elevated both in the U.S. and Europe, even after the recent small dips. Business confidence measures like the NFIB U.S. small business survey and the European Commission’s business climate indicator remain firm relative to the post-crisis history, although both are off their cyclical peaks. That relative dearth of spare capacity in the U.S. compared to Europe is the most fundamental reason for the higher level of U.S. interest rates relative to the euro area. Turning to the state of labor markets on both sides of the Atlantic, the stories are also similar (Chart 5). Unemployment rates are well below the OECD’s estimates of the full employment NAIRU level. Wages are starting to gain some upward momentum in Europe, but U.S. Average Hourly Earnings are growing about one percentage point faster than equivalent measures in the euro area. Chart 4Not A Huge U.S.-Europe Cyclical Growth Gap Chart 5Not A Huge U.S.-Europe Structural Growth Gap The implication here is that there is less slack in the U.S. labor market than in Europe, as exemplified by the fast rate of wage growth in the U.S. Chart 6A Bit More Wage Inflation In The U.S. That relative dearth of spare capacity in the U.S. compared to Europe is the most fundamental reason for the higher level of U.S. interest rates relative to the euro area (Chart 6). U.S. potential GDP growth is only marginally faster than it is in Europe, with virtually the same rate of long-term labor productivity growth (about 0.5% per year, according to the OECD). Yet according to the New York Fed’s most recent estimates of the natural real interest rate (“r-star”), the level of the inflation-adjusted policy rate that would be considered neither stimulative nor restrictive given current estimates of spare capacity, is 0.7% in the U.S. and -0.4% in Europe.1 Looking ahead, both the Fed and ECB are likely to deliver some monetary easing in the coming months, perhaps as soon as the next set of policy meetings in late July. The market expects much more from the Fed, though, with 92bps of cuts discounted over the next twelve months. 16bps of cuts are also expected from the ECB, but that is more likely to be delivered than the market expectation for the Fed. There is even a chance that the ECB could restart their Asset Purchase Program, although likely not after delivering a small rate cut first. In any case, there is likely to be more disappointment from the Fed compared to the ECB over the next 6-12 months, with the result being some upward pressure placed on the UST-Bund spread. Bottom Line: Underlying U.S. and European economic growth momentum remains surprisingly similar, with weakness concentrated in manufacturing industries most exposed to trade uncertainty. Realized inflation readings are also fairly close, although there is less spare capacity in the U.S. where wages are growing at a much faster rate. There is likely to be more disappointment from the Fed compared to the ECB over the next 6-12 months, with the result being some upward pressure placed on the UST-Bund spread. Valuation & Currency Risk In The UST-Bund Spread Our valuation model for the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread indicates that the current spread level of 233bps is very close to fair value of 223bps (Chart 7). Chart 7UST-Bund Spread Fairly Valued The main variables in the model are the spread between the fed funds rate and the ECB 1-week refinancing rate, the ratio of the unemployment rates of the U.S. and euro area, and the differential between the headline inflation rates of the U.S. and euro area. The model also includes the balance sheets of the Fed and ECB as variables, to capture any effects on the Treasury-Bund spread from quantitative easing programs. Historically, the UST-Bund spread has been driven mostly by the gap between Fed and ECB policy rates and, to a lesser extent, the relative state of unemployment. Inflation differentials have become less of a driver of the spread during the years since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 8), although this is part of the broader issue of wage growth diverging from price inflation in the developed economies. The reaction function of the central banks, and of bond yields, is still rooted in the amount of perceived spare economic capacity – and future inflation potential – implied by unemployment rates. Looking ahead, if the Fed and ECB were both to deliver the full amount of easing over the next year discounted in the USD and EUR OIS curves, then the fair value of the spread would narrow to 208bps. The one-year-ahead forward rates for both the 10-year UST and German Bund imply a spread tightening to 229bps, which means that it would likely require the Fed delivering the full 92bps of easing discounted over the next twelve months – not our base case view – to make betting on additional UST-Bund spread tightening a profitable trade that would beat the forwards. So while the case for betting on additional UST-Bund spread narrowing is a poor one at current levels, the case for favoring Bunds over Treasuries on a currency-hedged basis in U.S. dollar terms is strong. Going long German government bonds vs U.S. Treasuries, while hedging the euro currency exposure into U.S. dollars, actually generates a pickup in yield, despite the fact that the entire German yield curve has negative yields out to 15-year maturities. Chart 9 shows the U.S.-German bond yield spreads for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year maturities. The solid line in all panels represents the yield spread in currency-unhedged terms, while the dotted line in all panels shows the spread after hedging the Bund yields into U.S. dollar equivalents (using 3-month currency forwards). Across all four maturities shown, the wide unhedged U.S.-German spreads turn into negative spreads after currency hedging. This is due to the considerably higher short-term interest rates in the U.S. that are gained when selling euros forward for dollars. Chart 8UST-Bund Spread Driven By Fed/ECB Gap Chart 9UST-Bund Spreads Look VERY Different After Hedging FX Risk Thus, going long German government bonds vs U.S. Treasuries, while hedging the euro currency exposure into U.S. dollars, actually generates a pickup in yield, despite the fact that the entire German yield curve has negative yields out to 15-year maturities. When looking at the relative performance of German bonds relative to not only U.S. Treasuries, but the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index, Germany has basically matched the index over the past year in currency-hedged terms (Chart 10, middle panel). On an unhedged basis, the relative performance of German debt is obviously far more volatile given the swings in the euro. Yet even in unhedged terms, the relative performance of Germany versus the U.S. appears to be turning around, despite the recent additional narrowing of the UST-Bund spread (bottom panel). Chart 10Favor Bunds Over USTs In USD-Hedged Bond Portfolios Chart 11UST-Bund Spread Tightening Looks Stretched This highlights the risk of solely looking at the spread between yields denominated in different currencies. FX movements can dominate relative yield changes, as has been the case of late with the EUR/USD exchange rate rising off the 2019 lows on the back of falling UST yields. We continue to prefer viewing cross-country spread trades in currency-hedged terms when we make our recommendations. On that basis, we like hedged Bunds over U.S. Treasuries – especially with the current UST-Bund spread now discounting a lot of relatively bad news in the U.S. versus Europe (Chart 11). Bottom Line: The Fed is more likely to deliver less easing relative to market expectations than the ECB, leaving the UST-Bund spread susceptible to a rebound over the next 6-12 months. We continue to recommend overweighting German Bunds vs U.S. Treasuries in global currency-hedged bond portfolios, given the substantial yield pickup gained by hedging into U.S. dollars out of euros. Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The New York Fed’s r-star estimates can be found here: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/rstar Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Business sector selling price inflation is sinking like a stone following the bond market’s melting inflation expectations, at a time when wage inflation continues to expand smartly. There are good odds that profit margins have already peaked for the cycle, and we reiterate our cyclically cautious overall equity market view. The souring global macro backdrop, rising policy uncertainty, melting real yields and a stampede into bonds all signal that it still pays to hold global gold miners as a portfolio hedge. Three key defense manufacturers’ demand drivers – global rearmament, a space race and cyber security – remain upbeat and will continue to underpin relative industry profitability. Recent Changes There are no changes to the portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature The SPX fell from all-time highs last week on the eve of the G20 Trump-Xi meeting, the outcome of which will dominate trading this week. The “three hopes” rally, as we have coined it predicated upon a U.S./China trade deal, Chinese massive reflation and a fresh Fed easing cycle, is at risk of disappointment as all the good news is likely already priced into stocks. Stocks may suffer a buy the rumor sell the news setback as they did back in early-December right after the Argentina G20 meeting. Following up from last week’s charts 3-6 that generated higher-than-usual responses from clients, we were encouraged to broaden out these eighteen indicators and try to include some positive ones as it appeared that we may be cherry picking the data.1 Put differently, there must be some economic data series that would offset the grim U.S. macro backdrop we painted and likely aid the Fed in its looming easing cycle. This week we update our corporate pricing power table, highlight a safe haven materials subgroup, and an industrials bulletproof subindex. With regard to the 2018 stock market related fiscal easing boost, neither corporate tax rates would drop further in 2019 nor would buybacks hit the $1tn mark this year. Already, the Standard & Poor’s reported preliminary data that showed buybacks contracted sequentially by 7.7% in Q1/2019 (top panel, Chart 1).2 Retail sales and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) are indeed expanding, however retail sales have decelerated lately (top & second panels, Chart 2). In contrast, consumer sentiment and consumer confidence are contracting on a year-over-year (yoy) basis and the U.S. leading economic indicator is steeply decelerating near 2%/annum from almost 7% at the beginning of the year (middle, fourth & bottom panels, Chart 2). Chart 1Buybacks Are Decelerating Chart 2Retail Sales And PCE Are Expanding   The mortgage application purchase index is gaining momentum courtesy of the 125bps drop in interest rates over the past eight months. But, equity market internals suggest that some of these applications may not convert into home sales: relative homebuilders share price momentum is contracting (Chart 3). As a reminder we recently monetized relative gains of 10% in the S&P homebuilding index, since inception.3  Sticking with housing, new median single family home prices remain 10% below their 2017 zenith, and the Case-Shiller 20-city index growth rate hit the zero line recently on a month-over-month basis. New home sales are in contraction territory (Chart 4). Chart 3Are Cracks Forming… Chart 4…In The Housing Market?   On the labor front, while the unemployment rate and unemployment insurance claims are both at generationally low levels, it will be extremely difficult for either of these labor market series to fall significantly from current levels. In contrast, there are rising odds that the deteriorating credit quality backdrop will soon infect the labor market (top & second panels, Chart 5). Already, “jobs are hard to get” confirming that the unemployment rate cannot fall much further from current levels (middle panel, Chart 5). Not only is credit quality deteriorating at the margin, but also loan growth is decelerating with our credit impulse diffusion indicator falling below the boom/bust line (fourth & bottom panels, Chart 5). U.S. manufacturing, the most cyclical part of the U.S. economy, is under intense pressure. The U.S./China trade tussle is the culprit. Industrial production and capacity utilization petered out last year in September and November, respectively (top & second panels, Chart 6). Chart 5Could The Labor Market Sour Next? Chart 6Manufacturing Has No…   Chart 7…Pulse Durable goods orders are not showing any signs of a turnaround with overall orders flirting with the zero line and core orders contracting (third panel, Chart 6). Total business sales-to-inventories are stuck in the contraction zone (bottom panel, Chart 6). Manufacturing survey data series are all in a synchronous meltdown. Seven regional Fed manufacturing surveys are all sinking (Chart 7). Such broad-based weakness bodes ill for the upcoming ISM manufacturing survey print (we went to print on Friday after the market close, and as a reminder we observed Canada Day yesterday).   The ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio sits right at one, warning that more profit trouble looms for the SPX (bottom panel, Chart 1). Keep in mind that typically the ISM manufacturing survey pulls down the ISM services one, as the former represents the most cyclical parts of the U.S. economy. Both are currently contracting on a yoy basis (Chart 8). Adding it all up, the negative economic data clearly dominate and only a handful of data series remain standing. The final tally on these indicators is fifteen negative and five positive (Chart 9). We are still awaiting a turn in the majority of the data to confirm the economy is on a solid footing. Chart 8ISM Services Survey Is Contracting Chart 10Heed The Message From The GS Current Activity Indicator Goldman Sachs’ Current Activity Indicator (GSCAI, a first principal component of 37 weekly and monthly data series) does an excellent job in capturing all these forces. Currently, the GSCAI is steeply decelerating, warning that SPX profit growth will surprise to the downside in coming quarters (top panel, Chart 10).  Thus, we reiterate that a cyclically (3-12 month horizon) cautious equity market stance is still warranted. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the sanguine equity BCA House View. This week we update our corporate pricing power table, highlight a safe haven materials subgroup, and an industrials bulletproof subindex. Corporate Pricing Power Update U.S. Equity Strategy’s corporate sector pricing power proxy has sunk further since our last update three months ago, and is now deflating 1.1%/annum. Chart 11 shows that the last time the business sector was mired in deflation was during the 2015/16 manufacturing recession. Chart 11Profit Margin Trouble To Persist However, the big difference between now and 2015/16 is that wages are currently expanding at a healthy clip, warning that the corporate sector margin squeeze will not abate any time soon. Granted, unit labor costs are indeed contracting on the back of a surge in productivity, and may thus provide a partial offset. SPX margins have been contracting for two consecutive quarters and sell-side analysts forecast that they will contract for another two. Our margin proxy corroborates this grim sell-side profit margin expectation, and similar to the 2015/2016 episode is firing a margin squeeze warning shot (bottom panel, Chart 11). Digging beneath the surface, our corporate pricing power proxy is revealing. As a reminder, we calculate industry group pricing power from the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE and commodity growth rates for each of the 60 industry groups we track. Table 2 also highlights shorter term pricing power trends and each industry's spread to overall inflation. Two thirds of the industries we cover are lifting selling prices, but only a quarter are raising prices at a faster clip than overall inflation. On a selling price inflation trend basis, 81% of the industries we cover are either flat or in a downtrend (Table 2). Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power There is only one commodity-related industry in the top ten, a sea change from our late-March update when the commodity complex dominated the top ranks occupying six spots (Table 2). Interestingly, industrials have a healthy showing in the top sixteen spots with five entries. On the flip side, energy-related industries continue to populate the bottom of the ranks as WTI crude oil is still deflating from the October 2018 peak. In sum, business sector selling price inflation is sinking like a stone following the bond market’s melting inflation expectations, at a time when wage inflation continues to expand smartly. There are good odds that profit margins have already peaked for the cycle, and we reiterate our cyclically cautious overall equity market view. In sum, business sector selling price inflation is sinking like a stone following the bond market’s melting inflation expectations, at a time when wage inflation continues to expand smartly. There are good odds that profit margins have already peaked for the cycle, and we reiterate our cyclically cautious overall equity market view. Glittering Gold On March 4th, 2019 we reiterated our view that it still made sense to hold an above benchmark allocation to gold equities as a portfolio hedge.4 While our overweight position is in the red since inception, it has recouped 15% versus the broad market since our early-March update, and more gains are in store in the coming months. When global growth is in retreat investors bid up the price of the safe-haven shiny metal which in turn pulls global gold miners higher. The opposite is also true. Chart 12 shows this inverse relationship gold mining equities have with global growth. In more detail, relative share prices move inversely with the global manufacturing PMI (PMI shown inverted, Chart 12). Chart 12Gold Miners Benefit From… Currently, economists, tracked by Bloomberg, have been aggressively decreasing their estimates for 2019 global real GDP growth, down 50bps year-to-date to 3.3% (bottom panel, Chart 13). Similarly, the global ZEW economic sentiment survey has collapsed to levels last hit during the great recession (top panel, Chart 14). Chart 13…Global Growth… Chart 14…Slowdown   Tack on the sustained increase in global policy uncertainty with trade wars, Iranian sanctions, Brexit and Italian politics to name a few, and global gold miners are in the pole position (top panel, Chart 13). As a result, global equity risk premia have come out of hibernation and signal that the gold mining rally has more legs (middle panel, Chart 14). This souring global macro backdrop has dealt a blow to global real yields that are melting. Given that gold equities sport a low dividend yield, they are primary beneficiaries of this disinflationary global economic backdrop (real yield shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 13). Chart 15Negative Yielding Bonds Boost Global Gold Miners Meanwhile, investors have been piling into global bonds and currently negative yielding bonds have surpassed the $13tn mark. Such a stampede into negative yielding bonds has been a boon to global gold mining stocks (Chart 15). This investor risk aversion is also evident in the total return stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio: bonds have been outperforming equities since late-September 2018. Since the early 1990s, relative share prices have been moving in the opposite direction of the S/B ratio, and the current message is to expect more gains in the former (S/B ratio shown inverted, Chart 16). Chart 16When Bonds Outperform Stocks, Buy Gold Miners Chart 17A Tad Overbought, But Still Cheap Meanwhile, the Fed is about to embark on an easing cycle courtesy of a softening economic backdrop and any insurance interest rate cuts will likely put a further dent in the dollar. The upshot is that gold is priced in U.S. dollars similar to the broad commodity complex and tends to rise in price when the greenback depreciates and vice versa. A lower trade-weighted dollar will also boost relative share prices (U.S. dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 14). Finally, while relative share prices are slightly overbought, relative valuations remain in the neutral zone (Chart 17). In sum, the souring global macro backdrop, rising policy uncertainty, melting real yields and a stampede into bonds all signal that it still pays to hold global gold miners as a portfolio hedge. Bottom Line: We remain overweight the global gold mining index. The ticker symbol for the global gold mining exchange traded fund is: GDX: US. Defense Delivers Recent M&A news in the aerospace & defense sector with UTX bidding for RTN was initially cheered by investors, but President Trump signaled that such a deal would decrease competition in the sector and U.S. regulators would block it. Irrespective of the outcome of this deal, we remain overweight the pure-play BCA Defense Index on a structural basis and also reiterate its high-conviction overweight status. Three key pillars will sustain the upbeat sales and profit backdrop for defense stocks. In sum, the souring global macro backdrop, rising policy uncertainty, melting real yields and a stampede into bonds all signal that it still pays to hold global gold miners as a portfolio hedge. First, the global arms race is alive and well and any governments seeking to augment their defense capabilities have to solicit the U.S. defense manufacturers. U.S. defense spending is rising at a healthy clip representing the major source of revenue growth for the industry (Chart 18). Defense capital goods orders have taken off and backlogs are at the highest level since 2012. The industry’s shipments-to-inventories ratio is also probing decade highs and weapons exports are near all-time highs (Chart 19). Chart 18Defense Spending Remains Upbeat Chart 19Healthy Operating Metrics   Second, there is a space race going on with China and India working on manned missions to the moon, but recently President Trump signaled that he would like to beat both of these countries to the moon and in outer space. The defense industry also benefits when global space related demand is on the rise. Finally, cyber security remains a global threat and governments are serious about fighting it off