Manufacturing

Highlights Duration: We see current bond market behavior as very similar to mid-2016, when heightened political uncertainty obscured the economy’s true strength and kept bond yields lower for longer than was justified by the economic fundamentals. The correct strategy at that time was to sell into the bond market’s strength, and we advocate a similar strategy today. China: Any attempt by the Chinese government to retaliate in the trade war by selling U.S. Treasury securities would be either self-defeating or ineffective, depending on the exact strategy employed. In either case, U.S. Treasury yields will be unaffected. Fed: At least part of the Fed’s dovish turn might represent a desire to send the labor share of national income higher. We introduce a new data series for Fed Watchers to track. Feature The Trump Administration fired the latest salvo in the trade war two weeks ago, expanding tariffs to a broader swathe of Chinese imports. Then last week, the escalation of tensions spilled over to the bond market, sending global yields abruptly lower. Chart 1Flight To Safety The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield bounced off 2.35% last Thursday and has since settled at 2.39% (Chart 1). Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve is now priced for 44 bps of Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 1, bottom panel). It is possible, and even likely, that geopolitical tensions will keep yields low during the next month or two. In fact, our Geopolitical Strategy service places the odds of a complete breakdown in trade negotiations by the end of June at 50%.1  But we would encourage investors to sell into rallies, positioning for higher yields on a 6-12 month horizon. To see why, we return to a Weekly Report from early April where we walked through different factors that would be useful in the creation of a macroeconomic model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield.2 We consider what has changed during the past six weeks and what those developments mean for bond yields going forward. Back In The Bond Kitchen In early April, we ran through four different factors that should be included in any bond model and suggested macroeconomic indicators that best capture the trends in each. The four factors are: Global Growth: Best proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI and Bullish Dollar Sentiment Policy Uncertainty: Best proxied by the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Output Gap: Best proxied by Average Hourly Earnings Sentiment: Best proxied by the U.S. Economic Surprise Index We consider each factor in turn. Global Growth Chart 2Monitoring Global Growth The Global Manufacturing PMI, our preferred series for tracking global growth, ticked down during the past month, continuing the free-fall that has been in place since the end of 2017 (Chart 2). At 50.3, it is now only slightly above the 50 boom/bust line and is close to where it was in mid-2016, when the 10-year yield hit its cyclical low. But on a positive note, several leading indicators have hooked up in recent months, suggesting that the Global PMI could soon trough and move higher in the second half of the year. Specifically, the ZEW survey of global economic sentiment is off its lows, as is the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI). Meanwhile, the Global LEI Diffusion Index has surged, indicating that 74% of the 23 countries in our sample are seeing improvement in their LEIs. Historically, the Global LEI Diffusion Index leads changes in both the Global LEI and the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 2, panel 3). Financial market prices that are highly geared to global growth had been singing a similar tune, but they rolled over as trade tensions flared during the past two weeks. For example, cyclical equity sectors recently started to underperform defensive sectors (Chart 2, bottom panel), and the important CRB Raw Industrials index took a nosedive. We place particular importance on the CRB Raw Industrials index as a timely indicator of global growth, because the ratio between the CRB index and gold correlates nicely with the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 3).3 Unsurprisingly, the ratio’s recent dip coincides with last week’s drop in the 10-year. Several leading indicators have hooked up in recent months, suggesting that the Global PMI could soon trough and move higher in the second half of the year.  In addition to the Global Manufacturing PMI, we recommend including a survey of bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar in any bond model. More bullish dollar sentiment coincides with lower Treasury yields, and vice-versa. Our preferred survey shows that dollar sentiment remains elevated, but hasn’t changed much since April (Chart 4). The dollar itself, however, has begun to appreciate during the past two weeks (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... Chart 4...And The Greenback Is On The Rise Bottom Line: The coincident global growth indicators that correlate best with bond yields – the Global Manufacturing PMI and Dollar Bullish Sentiment – are sending a similar message as in April. Meanwhile, leading economic indicators continue to suggest that we should expect improvement in the second half of the year. The biggest change from April is that global growth indicators derived from financial market prices – cyclical versus defensive equities, the CRB Raw Industrials index and the trade-weighted dollar – have responded negatively to heightened political risk. If this weakness persists and eventually infects the economic data, then it could prevent a second-half rebound in global growth, keeping Treasury yields low for even longer.   Policy Uncertainty Spikes in the monthly Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index often cause capital to seek out the safety of U.S. Treasuries, and we recommend including this index in any macroeconomic bond model (Chart 5A). Spikes in the monthly Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index often cause capital to seek out the safety of U.S. Treasuries. While there have been no updates to the monthly index since the trade war’s recent escalation, one of its components – a daily index that tracks the number of relevant news stories – has surged during the past two weeks (Chart 5B). This clearly illustrates that a sharp increase in political uncertainty has been the catalyst for the bond market rally. Investors are obviously concerned that an ongoing and intensifying trade war might derail the economic recovery, and they are seeking out Treasuries as a hedge. Chart 5AGlobal Uncertainty Set To Spike Chart 5BMarkets Are Concerned In such situations, the traditional playbook is to fade any purely uncertainty-driven rally, on the view that markets tend to overreact to headline risk. This strategy worked well following the mid-2016 Brexit vote. The uncertainty shock from the vote sent the 10-year quickly down to 1.37%, but it then increased in the second half of the year when it became apparent that the economic recovery would continue. While higher tariffs will certainly be a drag on growth going forward, accommodative Fed policy and a probable increase in Chinese economic stimulus will mitigate the impact, keeping the economic recovery intact.4 Output Gap Chart 6Wages Are Headed Higher The output gap is a concept that represents where the economy is operating relative to its peak capacity, and its progress during the past three years is the main reason why bond yields will not re-test 2016 lows. We have found that wage growth is the most reliable way to measure the output gap: higher wage growth signals less spare capacity, and less spare capacity coincides with higher bond yields. We recommend Average Hourly Earnings as the best wage measure to include in any bond model. Since April, average hourly earnings growth has been roughly flat, but leading indicators suggest that further acceleration is highly likely in the coming months (Chart 6). While the Fed is keen to let wage growth accelerate, rising wage growth also makes a rate cut difficult to justify. The combination of rising wage growth and an on-hold Fed should put a rising floor under long-maturity bond yields. Sentiment The final factor that should be included in any bond model is sentiment. In April, we suggested that the U.S. Economic Surprise Index is the best measure of sentiment. When the surprise index has been deeply negative for a long time, it usually means that investors are downbeat on the economy and that the bar for a positive surprise is low. This has actually been the case in recent months, and our simple auto-regressive model suggests that the surprise index is biased higher (Chart 7). Positioning data confirm this message, and in fact show that investors are taking as much duration risk as they were when yields troughed in mid-2016 (Chart 8). Chart 7Low Bar For Positive Surprises Chart 8Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 The overall message is that bond investors have a very dim view of the economy, and it will not take much positive news to send yields higher. Investment Strategy We see current bond market behavior as very similar to mid-2016, when heightened political uncertainty obscured the economy’s true strength and kept bond yields lower for longer than was justified by the economic fundamentals. The correct strategy at that time was to sell into the bond market’s strength, and we advocate a similar strategy today. Timing when the next move higher in bond yields will occur is difficult, but we take some comfort in the fact that the flatness of the yield curve makes it less costly than usual to carry below-benchmark duration positions. In fact, the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index is 7 bps higher than the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index. Bond investors have a very dim view of the economy, and it will not take much positive news to send yields higher. To further mitigate the cost of keeping duration low, we advocate taking duration-neutral positions that are short the belly (5-year & 7-year) part of the yield curve and long the very long and very short ends of the curve. Such trades are also provide a positive yield pick-up, and will earn capital gains when Treasury yields move higher.5 A Quick Note On China’s Treasury Purchases Chart 9Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War The trade war’s recent escalation has led some to speculate that China could retaliate against higher tariffs by dumping U.S. Treasury securities onto the open market. The speculation only increased when the TIC data revealed that Chinese net Treasury purchases totaled -$24 billion in March, the most deeply negative figure since October 2016 (Chart 9).   We see low odds that China will employ this tactic in the trade war, and no meaningful impact on Treasury yields in any case. To see why, let’s consider two possible scenarios. In the first scenario, China sells a large amount of U.S. Treasury securities and keeps the proceeds from the sales in its domestic currency. Assuming the amounts in question are sufficiently large, these transactions would cause the RMB to appreciate and lead to a tightening of Chinese monetary conditions. Tighter monetary conditions are exactly what the Chinese government does not want as it seeks to counteract the negative economic impact from tariffs. In fact, China is much more likely to engineer a further easing of monetary conditions, much like in 2015/16 (Chart 9, bottom panel). In the second scenario, China could sell U.S. Treasuries and purchase other foreign bonds (German bunds, for example). This would nullify any impact on Chinese monetary conditions, but it would not have much impact on U.S. Treasury yields. With Chinese money still flowing into global bond markets, the re-balancing would only push other investors out of non-U.S. bond markets and into U.S. Treasuries. Without changing the overall demand for global bonds, it is difficult to envision much of an impact on U.S. yields. Bottom Line: Any attempt by the Chinese government to retaliate in the trade war by selling U.S. Treasury securities would be either self-defeating or ineffective, depending on the exact strategy employed. In either case, U.S. Treasury yields will be unaffected. A New Data Series For Fed Watchers: Rich’s Ratio A number of recent Fed speeches have referred to the time series plotted in Chart 10: The share of national income going to labor, as opposed to corporate profits. Chart 10Introducing Rich's Ratio Vice-Chair Richard Clarida brought this analysis to the Fed, and the data series was actually once dubbed “Rich’s Ratio” by Clarida’s old PIMCO colleague Paul McCulley. The idea behind Rich’s Ratio is that while some late-cycle wage gains are passed through to prices, a portion also eat into corporate profits. Notice in Chart 10 that Rich’s Ratio has a tendency to rise late in the economic recovery. Based on his past writings, we would not be surprised if at least part of the Fed’s recent dovish turn represents a desire to send Rich’s Ratio higher, even if that goal might entail a modest overshoot of the Fed's 2 percent inflation target. We will have more to say about Rich’s Ratio in the coming weeks. For now, we simply want to make Fed Watchers aware that they have a new series to track. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “How Trump Became A War President”, dated May 17, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The rationale for why the CRB/Gold ratio tracks the 10-year Treasury yield is found in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Tarrified”, dated May 16, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights An aging population, a banking sector in poor health, and a private sector focused on building up savings are the key factors undermining euro area growth on a structural basis. A large manufacturing sector makes the euro area vulnerable to EM competition. Unlike the U.S., the region’s tech sector is held back by regulatory burdens, taxes and heavy dependence on bank funding. The euro area growth faces decades of low growth and inflation. Euro area rates will stay depressed, but paradoxically, the euro can still experience structural appreciation. Euro area equities are cheap for a good reason, and banks will continue to weigh on performance. Feature Over the past 10 years, the euro area has gone through a sovereign debt crisis, a double-dip recession, persistent below-target inflation, and most recently, yet another major growth slowdown. Moreover, this economic malaise materialized despite highly stimulative monetary policy, including negative interest rates. The ongoing economic weakness has raised the specter that the euro area is the new Japan. Nearly three decades after the bursting of the Nikkei bubble, the Land of the Rising Sun remains mired in low growth and mild but persistent deflation. Consequently, charts showing that European policy rates or bond yields are tracking Japanese developments with a 17-year lag (Chart II-1) have not only become commonplace, they elicit fears that European growth, interest rates and asset valuations will lag the rest of the world for decades to come. Chart II-1Europe Is Following The Japanese Example In this piece, we discuss the various forces that explain why the euro area economy has been so weak this decade, and why such low interest rates have had so little impact on growth. We also study what sets the U.S. and euro area apart, and whether or not Europe will follow the trail blazed by Japan nearly 30 years ago. The Three Headwinds Three ills have kept European growth particularly depressed this cycle and are likely to remain significant headwinds into the foreseeable future: demographics, the banking sector’s poor health, and nonfinancial private sector balance sheet cleansing. 