decisively given the sensitivity of the data that cyber criminals are after. While defense stocks are not pure-play software outfits combating cyber criminals, recent industry tuck in acquisitions include such software companies in order for defense contractors to offer one-stop shop solutions to governments. Netting it all up, three key defense manufacturers’ demand drivers – global rearmament, a space race and cyber security – remain upbeat and will continue to underpin relative industry profitability. With regard to the financial health of the sector, balance sheets are pristine with net debt-to-EBITDA registering below the broad non-financial equity market and below 2x. Interest coverage is sky high at over 10x, again trumping the broad market. On the return on equity (ROE) front, defense stocks have the upper hand trading at an all-time high ROE of 39% or more than twice the broad market ROE (Chart 20). Looking at the valuation backdrop, relative valuations have corrected recently and defense equities no longer command a premium versus the overall market on both an EV/EBITDA and P/E basis (second & bottom panels, Chart 21). Chart 20Excellent Financial Standing Chart 21Valuations Have Corrected   Netting it all up, three key defense manufacturers’ demand drivers – global rearmament, a space race and cyber security – remain upbeat and will continue to underpin relative industry profitability. Bottom Line: The BCA Defense Index remains a secular overweight and a high-conviction overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA Defense Index are: LLL, LMT, NOC, GD and RTN. Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com          Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Cracks Forming” dated June 24, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      https://us.spindices.com/documents/index-news-and-announcements/2019062… 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Locking In Homebuilder Gains” dated May 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly,” dated March 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Central banks globally have turned dovish, with the Fed virtually promising to cut rates in July. But this will be an “insurance” cut, like 1995 and 1998, not the beginning of a pre-recessionary easing cycle. The global expansion remains intact, with the fundamental drivers of U.S. consumption robust and China likely to ramp up its credit stimulus over the coming months. The Fed will cut once or twice, but not four times over the next 10 months as the futures markets imply. Underlying U.S. inflation – properly measured – is trending higher to above 2%. U.S. GDP growth this year will be around 2.5%. Inflation expectations will move higher as the crude oil price rises. Unemployment is at a 50-year low and the U.S. stock market at an historical peak. These factors suggest bond yields are more likely to rise than fall from current levels. The upside for U.S. equities is limited, but earnings growth should be better than the 3% the bottom-up consensus expects. The key for allocation will be when to shift in the second half into higher-beta China-related plays, such as Europe and Emerging Markets. For now, we remain overweight the lower-beta U.S. equity market, neutral on credit, and underweight government bonds. To hedge against the positive impact of China stimulus, we raise Australia to neutral, and re-emphasize our overweights on the Industrials and Energy sectors. Feature Overview Precautionary Dovishness – Or Looming Recession?   Recommendations Central banks everywhere have taken a decidedly dovish turn in recent weeks. June’s FOMC statement confirmed that “uncertainties about the outlook have increased….[We] will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion,” hinting broadly at a rate cut in July. The Bank of Japan’s Kuroda said he would “take additional easing action without hesitation,” and hinted at a Modern Monetary Theory-style combination of fiscal and monetary policy. European Central Bank President Draghi mentioned the possibility of restarting asset purchases. There are two possible explanations. Either the global economy is heading into recession, and central banks are preparing for a full-blown easing cycle. Or these are “insurance” cuts aimed at prolonging the expansion, as happened in 1995 and 1998, or similar to when the Fed went on hold for 12 months in 2016 (Chart 1). Our view is that it is most likely the latter. The reason for this is that the main drivers of the global economy, U.S. consumption ($14 trillion) and the Chinese economy ($13 trillion) are likely to be strong over the next 12 months. U.S. wage growth continues to accelerate, consumer sentiment is close to a 50-year high, and the savings rate is elevated (Chart 2); as a result core U.S. retail sales have begun to pick up momentum in recent months (Chart 3). Unless something exogenous severely damages consumer optimism, it is hard to see how the U.S. can go into recession in the near future, considering that consumption is 70% of GDP. Moreover, despite weaknesses in the manufacturing sector – infected by the China-led slowdown in the rest of the world – U.S. service sector growth and the labor market remain solid. This resembles 1998 and 2016, but is different from the pre-recessionary environments of 2000 and 2007 (Chart 4). There is also no sign on the horizon of the two factors that have historically triggered recessions: a sharp rise in private-sector debt, or accelerating inflation (Chart 5). Chart 1Insurance Cuts, Or Full Easing Cycle? Chart 2Consumption Fundamentals Are Strong... Chart 3...Leading To Rebound In Retail Sales Chart 4Manufacturing Weak, But Services Holding Up   Chart 5No Signs Of Usual Recession Triggers China’s efforts to reflate via credit creation have been somewhat half-hearted since the start of the year. Investment by state-owned companies has picked up, but the private sector has been spooked by the risk of a trade war and has slowed capex (Chart 6). China may have hesitated from full-blown stimulus because the authorities in April were confident of a successful outcome to trade talks with the U.S., and a bit concerned that the liquidity was going into speculation rather than the real economy. But we see little reason why they will not open the taps fully if growth remains sluggish and trade tensions heighten.1 Chinese credit creation clearly has a major impact on many components of global growth – in particular European exports, Emerging Markets earnings, and commodity prices – but the impact often takes 6-12 months to come through (Chart 7). A key question is when investors should position for this to happen. We think this decision is a little premature now, but will be a key call for the second half of the year. Chart 6China's Half-Hearted Reflation Chart 7China Credit Growth Affects The World Chart 8Fed Won't Cut As Much As Market Wants... The Fed has so clearly signaled rate cuts that we see it cutting by perhaps 50 basis points over the next few months (maybe all in one go in July if it wants to “shock and awe” the market). But the futures market is pricing in four 25 bps cuts by April next year. With GDP growth likely to be around 2.5% this year, unemployment at a 50-year low, trend inflation above 2%,2 and the stock market at an historical high, we find this improbable. Two cuts would be similar to what happened in 1995, 1998 and (to a degree) 2016 (Chart 8). In this environment, we think it likely that equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. When the Fed cuts by less than the market is expecting, long-term rates tend to rise (Chart 9). BCA’s U.S. bond strategists have shown that after mid-cycle rate cuts, yields typically rise: by 59 bps in 1995-6, 58 bps in 1998, and 19 bps in 2002.3 A combination of rising inflation, stronger growth ex-U.S., a less dovish Fed that the market expects, and a rising oil price (which will push up inflation expectations) makes it unlikely – absent an outright recession – that global risk-free yields will fall much below current levels. Moreover, June’s BOA Merrill Lynch survey cited long government bonds as the most crowded trade at the moment, and surveys of investor positioning suggest duration among active investors is as long as at any time since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 10). Chart 9...So Bond Yields Are Likely To Rise Chart 10Investors Betting On Further Rate Decline The outlook for U.S. equities is not that exciting. Valuations are not cheap (with forward PE of 16.5x), but earnings should be revised up from the currently very cautious level: the bottom-up consensus forecasts S&P 500 EPS growth at only 3% in 2019 (and -3% YoY in Q2). We have sympathy for the view that there are three put options that will prop up stock prices in the event of external shocks: the Fed put, the Xi put, and the Trump put. Relating to the last of these, it is notable that President Trump tends to turn more aggressive in trade talks with China whenever the U.S. stock market is strong, but more conciliatory when it falls (Chart 11). For now, therefore, we remain overweight U.S. equities, as a lower beta way to play an environment that continues to be positive – but uncertain – for stocks. But we continue to watch for the timing to move into higher-beta China-related markets as the effects of China’s stimulus start to come through. Chart 11Trump Turns Softer When Market Falls   Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   What Our Clients Are Asking Chart 12Temporary Forces Drove Inflation Downturn Why Is Inflation So Low? After reaching 2% in July 2018, U.S. core PCE currently stands at 1.6%, close to 18 month lows. This plunge in inflation, along with increased worries about the trade war and continued economic weakness, has led the market to believe that the Fed Funds Rate is currently above the neutral rate, and that several rate cuts are warranted in order to move policy away from restrictive territory. We believe that the recent bout of low inflation is temporary. The main contributor to the fall in core PCE has been financial services prices, which shaved off up to 40 basis points from core PCE (Chart 12, panel 1). However, assets under management are a big determinant of financial services prices, making this measure very sensitive to the stock market (panel 2). Therefore, we expect this component of core PCE to stabilize as equity prices continue to rise. The effect of higher equity prices, and the stabilization of other goods that were affected by the slowdown of global growth in late 2018 and early 2019, may already have started to push inflation higher. Month-on-month core PCE grew at an annualized rate of 3% in April, the highest pace since the end of 2017. Meanwhile, trimmed mean PCE, a measure that has historically been a more stable and reliable gauge of inflationary pressures, is at a near seven-year high (panel 3). The above implies that the market might be overestimating how much the Fed is going to ease. We believe that the Fed will likely cut once this year to soothe the pain caused by the trade war on financial markets. However, with unemployment at 50-year lows, and inflation set to rise again, the Fed is unlikely to deliver the 92 basis points of cuts currently priced by the OIS curve for the next 12 months. This implies that investors should continue to underweight bonds. Chart 13Turning On The Taps Will China Really Ramp Up Its Stimulus? The direction of markets over the next 12 months (a bottoming of euro area and Emerging Markets growth, commodity prices, the direction of the USD) are highly dependent on whether China further increases monetary stimulus in the event of a breakdown in trade negotiations with the U.S. But we hear much skepticism from clients: aren’t the Chinese authorities, rather, focused on reducing debt and clamping down on shadow banking? Aren’t they worried that liquidity will simply flow into speculation and have little impact on the real economy? Now the government has someone to blame for a slowdown (President Trump), won’t they use that as an excuse – and, to that end, are preparing the population for a period of pain by quoting as analogies the Long March in the 1930s and the Korea War (when China ground down U.S. willingness to prolong the conflict)? We think it unlikely that the Chinese government would be prepared to allow growth to slump. Every time in the past 10 years that growth has slowed (with, for example, the manufacturing PMI falling significantly below 50) they have always accelerated credit growth – on the basis of the worst-case scenario (Chart 13, panel 1). Why would they react differently this time, particularly since 2019 is a politically sensitive year, with the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic in October and several other important anniversaries? Moreover, the government is slipping behind in its target to double per capita income in the 10 years to end-2020 (panel 2). GDP growth needs to be 6.5-7% over the next 18 months to achieve the target. The government’s biggest worry is employment, where prospects are slipping rapidly (panel 3). This also makes it difficult for the authorities to retaliate against U.S. companies that have large operations, such as Apple or General Motors, since such measures would hurt their Chinese employees. Besides a significant revaluation of the RMB (which we think likely), China has few cards to play in the event of a full-blown trade war other than fully turning on the liquidity tap again. Aren’t There Signs Of Bubbliness In Equity Markets? Clients have asked whether the current market environment has been showing any classic signs of euphoria. These usually appear with lots of initial public offerings (IPO), irrational M&A activity, and excess investor optimism. The IPO market has some similarities to the years leading up to the dot-com bubble, but it is important to look below the surface. The percentage of IPOs with negative earnings in 2018 was similar to the previous peak in 1999. However, the average first-day return of IPOs in 2019, while still above the historical average, has been much lower than that during the dot-com bubble period (Chart 14, panel 1). There is also a difference in the composition of firms going public. There are now many IPOs for biotech firms that have heavily invested in R&D, and so have relatively low sales currently but await a breakthrough in their products; by their nature, these are loss-making (panel 2). Cross-sector, unrelated M&A activity has also often been a sign of bubble peaks. It is a consequence of firms stretching to find inorganic growth late in the cycle. Such deals are characterized by high deal premiums, and are usually conducted through stock purchases rather than in cash. The current average deal premium is below its historical average (panel 3). Additionally, 2018 and 2019-to-date M&A deals conducted using cash represented 60% and 90% of the total respectively, compared to only 17% between 1996 and 2000. Investor sentiment is also