1)   Demographics This is the most well understood and acknowledged problem impacting Europe today. Since 2008, the European population has grown by 2%, or only 0.2% a year, with the working age population having peaked around that year. Going forward, the picture will only deteriorate: The UN expects Europe’s population to contract by 12% over the next 27 years, and the working age population to fall by 15%. This also means that the dependency ratio – the number of individuals aged less than 15 and above 65 per 100 working-age people – will approximately double over the coming 40 years. This is a clear parallel with Japan. As Chart II-2 illustrates, Europe’s population, the number of working-age individuals and the dependency ratio are all tracking Japan with a 17-year lag. Like Japan, Europe’s trend growth will thus only deteriorate further. Not only will Europe not be able to add as many workers as the U.S. to its total, but it will need to build even fewer schools, malls, office buildings or units of housing. Consequently, both the supply and demand sides of the economy will lag due to this factor alone. 2)   Banking Sector Health The poor health of the euro area banking sector is well known. BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service published an in-depth analysis of the European banking sector last December.4 The piece demonstrated that European banks have been much slower to recognize non-performing loans, curtail credit and rebuild capital than their U.S. counterparts. U.S. bank loans to the private sector fell by 13% in the two years during the crisis, while in Europe, these same loans have only fallen by 2% since 2008. Euro area banks generally remain burdened with significant non-performing loans as a percentage of regulatory capital. Moreover, net interest margins are also dismal, implying that the income cushion against bad loans is thin. Consequently, outside of France, Finland and Germany, European banks have either not grown their loan books to the private sector or, as is the case with Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, these books are continuously shrinking (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Same Demography In Europe Now Than In Japan Then Chart II-3Peripheral Banks Continue To Curtail Credit   The poor health of the European banking system is now constraining the supply of new credit to the rest of the economy. This is a much bigger problem than is the case in the U.S. given that in Europe, 72% of corporate funding comes from the banking system while 88% of household liabilities are also funded this way. In the U.S., the share of bank funding for these sectors is 32% and 29%, respectively (Chart II-4). A weak euro area banking system prevents the nonfinancial private sector from growing as robustly as it could. 3)   Nonfinancial Private Sector Balance Sheet Cleanse Another major drag on European growth has been the continued efforts of the European private sector to rebuild its balance sheet. To use the terminology developed by our upcoming conference speaker Richard Koo, the euro area has been in the thralls of a powerful balance sheet recession. Households in the euro area, Japan and the U.S. are all accumulating more financial assets than liabilities. However, only in the U.S. is the nonfinancial corporate sector building more liabilities than it is accumulating assets (Chart II-5). In Japan and Europe, the nonfinancial corporate sector is also a source of savings for the economy. Moreover, in Europe, the government runs a much smaller financial deficit. The current account balance tells this story vividly. A country’s current account is equal to the private sector’s savings minus investment and minus government deficits. As Italy, Spain, and other peripheral economies increased their aggregate savings after 2008, their large current account deficits vanished. Meanwhile, the governments of countries like Germany or the Netherlands, which sported healthy public finances, did not increase their spending in a commensurate way. This adjustment transformed an overall euro area current account deficit of 1.5% in 2008 into a surplus of 3.0% of GDP today, sending some of Europe’s excess savings abroad. This mimics the post-1990 Japanese experience. In the U.S., where the private sector savings did not rise as durably as in Europe, the current account stopped improving meaningfully in 2010 (Chart II-6). Chart II-5European Businesses Are Savers, Like In Japan Chart II-6The Current Account Dynamics Epitomise The Savings Dynamics   A private sector squarely focused on rebuilding its balance sheet liquidity can lead to a liquidity trap. In this state, monetary policy can become ineffective as spending does not respond to lower interest rates. This is where Europe is currently stuck, explaining why the European Central Bank is finding that inflation and growth are not experiencing much lift, despite seemingly incredibly accommodative monetary conditions. Why Such An Urge To Save? The fact that the household sector is a net saver is not surprising, as this is a normal state of affairs across most economies. But why is the European nonfinancial corporate sector still trying to improve its balance sheet liquidity by accumulating more assets than liabilities? Like Japanese businesses 30 years ago, European firms have large debt loads. Another problem is the lack of capex opportunities in Europe. Why do we make this assertion? The return on assets in Europe has been at rock-bottom levels ever since the introduction of the euro (Chart II-7). In the decade from 1998 to 2008, this was a non-issue. Strong global growth flattered European sales, and easy access to credit meant that via rising leverage euro area-listed nonfinancial corporations were able to generate returns on equity comparable to U.S. firms (Chart II-8, top panel). Once European banks got cold feet and European nonfinancial businesses began focusing on deleveraging, the low level of return on assets became more apparent. Part of the problem is that European profit margins are much closer to Japanese than U.S. levels (Chart II-8, middle panel). Even more damning, asset turnover – how much sales are generated by a unit of assets – has been structurally lower in Europe than in both Japan and the U.S. for multiple decades (Chart II-8, bottom panel). Chart II-7Europe Suffers From A Lower RoA Chart II-8DuPont's Decomposition Shows Why The Euro Area RoA Is Poor   The first factor weighing on the level of asset utilization and returns in Europe is the elevated level of capital stock. As Chart II-9 illustrates, the capital stock as a share of output in Italy, Spain and France dwarfs that of Japan, China or the U.S. Even Germany’s capital stock, which stands well below that of other large euro area economies, is nearly 100 percentage points of GDP larger than the U.S’s. Europe has too large a pool of assets to make any additional investments profitable, especially in light of its poor demographic profile. The second factor weighing on European asset utilization and returns is the poorer level of labor productivity. From the 1950s to the early 1980s, European GDP per worker rose relative to the U.S., albeit peaking at 92% of the levels across the Atlantic. Due to falling working hours in Europe relative to the U.S. since the 1980s, relative output per hour continued to rise until the mid-1990s, peaking at 105% of the U.S. level. However, since their respective zeniths, both relative productivity measures have collapsed (Chart II-10, top panel). Chart II-10Another Symptom Of Europe's Misallocation Of Capital In The 2000s These collapses are in fact worse than Japan’s performance since its lost decades began. As the second panel of the chart shows, since the early 1990s, Japan’s relative output per hour and per worker have flattened – not declined – at around 65% and 72%, respectively, of U.S. levels. Instead, relative European productivity levels are currently converging toward Japanese levels (Chart II-10, third and fourth panels). The particularly poor level of European asset utilization and productivity principally reflects the duality between the peripheral as well as French economies on one side, and Germany as well as the Netherlands on the other side. The exceptionally large capital stock outside of Germany is a legacy of the years directly after the euro’s introduction. Back then, the ECB kept rates low to help Germany, the then-sick man of Europe. These rates were too low for the rest of Europe, encouraging large capital stock build-ups. Moreover, this capital was misallocated, as demonstrated by the tepid growth of output per hour and output per capita in Europe post 2000. Since funds were poorly allocated, the output-to-capital ratio in the periphery collapsed. In other words, the peripheral capital-stock-to-GDP ratios continued rising because the denominator, GDP, lagged. An additional problem for Europe’s asset utilization has been its large manufacturing sector. Even after declining, 20% of Europe’s GDP still comes from the secondary sector versus less than 12% in the U.S. (Chart II-11). This has two consequences for Europe’s asset utilization relative to the U.S. First, a large manufacturing sector requires a much larger asset base than a large service or tech sector. Second, the manufacturing sector is more exposed to competition from emerging markets than the tech sector, or than the domestically-focused service sector. Chart II-11Europe Is Left Exposed To EM Competition In other words, not only has the U.S. experienced less capital misallocation than a large swath of the European economy, it has also re-aligned its economy to make it more robust in the face of competition from emerging economies, while Europe mostly has not. Consequently, hurt by foreign competition and unable or unwilling to re-invent itself, Europe has been left with dwindling relative productivity levels and poor degrees of asset utilization and returns. Why Did The U.S. Economy Transition Better than Europe To A Globalized World? There are many reasons why the U.S. has maintained higher RoAs and has been more successful at transitioning away from a manufacturing-led economy than the euro area. First, the level of product and service market regulation in Europe is highly punitive. As Chart II-12 illustrates, like Japan, most euro area countries fare poorly in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business survey. In fact, Italy scores even lower than China! Meanwhile, the U.S. ranks near the top, not far from Singapore. This means that starting new businesses, competing, and so on is easier in the U.S. than in Europe, helping foster a greater level of entrepreneurialism. Consequently, established businesses have been able to maintain the status quo longer in Europe than in the U.S., preventing creative destruction from purging the system of bad assets. Second, most large euro area economies are burdened by heavy taxes. As Chart II-13 shows, while the U.S. public sector extracts taxes equal to 27.1% of GDP, German, Italian and French taxes equal 37.5%, 42.4% and 46.2% of GDP, respectively, well above the OECD average of 34.2%. Such high levels of taxation disincentivize risk-taking. Lower levels of risk taking by individuals further prevented the degree of creative destruction necessary for Europe to better use its capital stock. Third, and linked to the previous point, government spending equals 34.9% of GDP in the U.S., compared to 48.2% and 56.0% in Italy or France, respectively. A large government has historically stifled innovation and favored the status quo. By no means does this implies that the U.S. system is free of imbalances, but it highlights that compared to two of the three largest European economies, the U.S. public sector has had a less deleterious impact on growth conditions and entrepreneurialism. Moreover, Italy and France have been in deep need of structural reforms that have been lacking. On this front, while the outlook is improving in France under Macron’s presidency, Italy remains mired in immobilism. Europe has too large a pool of assets to make any additional investments profitable, especially in light of its poor demographic profile. Fourth, the financing structure in the U.S. favors investing in new businesses and industries, especially when compared to the euro area. Equities represent 78% of the capital structure of nonfinancial corporations in the U.S. while they represent only 61% in the euro area. Moreover, within debt-financing, capital markets account for 68% of sourced funds in the U.S. compared to 28% in the euro area. In fact, junk bond market capitalization only accounts for 2.2% of GDP in Europe compared to 6.0% in the U.S. This suggests that financing risky ventures – and entrepreneurialism is inherently risky – is tougher in Europe than in the U.S. In fact, as a share of GDP, the European venture capital business is less than a sixth the size of the U.S.’s (Chart II-14), a gap that has existed for more than 30 years. Chart II-14U.S. Financing Allows For Greater Risk Taking With all these hurdles, it is unsurprising that Europe has taken more time to make its economy more dynamic in the globalized economy of the 21st century. It also explains why Europe might be suffering more from EM competition than the U.S. Interestingly, this last point may be changing as U.S. voters seem to want to move back toward a larger manufacturing sector. This transition is unlikely to happen without more protectionism. This is a topic for another report. Is Europe Doomed To Japanification… Or Worse? It is easy to see why Europe cannot hope to grow as fast as the U.S., and therefore why the ECB will not be able to lift rates as high as the Fed and why bund yields are likely to lag Treasurys for years to come. Europe has a much more dire demographic profile than the U.S. It needs to purge its capital stock and invigorate its economy through reforms, a smaller public sector, and more diversified financing channels. But can the euro area fare better than Japan has over the past 30 years? On three fronts, the euro area looks better than Japan. First, as Chart II-15 shows, the overall European nonfinancial private sector entered its crisis in 2008 with lower leverage than