moderately pessimistic despite the rally in the S&P 500 since the beginning of the year (panel 4). This caution suggests that investors are fearful of the risk of recession rather than overly positive about market prospects, despite the U.S. market being at an historical high. Given the above, we do not see any signals of the sort of euphoria and bubbliness that typically accompanies stock market tops. Will Japan Benefit From Chinese Reflation? Japan has been one of the worst-performing developed equity markets since March 2009, when global equities hit their post-crisis bottom in both USD (Chart 15) and local currency terms. Now with increasing market confidence in China’s reflationary policies, clients are asking if Japan is a good China play given its close ties with the Chinese economy. Our answer is No. Chart 16Downgrade Japan To Underweight   It’s true that Japanese equities did respond to past Chinese reflationary efforts, but the outperformances were muted and short-lived (Chart 16, panel 1). Even though Japanese exports to China will benefit from Chinese reflationary policy (panel 5), MSCI Japan index earnings growth does not have strong correlation with Japanese exports to China, as shown in panel 4. This is not surprising given that exports to China account for only about 3% of nominal GDP in Japan (compared to almost 6% for Australia, for example). The MSCI Japan index is dominated by Industrials (21%) and Consumer Discretionary (18%). Financials, Info Tech, Communication Services and Healthcare each accounts for about 8-10%. Other than the Communication Services sector, all other major sectors in Japan have underperformed their global peers since the Global Financial Crisis (panels 2 and 3). The key culprit for such poor performance is Japan’s structural deflationary environment. Wage growth has been poor despite a tight labor market. This October’s consumption tax increase will put further downward pressure on domestic consumers. There is no sign of the two factors that have historically triggered recessions: a sharp rise in private-sector debt, or accelerating inflation. As such, we are downgrading Japan to a slight underweight in order to close our underweight in Australia (see page 16). This also aligns our recommendation with the output from our DM Country Allocation Quant Model, which has structurally underweighted Japan since its inception in January 2016. Global Economy Chart 17Is Consumption Enough To Prop Up U.S. Growth? Overview: The tight monetary policy of last year (with the Fed raising rates and China slowing credit growth) has caused a slowdown in the global manufacturing sector, which is now threatening to damage worldwide consumption and the relatively closed U.S. economy too. The key to a rebound will be whether China ramps up the monetary stimulus it began in January but which has so far been rather half-hearted. Meanwhile, central banks everywhere are moving to cut rates as an “insurance” against further slowdown. U.S.: Growth data has been mixed in recent months. The manufacturing sector has been affected by the slowdown in EM and Europe, with the manufacturing ISM falling to 52.1 in May and threatening to dip below 50 (Chart 17, panel 2). However, consumption remains resilient, with no signs of stress in the labor market, average hourly earnings growing at 3.1% year-on-year, and consumer confidence at a high level. As a result, retail sales surprised to the upside in May, growing 3.2% YoY. The trade war may be having some negative impact on business sentiment, however, with capex intentions and durable goods orders weakening in recent months. Euro Area: Current conditions in manufacturing continue to look dire. The manufacturing PMI is below 50 and continues to decline (Chart 18, panel 1). In export-focused markets like Germany, the situation looks even worse: Germany’s manufacturing PMI is at 45.4, and expectations as measured by the ZEW survey have deteriorated again recently. Solid wage growth and some positive fiscal thrust (in Italy, France, and even Germany) have kept consumption stable, but the recent tick-up in German unemployment raises the question of how sustainable this is. Recovery will be dependent on Chinese stimulus triggering a rebound in global trade. Chart 18Few Signs Of Recovery In Global Ex-U.S. Growth Japan: The slowdown in China continues to depress industrial production and leading indicators (panel 2). But maybe the first “green shoots” are appearing thanks to China’s stimulus: in April, manufacturing orders rose by 16.3% month-on-month, compared to -11.4% in March. Nonetheless, consumption looks vulnerable, with wage growth negative YoY each month so far this year, and the consumption tax rise in October likely to hit consumption further. The Bank of Japan’s six-year campaign of maximum monetary easing is having little effect, with core core inflation stuck at 0.5% YoY, despite a small pickup in recent months – no doubt because the easy monetary policy has been offset by a steady tightening of fiscal policy. Emerging Markets: China’s growth has slipped since the pickup in February and March caused by a sharp increase in credit creation. Seemingly, the authorities became more confident about a trade agreement with the U.S., and worried about how much of the extra credit was going into speculation, rather than the real economy. The manufacturing PMI, having jumped to almost 51 in March, has slipped back to 50.2. A breakdown of trade talks would undoubtedly force the government to inject more liquidity. Elsewhere in EM, growth has generally been weak, because of the softness in Chinese demand. In Q1, GDP growth was -3.2% QoQ annualized in South Africa, -1.7% in Korea, and -0.8% in both Brazil and Mexico. Only less China-sensitive markets such as Russia (3.3%) and India (6.5%) held up. Interest rates: U.S. inflation has softened on the surface, with the core PCE measure slipping to 1.6% in April. However, some of the softness was driven by transitory factors, notably the decline in financial advisor fees (which tend to move in line with the stock market) which deducted 0.5 points from core PCE inflation. A less volatile measure, the trimmed mean PCE deflator, however, continues to trend up and is above the Fed’s 2% target. Partly because of the weaker historical inflation data, inflation expectations have also fallen (panel 4). As a result, central banks everywhere have become more dovish, with the Australian and New Zealand reserve banks cutting rates and the Fed and ECB raising the possibility they may ease too. The consequence has been a big fall in 10-year government bonds yields: in the U.S. to only 2% from 3.1% as recently as last September. Global Equities Chart 19Worrisome Earnings Prospects Remain Cautiously Optimistic, Adding Another China Hedge: Global equities managed to eke out a small gain of 3.3% in Q2 despite a sharp loss of 5.9% in May. Within equities, our defensive country allocation worked well as DM equities outperformed EM by 2.9% in Q2. Our cyclical tilt in global sector positioning, however, did not pan out, largely due to the 2% underperformance in global Energy as the oil price dropped by 2% in Q2. Going forward, BCA’s House View remains that global economic growth will pick up sometime in the second half thanks to accommodative monetary policies globally and the increasing likelihood of a large stimulus from China to counter the negative effect from trade tensions. This implies that equities are likely to rally again after a period of congestion within