Japan’s in the early 1990s. Additionally, European stocks were much cheaper in 2007 than the Nikkei was in 1989 (Chart II-16, top panel). Even Spanish real estate was more reasonably valued in 2007 than Japanese real estate in the early 1990s (Chart II-16, bottom panel). This combination means that now that the acute part of the crisis is over, the hole in the European private sector’s balance sheet is much smaller than the one Japan needed to plug 30 years ago. Thus, from a balance-sheet perspective, the need to rebuild savings is lower in Europe than Japan, and we could expect the current period of elevated savings to be shorter in the euro area than it has been in Japan. Chart II-16...And European Assets Were Not As Expensive As Japanese Ones At The Onset Of The Crisis   Second, despite former ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet’s policy mistake of raising interest rates in 2011, the ECB was much quicker to implement extreme easing policy measures than the Bank of Japan was in its day. It took 10 years for the BoJ to cut rates to zero after the Nikkei peaked in December 1989. It took one year for the ECB to do so after stock prices peaked in 2007. It took nine years for the BoJ to expand its balance sheet aggressively, but it took less than two years for the ECB to do so. One of the key benefits of this greater European proactivity has been to keep European inflation expectations much higher than in Japan, curtailing real interest rates in the process. Third, Europe purged economic excesses much more quickly than Japan. The Japanese unemployment rate increased from 2% to 6% between 1990 and 2010. In peripheral Europe, where the worst pre-crisis excesses existed, unemployment rose from 7.5% in 2008 to 18% in 2013 (Chart II-17, top panel). Meanwhile, real wages never adjusted in Japan, but fell 27.0% at their worst in Spain and 32.5% in Greece (Chart II-17, bottom panel). Moreover, the Rajoy reforms in Spain and the Macron reforms in France show that outside of Italy, European governments have been reforming their economies faster than Japan did after the bubble burst in 1990. Chart II-17Bigger Labor Market Purge In Europe Than Japan However, on three fronts Europe is faring worse than Japan. First, up until the last 10 years, Japan benefited from a robust global economy where trade grew strongly. Europe is entering its second decade of low growth in an environment where global economic activity is much weaker, as potential U.S. GDP growth has slowed and China is not growing at a double-digit pace anymore. Moreover, budding protectionism in the U.S. is creating another hurdle for European economic output. Second, the excess capital stock in the European periphery is in fact greater than was the case in Japan in 1990. This suggests that the periphery needs to curtail investments by a greater margin than Japan did. Consequently, peripheral growth will continue to exert downward pressure on aggregate European activity for an extended period. Third, the European fiscal response will not match Japan’s. Investors often decry Japan’s large government debt of 238.2% of GDP as a sign of profligacy. It is not. It is mainly a mirror image of the private sector’s savings surplus. The Japanese government’s ability to run large deficits has prevented a larger fall in output – one that would have equaled the annual savings of the private sector. Without the government’s dissaving, the Japanese private sector would have found its debt load even more onerous to service, and the need to curtail spending would have been even greater as economy-wide cash flows would have been even smaller. Europe does not have a unified fiscal authority that can run such large-scale deficits. Instead, each nation’s government has a limited capacity to accumulate debt as investors worry that overly-indebted governments may very well redenominate what they have borrowed in much weaker currencies than the euro. This risk is made even greater by the fact that there is no euro-area wide deposit insurance scheme. Since Italian and Spanish banks hold large amounts of BTPs and Bonos, respectively, a so-called doom-loop exists that links the health of banks in those countries to the health of their governments, further limiting the public sector’s ability to act as a spender of last resort. This makes the efforts of the private sector in Italy, France, and Spain to increase its savings and bring down its excess capital stock more difficult, and thus, likely to last longer. Even if 10 years after the crisis first emerged, Europe has done more to purge its economy from its pre-crisis excesses than Japan had after its first lost decade, a lack of unified fiscal lever in Europe nullifies this positive. Thus, so long as the European integration efforts remain on the backburner, euro area growth, inflation, and interest rates will continue to look more like Japan’s have over the past 30 years than the U.S. This is likely to cause a big problem once the next recession emerges. Europe will enter that slowdown without any ammunition to reflate growth. Therefore, the next recession is likely to prove very deflationary and test the recent improvement in support for the euro seen across all euro area nations (Chart II-18). If the euro area survives this crisis, and we suspect it will, the probability of a fiscal union will only grow.2 After all, it has been through various crises that Europe has moved closer together, and the rise of a multipolar geopolitical environment dominated by large countries makes this imperative ever more vital. Chart II-18Support For The Euro Is Resilient Bottom Line: We expect European growth and inflation to continue to lag well behind the U.S. for years to come if not a full decade. Ultimately, bringing down the expensive capital stock in the European periphery will be a slow process, especially if governments remain tight fisted. Investment Implications First, core euro area interest rates are likely to remain well below U.S. levels. As long as the European private sector pares back investments in order to normalize its capital stock-to-GDP ratio - a phenomenon that will be most pronounced in the periphery and France - European growth and inflation will lag behind the U.S. This also means that as long as European governments remain shy spenders and do not compensate for the lack of spending from the private sector, in the euro area periphery, European banks will suffer from depressed net interest margins and be structural underperformers. Second, the euro is likely to experience a structural upward drift. The euro is trading at a 10.5% discount to its purchasing power parity. Moreover, high private sector savings not only weigh on inflation, they will also push Europe’s net international investment position higher via an accumulated current account surplus. Both these factors are long-term bullish for the euro. Moreover, the fact that the euro area will soon become a net creditor nation, along with a lack of room to stimulate growth via monetary easing in times of recessions, means that the euro could increasingly become a counter-cyclical currency like the yen. So long as the European integration efforts remain on the backburner, euro area growth, inflation, and interest rates will continue to look more like Japan’s have over the past 30 years than the U.S. Third, European equities are trading at a discount to U.S. equities, but we do not think this guarantees long-term outperformance. European equities are cheap because European growth prospects are poor. If Japan is any guide, European stocks may be set to continue underperforming. This is especially true as financials are over-represented in European equity benchmarks, and banks stand at the epicenter of the European economic malaise. Fourth, European stocks will remain slaves to the global business cycle. Since the crisis, European growth has become hypersensitive to global growth, making European equities very responsive to the global business cycle. The same phenomenon happened in post-1990 Japan. In other words, the beta of European stocks is likely to continue to rise. This phenomenon could be exacerbated if the euro indeed does become a counter-cyclical currency, in which case the euro and European equities would become negatively correlated, like the yen and the Nikkei. Finally, the period from 1999 to 2005 showed how ECB policy targeted at supporting Germany resulted in imbalances that boosted real estate and equity returns in the periphery – in Spain and Ireland in particular. Today, the periphery is the worst offender when it comes to poor bank health and private sector balance sheet rebuilding. This means that the ECB is likely to keep monetary conditions too accommodative for Germany, where balance sheets are more robust and where the capital stock is not as excessive. As a result, financial market plays linked to German real estate are likely to continue outperforming other European domestic plays. They therefore warrant an overweight within European portfolios. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Euro Area Banks: Value Play Or Value Trap?" dated December 14, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 The European Commission Eurobarometer Surveys show that Europeans overwhelmingly see Europe as a peace project and as a way to maintain a voice in a world dominated by huge players like the U.S., China, or Russia, a world where France, Germany, or Italy individually are marginal players. In 2016, the U.K. population did not share this opinion. Moreover, even after what amounts to a depression, the support for the euro continues to rise in Greece, showing the growing commitment of Europeans to the euro, and the resilience of this commitment to economic shocks.

Highlights Odds are that the recent improvement in Chinese manufacturing PMIs could be due to inventory re-stocking rather than a decisive turnaround in final demand. “Hard” data have not shown meaningful improvements in China’s final demand. Weighing the pros and cons, we are instituting a stop-buy on our EM strategy: We will turn tactically positive on EM risk assets if the MSCI EM equity index breaks above 1125, which is 4% above its current level. Keep Malaysia on an upgrade watch list. Downgrade Brazil to underweight. Feature The strong Chinese PMI prints released this week have challenged our negative view on EM assets and China plays. This week we take a deeper look at the underlying reasons behind the recent improvement in China’s PMI data. In addition, we elaborate on what it would take for us to alter our current strategy on EM risk assets. A Manufacturing Upturn The upturn in China’s manufacturing PMIs in March has been validated by improvement in Taiwanese PMI’s export orders (Chart I-1, top panel). The latter’s amelioration has been broad-based across all sectors: electronics and optical, electrical machinery and equipment, basic materials, and chemical/biological/medical (Chart I-1, bottom panel). China accounts for 30% of Taiwanese exports, making Taiwan’s manufacturing sector heavily exposed to China’s business cycle. Does this improvement in manufacturing PMIs reflect a final demand revival in China? Looking For Final Demand Revival China’s domestic and overseas orders remain weak, as exhibited in Chart I-2. These indicators give us the primary trajectory of the Chinese business cycle, while the PMI indexes exhibit considerable short-term volatility. Chart I-1One-Month Surge In China's And Taiwan's PMIs Chart I-2Noise And Business Cycle Trajectory   The domestic demand and overseas orders reflect quarterly data from 5,000 enterprises. The latest datapoints are from Q1 2019 and were released on March 22. To be sure, we are not suggesting an absence of bright spots, but at the moment “hard” data do not corroborate broad-based improvement in final demand. Consumer spending: There has been no improvement in households’ propensity to spend. Our proxy for households’ marginal propensity to spend has not turned up (Chart I-3). Consistently, China’s smartphone sales and passenger car sales are contracting at double-digit rates, while the growth rate in online sales of services has not improved (Chart I-4, top three panels). Chart I-3Chinese Consumers' Propensity To Spend Chart I-4China: No Improvement In "Hard" Data   The bottom panel of Chart I-4 demonstrates the retail sales of consumer goods during the Chinese New Year compared with the previous year’s spring festival. It is evident that as of mid-February, when this year’s spring festival took place, there was no improvement in Chinese consumer demand. Business spending / investment: Our proxy for enterprises’ propensity to spend continues to decline (Chart I-5). Companies’ propensity to spend has historically led the cyclical trajectory in industrial metals prices. Crucially, this has not corroborated the rebound in base metals prices over the past three months. Besides, China’s imports of capital goods, its total imports from Korea and its machinery and machine tool imports from Japan are all still contracting at a double-digit rate (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China: Enterprises' Propensity To Spend And Metals Chart I-6Contracting At A Double Digit Rate   China’s fixed asset investment in infrastructure has picked up of late and will continue to improve. However, this may not be sufficient to revive the mainland’s economy. China’s growth decelerated in 2014-2015 and industrial commodities prices dwindled, despite robust growth in infrastructure investment at the time (Chart I-7). The culprit was the decline in property construction in 2014-2015. As to the property market, the People’s Bank of China’s (PBoC) Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) financing points to further weakness in property demand in the coming months (Chart I-8). Chart I-7China's Infrastructure Investment And Base Metals Prices Chart I-8China: The Outlook For Residential Property Demand   Moreover, property starts have been surging, yet their completions have been tumbling. This suggests a ballooning amount of work-in-progress on real estate developers’ balance sheets. To be sure, we are not suggesting an absence of bright spots, but at the moment “hard” data do not corroborate broad-based improvement in final demand. It may well be that property developers do not have financing to complete work or that they are reluctant to bring new units to the market amid tame demand. Whatever the case, the mediocre pace of construction activity is negative for suppliers to the construction industry. Government spending: Aggregate government spending in China – including central and local government as well as government-managed funds (GMF) – has been very robust in the past year (Chart I-9). Hence, government spending has not been the reason behind the economic slowdown. Chart I-9China's Aggregate Fiscal Spending For 2019, overall government spending is projected to expand by 11% in nominal terms from a year ago, down from 17% in 2018. The key fiscal risk is shrinking land sales, which account for 86% of GMF revenues. The latter have substantially increased in size and now makeup 27% of aggregate fiscal spending. Local and central government expenditures account for 62% and 11% of aggregate fiscal spending, respectively. If land revenues undershoot, GMF and local governments will not be able to meet their expenditure targets without Beijing altering the former’s borrowing quotas. In brief, fiscal policy may be involuntarily tightened due to a shortfall in land sales revenues before the central government permits local governments to borrow more. Exports: Chinese shipments to the U.S. will recover as China and the U.S. finalize their trade deal. The media is extremely focused on the trade negotiations, and markets have been trading off the headlines. Nevertheless, it is essential to realize that China’s exports to the U.S. make up only 3.6% of the country’s total GDP (Chart I-10). This contrasts with capital spending that accounts for 42% of the mainland’s GDP.  