a trading range, supporting a cautiously optimistic portfolio allocation for the next 9-12 months. The “optimistic” side of our allocation is reflected in two aspects: 1) overweight equities vs. bonds at the asset class level; and 2) overweight cyclicals vs. defensives at the global sector level. However, corporate profit margins are rolling over and earnings growth revisions have been negative (Chart 19). Therefore, the “cautious” side of our allocation remains a defensive country allocation, reflected by overweighting DM vs. EM. Our macro view hinges largely on what happens to China. There is an increasing likelihood that China may be on a reflationary path to stimulate economic growth. We upgraded global Industrials in March to hedge against China’s re-acceleration. Now we upgrade Australia to neutral from a long-term underweight, by downgrading Japan to a slight underweight from neutral, because Australia will benefit more from China’s reflationary policies (see next page). Chart 20Australian Equities: Close The Underweight Upgrade Australian Equities To Neutral The relative performance of MSCI Australian equities to global equities has been closely correlated with the CRB metal price most of the time. Since the end of 2015, however, the CRB metals index has increased by more than 40%, yet Australian equities did not outperform (Chart 20, panel 1). Why? The MSCI Australian index is concentrated in Financials (mostly banks) and Materials (mostly mining), as shown in panel 2. Aussie Materials have outperformed their global peers, but the banks have not (panel 3). The banks are a major source of financing for the mining companies (hence the positive correlation with metal prices). They are also the source of financing for the Aussie housing markets, which have weighed down on the banks’ performance over the past few years due to concerns about stretched valuations. We have been structurally underweight Australian equities because of our unfavorable view on industrial commodities, and also our concerns on the Australian housing market and the problems of the banks. This has served us well, as Australian equities have done poorly relative to the global aggregate since late 2012. Now interest rates in Australia have come down significantly. Lower mortgage rates should help stabilize house prices, which suffered in Q1 their worst year-on-year decline, 7.7%, in over three decades. Australian equity earnings growth is still slowing relative to the global earnings, but the speed of slowing down has decreased significantly. With 6% of GDP coming from exports to China, Aussie profit growth should benefit from reflationary policies from China (panel 4). Relative valuation, however, is not cheap (panel 5). All considered, we are closing our underweight in Australian equities as another hedge against a Chinese-led re-acceleration in economic growth. This is financed by downgrading Japan to a slight underweight (for more on Japan, see What Our Clients Are Asking, on page 11). Government Bonds Chart 21Limited Downside In Yields Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration: After the Fed signaled at its June meeting that rates cuts were likely on the way, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dropped to 1.97% overnight on June 20, the lowest since November 2016. Overall, the 10-year yield dropped by 40 bps in Q2 to end the quarter at 2%. BCA’s Fed Monitor is now indicating that easier monetary policy is required. But that is already more than discounted in the 92 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months priced in at the front end of the yield curve, and by the current low level of Treasury yields. (Chart 21). We see the likelihood of one or two “insurance” cuts by the Fed, but the current environment (with a record-high stock market, tight corporate spreads, 50-year low unemployment rate, and 2019 GDP on track to reach 2.5%) is not compatible with a full-out cutting campaign. In addition, the latest Merrill Lynch survey indicated that long duration is the most crowded global trade. Given BCA’s House View that the U.S. economy is not heading into a recession but rather experiencing a manufacturing slowdown mainly due to external shocks, the path of least resistance for Treasury yields is higher rather than lower. Investors should maintain a slight underweight on duration over the next 9-12 months. Chart 22Favor Linkers Over Nominal Bonds Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds: Global inflation expectations have dropped anew in the second quarter, with the 10-year CPI swap rate now sitting at 1.55%, 41 bps lower than its 2018 high of 1.96%. However, historically, the change in the crude oil price tends to have a good correlation with inflation expectations. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service revised down its 2019 Brent crude forecast to an average of US$73 per barrel from US$75, but this implies an average of US$79 in H2. (Chart 22). This would cause a significant rise in inflation expectations in the second half, supporting our preference for inflation-linked over nominal bonds. We also favor linkers in Japan and Australia over their respective nominal bonds. Corporate Bonds Chart 23Profit Growth Should Still Outpace Debt Growth We turned cyclically overweight on credit within a fixed-income portfolio in February. Since then, corporate bonds have produced 120 basis points of excess return over duration-matched Treasuries. We believe this bullish stance on credit will continue to pay dividends. The global leading economic indicators have started to stabilize while multiple credit impulses have started to perk up all over the world. Historically, improving global growth has been positive for corporate bonds (Chart 23, panel 1). A valid concern is the deceleration in profit growth in the U.S., as the yearly growth of pre-tax profits has fallen from 15% in 2018 Q4 to 7% in the first quarter of this year. In general, corporate bonds suffer when profit growth lags debt growth, as defaults tends to rise in this environment. Is this scenario likely over the coming year? We do not believe so. While weak global growth at the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019 is likely to weigh on revenues, the current contraction in unit labor costs should bolster profit margins and keep profit growth robust (panel 2). Additionally, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that C&I loan demand has decreased significantly this year, suggesting that the pace of U.S. corporate debt growth is set to slow (panel 3). How long will we remain overweight? We expect that the Federal Reserve will do little to no tightening over the next 12 months. This will open a window for credit to outperform Treasuries in a fixed-income portfolio. We have also reduced our double underweight in EM debt, since an acceleration of Chinese monetary stimulus would be positive for this asset class. Commodities Chart 24Watch Oil And Be Wary Of Gold Energy (Overweight): Supply/demand fundamentals continue to be the main driver of crude oil prices. However, it seems as though the market is discounting something else. President Trump’s tweets, OPEC+ coalition statements, and concerns about future demand growth are contributing to price swings (Chart 24, panel 1). According to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, weak demand has reduced oil prices by $2/barrel this year. That should be offset, however, by a much larger contribution from supply cuts, speculative demand, and a deteriorating geopolitical environment. We see crude prices tilted to the upside, as OPEC’s ability to offset any supply disruptions (besides Iran and Venezuela) is limited (panel 2). We expect Brent to average $73 in 2019 and $75 in 2020. Industrial Metals (Neutral): A stronger USD accompanied by weakening global growth since 2018 has put downward pressure on industrial metal prices, which are down about 20% since January 2018. However, we now have renewed belief that the Chinese authorities will counter with a reflationary response though credit and fiscal stimulus. That should push industrial metal prices higher over the coming 12 months (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): Allocators to gold are benefiting from the current environment of rising geopolitical risk, dovish central banks, a weaker USD, and the market’s flight to safety. Escalated trade tensions, falling global yields, and lower growth prospects are some of the factors that have supported the bullion’s 18% return since its September 2018 low. Until evidence of a bottom in global growth emerges, we expect the copper-to-gold ratio – another barometer for global growth – to continue falling (panel 4). The months ahead could see a correction, as investors take profits with gold in overbought territory. Nevertheless, we continue to recommend gold as both an inflation hedge as well as against any uncertain escalated political tensions. Currencies Chart 25Stronger Global Growth Will Weigh On The Dollar U.S. dollar: The trade-weighted dollar has been flat since we lowered our recommendation from positive to neutral in April. We expect that the Fed will cut rates at least once this year, easing financial conditions, and boosting economic activity. This will eventually prove negative for the dollar. However as long as the global economy is weak the greenback should hold up. Stay neutral for now. Euro: Since we turned bullish on the euro in April, EUR/USD has appreciated by 1.5%. Overall, we continue to be bullish on EUR/USD on a cyclical timeframe. Forward rate expectations continue to be near 2014 lows, suggesting that there is little room for U.S. monetary policy to tighten further vis-à-vis euro area monetary policy, creating a floor under the euro (Chart 25, panel 1). EM Currencies: We continue to be negative on emerging market currencies. However, some indicators suggest that Chinese weakness, the main engine behind the EM currency bear market might be reaching its end. Chinese marginal propensity to spend (proxied by M1 growth relative to M2 growth), has bottomed and seems to have stabilized (panel 2). The bond market has taken note of this development, as Chinese yields are now rising relative to U.S. ones (panel 3). Historically, both of these developments have resulted in a rally for emerging market currencies. Thus, while we expect the bear market to continue for the time being, the pace of decline is likely to ease, making EM currencies an attractive buy by the end of the year. Accordingly, we are reducing our underweight in EM currencies from double underweight to a smaller underweight position. Alternatives Return Enhancers: Hedge funds historically display a negative correlation with global growth momentum. Despite growth slowing over the past year, hedge funds underperformed the overall GAA Alternatives Index as well as private equity. Hedge funds usually outperform other risky alternatives during recessions or periods of high credit market stress. Credit spreads have been slow to rise in response to the slowing economy and worsening political environment. A pickup in spreads should support hedge fund outperformance (Chart 26, panel 2). Inflation Hedges: As we approach the end of the cycle, we continue to recommend investors reduce their real estate exposure and increase allocations towards commodity futures. Our May 2019 Special Report4 analyzed how different asset classes perform in periods of rising inflation. Our expectation is that inflation will pick up by the end of the year. An allocation to commodity futures, particularly energy, historically achieved excess returns of nearly 40% during periods of mild inflation (panel 3). Volatility Dampeners: Realized volatility in the catastrophe bond market is generally low. In fact, absent any catastrophe losses, catastrophe bonds provide stable returns, with volatility that is comparable to global bonds (panel 4). In a December 2017 Special Report,5 we tested for how the inclusion of catastrophe bonds in a traditional 60/40 equity-bond portfolio would have impacted portfolio risk-return characteristics. Replacing global equities with catastrophe bonds reduced annualized volatility by more than 1.5%. Risks To Our View Chart 27What Risk Of Recession? Our main scenario is sanguine on global growth, which means we argue that bond yields will not fall much below current levels. The risks to this view are mostly to the downside. There could be a full-blown recession. Most likely this would be caused either by China failing to do stimulus, or by U.S. rates being more restrictive than the Fed believes. Both of these explanations seem implausible. As we argue elsewhere, we think it unlikely that China would simply allow growth to slow without reacting with monetary and fiscal stimulus. If current Fed policy is too tight for the economy to withstand, it would imply that the neutral rate of interest is zero or below, something that seems improbable given how strong U.S. growth has been despite rising rates. Formal models of recession do not indicate an elevated risk currently (Chart 27). We continue to watch for the timing to move into higher-beta China-related markets as the effects of China’s stimulus start to come through. Even if growth is as strong as we forecast, is there a possibility that bond yields fall further. This could come about – for a while, at least – if the Fed is aggressively dovish, oil prices fall (perhaps because of a positive supply shock), inflation softens further, and global growth remains sluggish. Absent a recession, we find those outcomes unlikely. The copper-to-gold ratio has been a good indicator of U.S. bond yields (Chart 28). It suggests that, at 2%, the 10-year Treasury yield has slightly overshot. In fact, in June copper prices started to rebound, as the market began to price in growing Chinese demand. Chart 28Can Bond Yields Fall Any Further? Chart 29Are Analysts Right To Be So Gloomy?   For U.S. equities to rise much further, multiple expansion will not be enough; the earnings outlook needs to improve. Analysts are still cautious with their bottom-up forecasts, expecting only 3% EPS growth for the S&P500 this year (Chart 29). This seems easy to beat. But a combination of further dollar strength, worsening trade war, further slowdown in Europe and Emerging Markets, and higher U.S. wages would put it at risk. Footnotes 1 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 9 of this Quarterly for further discussion on why we are confident China will ramp up stimulus if necessary. 2 Trimmed Mean PCE inflation, a better indicator of underlying inflation than the Core PCE deflator, is above 2%. Please see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 8 of this Quarterly for details. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Track Records,” dated June 18, available at usb.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “A Primer On Catastrophe Bonds,” dated December 12, 2017 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com   GAA Asset Allocation