Consequently, we believe the credit cycle that drives construction and capital spending is more important to China’s growth than its shipments to the U.S. Global ex-China Demand: The areas of global final demand that weighed on global growth last year remain depressed. Global semiconductors and auto sales have been shrinking at a rapid pace and have so far not experienced a reversal (Chart I-11). Chart I-10China Is Not Reliant On Exports To The U.S. Chart I-11Global "Hard" Data Are Still Bad   Bottom Line: There is a lack of pertinent “hard” business cycle data in China that have improved. What Does It All Mean Having reviewed final demand conditions in China, it is reasonable to argue that the improvement in the Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturing PMIs could be due to inventory re-stocking. Unfortunately, in China, there is limited reliable data that quantifies inventory levels well in various industries. Having reviewed final demand conditions in China, it is reasonable to argue that the improvement in the Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturing PMIs could be due to inventory re-stocking. The consensus view in the investment community is that China’s credit stimulus has boosted the economy since the beginning of this year. Business conditions have certainly improved. The rally in Chinese stocks has in turn mirrored this improvement. Yet it is not clear that this revival in the business cycle is due to the credit stimulus. Chart I-12 plots the credit impulse, including local government general and special bonds issuance, with the three typical business cycle variables: manufacturing PMI and nominal manufacturing production growth. Chart I-12China: Credit Impulse Leads "Hard" Data As can be seen from the chart, the manufacturing PMI is very volatile. In the short term, there is little correlation between it and the credit impulse (Chart I-12, top panel). Meanwhile, the credit impulse leads nominal manufacturing output growth by nine months (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Based on the past time lag relationships, the mainland’s business cycle should not have bottomed until the third quarter of this year. Hence, the bottom in the manufacturing PMIs in January does not fit the historical pattern of the relationship between the credit impulse and the mainland’s business cycle. Bottom Line: Presently, it is hard to make a definite conclusion on the reasons behind the pick-up in Chinese manufacturing. That said, business cycles do not always evolve in a common-sense manner that can be both rationalized and forecast by indicators. Therefore, it is essential for investors, to have confirmation signals from financial markets on the direction of the business cycle. Financial Markets As A Litmus Test We continuously monitor numerous financial markets that are sensitive to both the global and Chinese business cycles. These financial market-based indicators are often coincident with EM asset prices. Hence, they can be used to confirm or refute EM market direction. Our Risk-On-to-Safe-Haven (ROSH) currency ratio has recently softened, flashing a warning signal for EM share prices (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Currency Markets Are Flashing Amber For EM Stocks The ROSH ratio is the relative total return (including carry) of six commodities currencies (AUD, NZD, CAD, CLP, BRL and ZAR) versus two safe-haven currencies: the yen and Swiss franc. Hence, this currency ratio is agnostic to U.S. dollar trends, making its signals especially valuable. Our Reflation Confirming Indicator has retreated, also signaling a pullback in the EM equity index (Chart I-14). This indicator is composed of an equal-weighted average of industrial metals prices (a play on Chinese growth), platinum prices (a play on global reflation) and U.S. lumber prices (a proxy play on U.S. growth). Chart I-14Commodities Markets Are Flashing Amber For EM Stocks Within EM credit markets, corporate investment-grade spreads have begun narrowing versus high-yield spreads (Chart I-15). This typically coincides with lower EM share prices. Finally, EM share prices have been underperforming DM since late December. Relative performance of EM ex-China stocks against the global equity index has been even more underwhelming. In short, these markets are at a critical juncture. A decisive breakout will entail a lasting rally, while a failure to break out will signal imminent downside risk. Bottom Line: These financial market signals are not consistent with a durable China-led recovery in the global business cycle. Investment Strategy A number of financial markets are currently at a critical juncture. These markets will either break out or break down, with subsequently significant moves. The broad U.S. trade-weighted dollar has been flattish in the past nine months despite falling interest rate expectations in the U.S. and the risk-on market environment. We read this as a sign of underlying strength. The trade-weighted dollar is presently sitting on its 200-day moving average (Chart I-16). Consistent with a flattish trend in the greenback, the U.S. dollar volatility has dropped to very low levels. Exchange rates usually do not trade sideways much longer than that. Hence, the dollar is about to break out or break down and any move will be lasting and large. Chart I-15A Message From EM Corporate Credit Market Chart I-16The U.S. Dollar Is About To Make A Big Move   The Korean won has been forming a tapering wedge pattern from both short-term and long-term perspectives (Chart I-17, top and middle panels). Its volatility has also plunged to a record low (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Chart I-17The Korean Won Is At Crossroads Chart I-18A Stop-Buy On EM Stocks Finally, emerging Asian equities’ relative performance to global stocks is facing an important technical resistance as are copper and oil prices. In short, these markets are at a critical juncture. A decisive breakout will entail a lasting rally, while a failure to break out will signal imminent downside risk. Consistently, China’s “soft” data that has improved markedly yet there is no “hard” data confirmation. Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that the pickup in the soft data may simply reflect inventory building.   Weighing the pros and cons, we are instituting a stop-buy on our EM strategy: We will turn tactically positive on EM risk assets if the MSCI EM equity index in U.S. dollar terms breaks above 1125, which is 4% above its current level (Chart I-18). Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Malaysia: Keep On Upgrade Watch List Malaysian equities have been underperforming their EM counterparts since 2013 and are now resting around their 2017 lows (Chart II-1). The odds are high that this market’s underperformance is late. Chart II-1Malaysian Stocks Relative to EM Investors should keep Malaysian equities on an upgrade watch list. We upgraded the Malaysian bourse from underweight to neutral in December 2018. In a Special Report published at that time, we argued that the structural outlook for Malaysia had improved, yet the cyclical downturn would persist. The latter did not warrant moving the bourse to overweight. This view is still at play. Economic Slowdown Is Advanced The Malaysian economy has been digesting credit and property market excesses. Property sector: Property sales have declined by 37% since 2010, and prices for some property segments are beginning to deflate (Chart II-2). Similarly, housing construction approvals have slumped severely since 2012. Consumers: Passenger vehicle sales have been falling since 2012 along with households' declining marginal propensity to consume, and retail trade has been very weak (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Property Sector Is Depressed Chart II-3Consumer Sector Is Weak   An ongoing purge of excesses by companies entails lower wage growth and weaker employment, resulting in subdued household income growth. The latter could extend the consumer slump. Business sector: Capital spending growth in real terms has decelerated and may contract. Both profit margins and return-on-equity (ROE) for non-financial publicly listed companies have slumped and are currently resting below their 2008 levels (Chart II-4). This warrants cost-cutting and reduced corporate spending/capital expenditures for now. Chart II-4Corporate Restructuring On The Way? Reduced employment and weak wage growth are negative dynamics for households but positive for companies’ profit margins. Commercial Banks: Malaysian banks remain unhealthy. At 1.5%, their NPLs remain low relative to the credit boom that occurred over the past decade. Moreover, Malaysian banks have been lowering their provisions levels to boost profits. This is an unsustainable strategy. Provided economic growth will remain weak, both NPLs and provisions will rise, hurting banks’ profits and share prices. Banks hold a very large market-cap weighting in this bourse, and the negative outlook for banks’ profits deters us from upgrading this equity market. Purging Excesses: Implications For The Exchange Rate Purging of economic excesses is painful in the short- and medium-term, as it instills deflation. A currency often depreciates during this phase to mitigate the deflationary forces in the economy. However, purging excesses, deleveraging and corporate restructuring are ultimately structurally bullish for a currency. First, corporate restructuring and improved capital allocation lift productivity growth in the long run. The Malaysian economy has been digesting credit and property market excesses. Second, low inflation or outright deflation allow the currency to depreciate in real terms. The Malaysian ringgit is already cheap based on the real effective exchange rate (Chart II-5). Finally, amid deflation and in the absence of widespread bailout of debtors funded by bank loans or excessive government borrowing, cash becomes “king”. Hence, deleveraging is ultimately currency positive. In contrast, pervasive bailouts funded by money creation – i.e., mushrooming money growth – usually undermine residents’ and foreigners’ willingness to hold the currency. A capital flight ensues and the currency plunges. Malaysia in 2015 was the latter case, with the ringgit plummeting as residents converted their ringgits to U.S. dollars (Chart II-6, top panel). Chart II-5The Ringgit Is Cheap Chart II-6Malaysia: 2015 Vs. Now   Presently, the opposite dynamics are at play. The central bank is reducing commercial banks’ excess reserves, domestic private credit growth is weak and residents are not fleeing the ringgit (Chart II-6). In addition, the structural reorientation of the economy from commodities to semiconductors/technology is beginning to bear fruit. As a result, overall trade balance has significantly improved, despite weak commodities prices. This is also positive for the currency. Finally, a more stable (i.e., modestly weaker) exchange rate amid both a global and domestic downturn will allow Malaysia’s central bank to reduce interest rates and smooth the growth slump. This is in contrast to 2015 when capital outflows and the plunging currency did not allow the central bank to reduce borrowing costs. Investment Conclusions We recommend keeping Malaysian stocks on an upgrade watch list for now. We recommend upgrading Malaysian sovereign credit and local currency government bonds from underweight to neutral relative to their respective EM benchmarks A relatively stable ringgit will benefit Malaysia’s local and U.S. dollar bonds. Furthermore, foreign ownership of local bonds has fallen meaningfully, diminishing the risk of future outflows. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Downgrading Brazil: The Honeymoon Is Over In our October 9 report, we upgraded Brazil following the outcome of the first round of presidential elections. We, like the market, gave a benefit of the doubt to the new president. However, the honeymoon is over for President Bolsonaro. The markets are becoming increasingly pessimistic because of the lack of progress on the social security reforms front. It is no secret that Brazil needs bold pension reform to make its public debt sustainable. As things stand now, the public debt dynamic in Brazil is precarious. Two prerequisites for public debt sustainability are (1) for interest rates to be below nominal GDP growth or (2) continuous robust primary fiscal surpluses. Hence, a government can stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio by either having nominal GDP above its borrowing costs, or by running persistent and sizable primary fiscal surpluses. Neither of these two stipulations are presently satisfied in Brazil. The gap between government local currency bond yields and nominal GDP growth is still very wide (Chart III-1). Meanwhile, the primary fiscal deficit is 1.5% of GDP (Chart III-2). Chart III-1Brazil: An Unsustainable Gap Chart III-2Brazil: Public Debt Dynamics Are Precarious     In the early 2000s, the government stabilized its public debt dynamics by running persistent primary surpluses of about 4% of GDP (Chart III-2, top panel). Will Brazil achieve primary fiscal surpluses in the coming years assuming some form of the pension reform is adopted? It is doubtful. According to the government’s own forecasts, the submitted draft of social security reforms, including the one for the army, will save only BRL190 billion in next four years or 0.7% of GDP per year. The current primary deficit is 1.5% of GDP (Chart III-2). Unless nominal GDP growth and government revenue growth shoot up, the primary deficit will not be eliminated or the primary surplus will be very small. Overall, it seems unlikely that the government’s proposed pension reforms will be sufficient to turn around Brazil’s public debt dynamics in the next several years - barring very strong economic growth that will fill in government coffers. Bottom Line: We are downgrading Brazil from overweight to underweight within EM equity, local currency bonds and sovereign credit benchmarks. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations