Economy

Highlights The slowdown in global industrial activity appears to have bottomed. This, along with an apparent shared desire for a ceasefire in the Sino-US trade war, points toward a measured recovery in manufacturing and global trade, which will contribute to higher iron-ore and steel demand beginning in 1H20. A trade-war ceasefire, should it endure, will reduce global economic uncertainty. Along with continued monetary accommodation from systematically important central banks, reduced economic uncertainty will boost global growth and industrial-commodity demand generally by allowing the USD to weaken. We expect Beijing policymakers to remain focused on keeping GDP growth above 6.0% p.a. To that end, we believe a boost in infrastructure spending next year is likely, which also will be bullish for steel demand. Given China’s growing share of global steel production, we expect price differentials for high-grade iron ore – most of which comes from Brazil – to widen as steel demand increases next year. Given this view, we are initiating a strategic iron-ore spread trade at tonight’s close: Getting long December 2020 high-grade (65% Fe) futures traded on the Singapore Exchange vs. short the benchmark-grade (62% Fe) December 2020 futures traded on the CME. We recommend a 20% stop-loss on this recommendation. Feature Iron ore and steel demand will get a lift from the rebound our proprietary Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index has been forecasting for the past few months (Chart of the Week). The GIA index is designed to pick up changes in Chinese industrial activity, given its outsized influence on world industrial output, and also makes use of trade data, FX rates, and global manufacturing data. The rebound we are expecting will get a fillip from an apparent shared desire for a ceasefire in the Sino-US trade war, which, based on media reports, is close to being agreed. Should this ceasefire prove to be durable, it would contribute to a lowering of global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU), which, as we have shown recently, has kept the USD well bid to the detriment of industrial-commodity demand.1 Chart of the WeekBCA GIA Index Pick-Up Points To Higher Global Steel Demand While we do expect economic uncertainty to decline next year, it will remain elevated due to continued Sino-US trade tensions – even if a “phase-one” deal is agreed – ongoing hostilities in the Persian Gulf, and popular discontent with the political status quo globally. As global economic uncertainty fades, the USD broad trade-weighted index for goods (TWIBG) will fall, which will bolster EM GDP growth, and a recovery in global trade next year (Chart 2). If, as media reports suggest, this so-called “phase-one” agreement includes a relaxation – or complete removal – of tariffs by the US on Chinese imports, we would expect manufacturing activity to pick up as Chinese manufacturers spin-up capacity to meet demand. A reduction in tariffs also will lessen the deadweight loss they imposed on US households, which will support higher consumption.2 Chart 2Reduced Global Economic Uncertainty Bolsters Global Trade Volumes, EM GDP That said, economic uncertainty still remains high. This uncertainty is destructive of demand and will remain a key risk factor in 2020. While we do expect economic uncertainty to decline next year, it will remain elevated due to continued Sino-US trade tensions – even if a “phase-one” deal is agreed – ongoing hostilities in the Persian Gulf, and popular discontent with the political status quo globally. China’s Steel Demand Holds Up In Trade War China accounts for more than half of global steel production and consumption, and the lion’s share of seaborne iron-ore consumption (Chart 3). This makes its steel industry critically important to the global economy, and a key barometer of industrial activity worldwide. With global industrial activity bottoming and moving higher, and the USD expected to weaken, we expect iron ore demand and steel production in China to move higher next year as domestic and global demand for steel rises. China’s apparent steel demand held up fairly well during the slowdown observed in manufacturing and in commodity demand growth globally, averaging 8% y/y growth ytd (Chart of the Week, bottom panel). It now appears to be stalling in the wake of the global manufacturing slowdown. In addition, Chinese credit stimulus remains weak, contrary to expectations. However, with global industrial activity bottoming and moving higher, and the USD expected to weaken, we expect iron ore demand and steel production in China to move higher next year as domestic and global demand for steel rises.3 Chart 3China Dominates Global Steel Production and Consumption Chart 4Construction, Real Estate Strength Offset Lower Chinese Auto Production Greater demand for steel by the construction and real estate sectors offset lower consumption by the automobile industry in China this year, as manufacturing and trade slowed globally (Chart 4). Overall, apparent demand is still growing (Chart 5), which will continue to support iron ore imports, even though domestic production of low-grade ore picked up as steelmakers’ margins tightened earlier in the year (Chart 6). Chart 5China"s Apparent Steel Demand Growth Holds Up During Industrial Slowdown Chart 6China Iron Ore Imports Remain Stout Chinese imports from Brazil have rebounded following the Brumadinho tailings dam collapse in January at Vale’s Córrego do Feijão iron ore mine, which killed close to 300 people. The collapse in margins from steel mills combined with outages to Brazil and Australia high-grade ore exports led to a rise in imports and domestic production of low-grade iron ore. High-Grade Iron Ore Favored; Policy Uncertainty Persists Our overall view for industrial commodities – iron ore, steel, base metals and crude oil – is constructive but not wildly bullish going into next year. Our oil view, for example, calls for a rally in the average price of crude oil next year of ~ 10% from current levels for Brent crude oil, the world benchmark. While we expect global monetary stimulus to offset much of the tightening of financial conditions brought on by the Fed’s rate hikes last year, and China’s de-leveraging campaign of 2017-18, elevated economic uncertainty will keep the USD better bid that it otherwise would be absent the Sino-US trade war and global economic policy uncertainty. This translates into weaker commodity demand, generally, as a strong USD raises local-currency costs for consumers and lowers local-currency production costs for producers. At the margin, both push commodity prices lower. On a relative basis, we expect the more efficient, less-polluting technology likely will be called on to meet higher steel demand – in China and globally – next year, which means higher-grade iron ore will be favored by Chinese steel mills as profitability improves. For iron ore and steel in particular, environmental considerations also are important, given the Chinese government's “Blue Skies Policy” aimed at reducing the country’s high levels of air pollution.4 This policy has led to the forced retirement of older, highly polluting steelmaking capacity, which has been replaced with newer, less-polluting technology that favors high-grade iron ore. However, the application of regulations designed to reduce pollution has been uneven, and still relies on local compliance, which has been spotty. We expect demand for high-grade ore will increase as global manufacturing and trade also recovers. On a relative basis, we expect the more efficient, less-polluting technology likely will be called on to meet higher steel demand – in China and globally – next year, which means higher-grade iron ore will be favored by Chinese steel mills as profitability improves. The restoration of high-grade exports from Brazil means this ore will be available. It is worthwhile noting that these steelmakers account for an increasing share of global capacity. For this reason, we expect demand for high-grade ore will increase as global manufacturing and trade also recovers (Chart 7). Given our view, at tonight’s close we will get long December 2020 high-grade iron-ore futures (65% Fe) traded on the Singapore Exchange vs. short benchmark-grade iron-ore futures (62% Fe) traded on the CME. Both are quoted in USD/MT and settle basis Chinese port-delivery (CFR) indexes in cash. Given the uncertain nature of the durability and depth of the ceasefire currently being negotiated by the US and China, we will keep a stop-loss on this position of 20%. Bottom Line: China’s steel demand has held up relatively well despite the global slowdown in manufacturing and trade. Given our expectation for a pick-up in global growth – in response to global monetary and fiscal stimulus and lower economic uncertainty in the wake of a ceasefire in the Sino-US trade war – we expect Chinese steel demand to resume growing. This will support iron ore prices, particularly for high-grade ores. On the back of this expectation, we are recommending an iron-ore spread trade, going long high-grade futures vs. short benchmark-grade iron ore futures. Chart 7High-Grade Iron Ore Should Outperform Strategically   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Market Round-Up Energy: Overweight. Bloomberg reported China is looking to invest between $5-$10 billion in the Saudi Aramco IPO through various vehicles. Such an investment would give China a deeper stake in the Kingdom’s oil industry, and a hedge to price shocks. In addition, it could open the way for deeper investment in the Saudi oil and petchems industries. For KSA, as we have argued in the past, a deepening of China’s investment and involvement in the Kingdom’s economy would diversify the states that have a vested interest in ensuring its safety.5 We will be updating our analysis of China’s pivot to the Middle East, and KSA’s pivot to Asia next week. Separately, we the last of our Brent backwardation trades – i.e., long December 2019 Brent vs. short December 2020 Brent – was closed last week with a gain of 110.8%. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper prices are up 6% vs. last month, supported by supply-side worries in Chile and, more recently, easing trade tensions. Cyclically, we believe copper prices are turning up – spurred by easy monetary conditions and fiscal stimulus directed at infrastructure and construction spending. Most of our key commodity-demand indicators have bottomed and are suggesting EM demand growth will move up. This supports a year-end base metal rally. Precious Metals: Neutral. A risk-on sentiment fueled by expectation the U.S. and China will sign a trade deal weighs on gold’s safe-haven demand. Prices fell 2% since last week. Additionally, U.S. 10-year bond yields shot higher – pushing gold prices lower – on Tuesday following a stronger-than-expect ISM services PMI data release. Gold-backed ETF holdings reached a new record in September at 2,855 MT (up 377 MT ytd), surpassing the December 2012 peak. A reversal in investors’ sentiment towards gold could send prices down. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA reported that 52% of the U.S. corn has been harvested, a 13 percentage point increase relative to last week, yet the figure came shy of analysts’ expectation and far below the 2014-2018 average of 75%. On a weekly basis, corn prices are still down 2% due to drier weather forecast. Soybean harvest did better reaching 75%, and meeting expectations. Soybean price is almost unchanged on a weekly basis, despite having edged higher earlier in the week on the back of rising expectations the US and China will agree on a ceasefire in the ongoing trade war.   Footnotes 1     We measure this uncertainty using the Baker-Bloom-Davis Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) index. This is a GDP-weighted index of newspaper headlines containing a list of words related economic uncertainty. Newspapers from 20 countries representing almost 80% of global GDP are scoured for reports reflecting economic uncertainty. Please see our October 17 and October 31, 2019, reports Policy Uncertainty Lifts USD, Stifles Global Oil Demand Growth and Global Financial Conditions Support Higher Commodity Demand for the original research on this topic. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2    We discuss deadweight losses to US households arising from the tariffs in Waiting To Get Long Copper, In China’s Steel Slipstream, published August 29, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy expects China’s business cycle likely will bottom in 1Q20 of next year, rather than in 4Q19. This aligns with our expectation. Please see China Macro And Market Review, published November 6, 2019. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4    We examined the implications of China’s “Blue Skies” policy in China's Anti-Pollution Resolve Critical To Iron Ore Markets, published April 4, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    We discuss these issues in our Special Report entitled ضد الواسطة published November 16, 2018. The Arabic title of the report translates as "Against Wasta." Wasta means reciprocity in formal and informal dealings. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Please note that we will publish a Special Report on the Asian semiconductors cycle on Monday November 11. The risk to our negative stance on EM stocks is that DM share prices will continue advancing, pulling EM equities higher. If the MSCI EM Equity Index breaks decisively above our stop buy level instituted two weeks ago, we will reverse our stance on the absolute performance of EM. Nevertheless, we assign high odds that EM share prices will underperform DM even in a global equity rally. Hence, we are not changing our underweight recommendation on EM within a global equity portfolio. In the 2012-14 period, EM stocks underperformed their DM counterparts despite the global equity rally. Feature Chart I-1China: A Tale Of Two Manufacturing PMIs In our October 24 weekly report, we instituted a buy stop on the MSCI EM Equity Index at 1,075. The index is currently flirting with this level. If EM stocks break decisively above this level, our buy stop will be triggered. Such a technical breakout will signify that this EM equity rally will likely be sustained in the medium term, and that investors should play it. What would be the rationale behind this rally? Is it the rise in China’s Caixin manufacturing PMI or an imminent trade deal between the U.S. and China? Or is it a recovery in the global business cycle? The top panel of Chart I-1 shows that China’s Caixin and NBS manufacturing PMIs have decoupled. The Caixin PMI is compiled through a survey of about 500 companies, while the NBS measure is based on about 3000 companies. Neither one appears to have a consistently better track record than the other. For this reason, to tackle the issues of excessive volatility and false signals from both measures, we prefer to look at their average. The bottom panel of Chart I-1 illustrates the average of the two. The takeaway is that China’s manufacturing PMI has indeed improved, but only modestly. Further, non-manufacturing PMI – also the average of the Caixin and the NBS figures – has dropped to 2015 lows (Chart I-2). Hence, Chinese PMIs are not sending an unequivocal message that the mainland economy is recovering. Chart I-2China: Non-Manufacturing PMI Is At Its 2015 Low On one hand, the business cycle in China as well as global trade and manufacturing have not yet improved. On the other, share prices often lead markets, and waiting for economic data often results in missing the turning points. In this week’s report, we present both the bullish market signals and the lack of evidence of an economic recovery in China/EM, global trade and manufacturing. Finally, we elaborate why an enduring global equity rally does not always lead to EM equity relative outperformance versus DM. Bullish Market Signals… The motive for our buy stop on the EM Equity Index is the number of bullish market signals that currently suggest the global equity rally could be sustainable, and hence playable. First, DM share prices have been trading well – equity market actions in the U.S., Europe and Japan have been characteristic of a bull market since early October. Specifically, companies that have missed analysts’ earnings estimates have seen their share prices do quite well, often rising markedly in the days following their earnings announcements. Share prices of companies that have beaten analysts’ expectations have literally surged. This is typical of a genuine bull market. Technical patterns are also positive for U.S. equities. U.S. small caps, S&P 500 high-beta stocks and FAANG share prices have all bounced from major support levels. Second, technical patterns are also positive for U.S. equities. U.S. small caps, S&P 500 high-beta stocks and FAANG share prices have all bounced from major support levels and are attempting to break out (Chart I-3). Finally, the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio has also failed to break below one of its long-term moving averages and has rebounded (Chart I-4). When a 200-day or long-term moving average holds, it often marks a major reversal. Chart I-3Bullish Patterns In U.S. Equities Chart I-4A Bull Market In U.S. Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio   All these signals imply a bullish trajectory for U.S. and other DM share prices. At the current juncture, we are giving the benefit of the doubt to the market and ready to reverse our stance on EM performance in absolute terms when our buy stop is triggered. Apart from these technical signals and market actions, U.S. economic fundamentals remain healthy. In particular, U.S. households have decent balance sheets, their income and spending growth is quite robust, the banking system is healthy, and nationwide property markets are picking up following a soft spot early this year. Although American manufacturing and capital spending have been weak, these relapses primarily reflect negative demand from the rest of the world and business confidence deterioration due to the U.S.-China trade confrontation. The latter will be partially reversed by the forthcoming U.S.-China trade deal. Chart I-5China Not U.S. Drives EM Profits Cycles At the same time, there is a lack of meaningful green shoots in global trade and manufacturing (we discuss this in more detail below). Altogether, one can explain this equity rally as being driven by subsiding fears of a U.S. recession, Federal Reserve easing and the improvement on the U.S.-China trade front.  That said, our negative view on EM has not been contingent on a U.S. recession, Fed policy or the U.S.-China trade confrontation. As such, improvements on these fronts do not constitute sufficient basis for us to change our fundamental stance on EM. The empirical evidence that U.S. growth is not driving EM growth in general and EM corporate profitability in particular emanates from the following: U.S. imports and EM corporate earnings cycles have not been correlated since 2011 (Chart I-5, top panel). EM earnings-per-share cycles have instead been driven by Chinese imports since 2009 (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Hence, it is China’s domestic demand that drives broader EM profit cycles. As we elaborate below, there is little evidence of improvement in the mainland’s business cycle, its imports, and commodities prices. Bottom Line: There are numerous bullish signals from DM equity markets. The risk to our negative stance on EM is as follows: If DM share prices continue to rally, they will drag EM stocks and other risk assets higher. …But Global Growth Has Not Yet Improved Chart I-6No Clear Bullish Signal From Currency Markets Several key financial market signals, as well as soft and hard data, are not yet indicating that a recovery is already underway in global trade and manufacturing. Nor do they point to an improvement in China/EM economies. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1 has rebounded but has not yet broken above its neckline (Chart I-6, top panel). This indicator had formed a classic head-and-shoulders pattern before breaking down. The jury is still out on whether the recent rebound is a false start or the beginning of a cyclical advance. We put a lot of emphasis on this indicator because (1) it is very strongly correlated with EM share prices, (2) it captures both risk-on and risk-off periods in global financial markets, (3) it leads the global business cycle, and (4) it is agnostic to the U.S. dollar’s trend. In a similar vein, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar has weakened but has not yet broken through key moving averages to conclude that it has definitively entered a bear market. With the exception of China’s Caixin manufacturing PMI, there are few green shoots in global manufacturing. Manufacturing PMIs in Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan are all still below the 50 boom-bust line (Chart I-7, top and middle panels). Meanwhile, manufacturing PMIs in the ASEAN region have plunged (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Critically, EM per-share earnings are contracting at a rate of 10% from a year ago. Notably, the leading indicators for EM corporate profits – China’s domestic orders of 5,000 industrial companies and narrow money (M1) growth – signal a tentative bottoming of EM corporate profit growth only in early 2020 (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Outside China, Asian Manufacturing PMIs Are Weak Chart I-8Leading Indicators For EM EPS Growth   In the majority of developing economies, corporate per-share earnings are contracting or stagnating in local currency terms (Chart I-9). Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio has rebounded but has not yet broken above its neckline. “Hard” economic data out of EM/China and global trade remain downbeat as well. For example, Chinese construction activity and capital goods imports as well as Japanese foreign machine tool orders are all shrinking at double-digit rates from a year ago (Chart I-10, top and middle panels). Korea’s October exports contracted by 15% from a year earlier (Chart I-10, bottom panel).   Chart I-9Individual EM Country EPS In Local Currency Terms Chart I-10China Capex And Global Trade: Double Digit Contraction   Finally, the import sub-component of China’s NBS manufacturing PMI remains well below the 50 boom-bust line. Chinese demand is of paramount importance for industrial metals. China accounts for 50% of industrial metals demand, while the U.S. accounts for only about 7%. The very subdued bounce in commodities in general and industrial metals prices in particular, are confirming a lack of recovery in Chinese intake of raw materials (Chart I-11). EM share prices, including emerging Asian stocks, have the highest correlation with global materials stocks (Chart I-12). The rationale for this tight relationship between emerging Asian equities and commodities is that both are leveraged to the Chinese business cycle, as we discussed in our recent report, EM: Perceptions Versus Reality. It is difficult to envision EM share prices staging a cyclical bull market when commodities prices are flat to down. Chart I-11Chinese Imports PMI And Industrial Metals Chart I-12Emerging Asian Stocks And Global Materials: Moving In Tandem   Bottom Line: The key variables driving EM share prices are China’s credit and business cycles, its imports and global trade. There are few green shoots in China/EM business cycles and global trade. This is why we believe even if this global equity rally is sustained, EM equities will underperform DM ones. We elaborate on this below. Can EM Underperform DM In A Bull Market? Chart I-132012-14: EM Underperformed During Global Bull Market BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team’s view on global equity allocation is as follows: Even if DM equities enter a sustainable bull market, odds are that EM stocks will underperform. This scenario will likely resemble the 2012-14 episode that was characterized by the following: DM share prices were in a strong bull market following the European credit crisis and the global markets selloff in 2011 (Chart I-13, top panel). Global trade and manufacturing bottomed in late 2012 and accelerated in 2013 (Chart I-13, third panel). Yet, this global trade and manufacturing improvement did little to support EM share prices, currencies and commodities prices. In 2012-14, EM equities were range-bound in absolute terms and significantly underperformed their DM peers (Chart I-13, second panel). In short, EM stocks were low beta relative to global stocks during that period. Besides, commodities prices were falling and EM currencies were depreciating versus the U.S. dollar (Chart I-13, bottom panel). The cause of such poor EM performance was two-fold: First, the recovery in China’s business cycle and its imports was tame. Second, many EM economies were suffering from poor domestic fundamentals following the 2009-2011 credit and cheap money booms. We expect any growth improvement in China to be muted, resembling the 2012 growth stabilization rather than the 2016 recovery. The top panel of Chart I-14 illustrates that China’s manufacturing PMI oscillated between 48 and 52 in 2012-2014 when the global manufacturing cycle rebounded and DM growth improved. This occurred despite China’s large stimulus in 2012 (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-14Chinese PMI And Credit And Fiscal Stimulus In line with the subdued recovery in China’s business cycle at the time, EM corporate profits did not recover much in the 2012-2014 period (please refer to Chart I-8 on page 7). We expect EM currencies to depreciate versus the U.S. dollar even if global share prices continue rallying. This will resemble the 2012-14 scenario. Notably, EM equity underperformance versus DM escalated in the spring of 2013 during the Fed’s Taper Tantrum when EM currencies plunged and EM fixed-income markets sold off. Yet, the Fed’s Taper Tantrum was not the only reason for EM currency depreciation. As demonstrated in the bottom panel of Chart I-13 on page 10, EM ex-China currencies’ total return was strongly correlated with commodities prices. Currently, many EM countries do not suffer from the same malaises they did in 2012-14, namely, high inflation and large current account deficits. On the contrary, very low nominal growth, i.e., enduring deflationary pressures, is the foremost problem in many EM countries such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Brazil, Mexico and Russia. These deflationary pressures are due to very sluggish domestic demand, weak/unhealthy banking systems and falling commodities prices. This backdrop indicates that these economies are not in a position to withstand either higher global borrowing costs or lower commodities prices. Their currencies will depreciate with either higher global bond yields or falling commodities prices. Even if DM equities enter a sustainable bull market, odds are that EM stocks will underperform. Hence, a scenario of firming U.S. and European demand – which would warrant higher bond yields – amid still weak Chinese growth – which would push commodities prices lower – would be very negative for EM currencies. Chart I-15Outperformance By Euro Area And Value Stocks Does Not Always Herald EM Outperformance Chart I-16EM Vs. DM: Relative Share Prices Are Tracking Relative EPS Finally, EM stocks’ relative performance versus global stocks does not always coincide with the relative performance of euro area or value stocks (Chart I-15). This entails that outperformance by euro area and global value stocks does not always herald EM outperformance versus the global equity benchmark. Bottom Line: Regardless the direction of global share prices, we expect EM stocks to underperform DM equities in the next several months. Relative equity performance is driven by relative EPS trends, as illustrated in Chart I-16. The corporate earnings outlook is worse in EM than in the U.S., euro area and Japan.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, RUB, CLP, MXN & ZAR total return indices relative to average of CHF & JPY total returns.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Global: Global growth momentum is bottoming out, leading indicators are improving, inflation is subdued, and central bankers are biased to maintain accommodative monetary policies. This is a bullish “sweet spot” for financial markets, suggesting further upside for global risk assets like equities and corporate credit, especially relative to government bonds. US: The overall US economy is weathering the storm from the global manufacturing slump, which is showing signs of bottoming out.  Stay below-benchmark on US Treasury duration, with an initial yield target of 2.25% for the benchmark 10-year. Canada: The Bank of Canada is hinting that “insurance” rate cuts may be needed, but with the Canadian economy and inflation both remaining resilient, the central bank is more likely to keep rates steady until global growth improves.  Stay neutral on Canadian government bonds, for now, but prepare to move to underweight in early 2020. Feature After knocking on the door several times in recent weeks, global equity markets are finally enjoying a true breakout.  In the U.S., the S&P 500 is setting new all-time highs on a daily basis, while equities in Europe and emerging markets (EM) are also registering solid gains. There is no conflicting signal from global corporate credit markets where spreads remain stable, or from the volatility space with measures like the US VIX index hovering near the 2019 lows. Chart Of The WeekThings Are Looking Up Despite this positive price action, many remain skeptical that this “risk rally” is sustainable.  Just last week, a headline in the Financial Times declared that the “U.S. stock market’s new highs baffles investors”. We find that reluctance to accept the equity market strength to be even more baffling, as the current macro backdrop is a perfect “sweet spot” for risk assets to do well.  Global economic momentum is bottoming out, with improving leading indicators suggesting better days lie ahead for growth.  A majority of central banks worldwide have eased monetary policy over the past several months, providing a more supportive liquidity backdrop for financial markets.  The world’s most important central bank, the Federal Reserve, has delivered a cumulative -75bps of rate cuts since July, helping to cool off the US dollar, which is now flat on a year-over-year basis in trade-weighted terms (Chart Of The Week).  A softening dollar is also often a signal that global growth is improving, as it indicates a shift in capital flows into more economically-sensitive non-U.S. markets like Europe and EM.  Thus, a weaker greenback combined with better global growth prospects should help lift global bond yields by raising depressed inflation expectations (middle panel).  The “sweet spot” of accelerating growth and easy money will support the continued outperformance of global equities and credit over government bonds, in an environment of gently rising bond yields. Yet with policymakers worldwide still playing the stimulus game, fearful of persistent negative impacts on growth from the U.S.-China trade dispute and other political uncertainties, it will take a large and sustained increase in inflation expectations before there is any shift to a more hawkish global policy bias.  This is critical for bond markets, as a much bigger move higher in global bond yields would require not just a pricing out of rate cut expectations, but the pricing in of future rate hikes. Such a repricing will not occur before there is clear evidence that global growth, broadly speaking, is accelerating for a sustained period and not just stabilizing in a few countries. The earliest we can envision such a hawkish shift for global monetary policy would be late in 2020, led by the Fed signaling a removal of some of the “insurance” rate cuts of 2019.  Until that happens, the “sweet spot” of accelerating growth and easy money will support the continued outperformance of global equities and credit over government bonds, in an environment of gently rising bond yields. The Art Of Analyzing Economic Data At Turning Points Typically, at turning points in the global growth cycle, there are always data available to support the arguments of both optimists and pessimists. That is certainly the case today, where so-called “hard” economic data that is reported with a lag (i.e. exports, durable goods orders) remains weak, but leading indicators are starting to improve. For example, the global manufacturing PMI data for October released last week shows the following (Chart 2): strong pickup in China, with the Caixin manufacturing PMI now up to 51.7; slight improvement in the US ISM manufacturing index, which rose from 47.8 to 48.3 in the month but remains below the 50 boom/bust line; bounce in the U.K. Markit manufacturing PMI index, rising from 48.3 to 49.6; the slightest of increases in the overall euro area Markit manufacturing PMI, from 45.7 to 45.9, still below the 50 line but showing marginal improvement in the critical German PMI; Continued weakness in the Japanese Markit manufacturing PMI, which fell to 48.4. The relative message from the PMIs fits with the signals sent from the OECD leading economic indicators (LEI) for those same countries, with the China LEI strengthening the most and the LEIs in Europe and Japan still struggling. The US is a mixed bag, with the ISM ticking up but the LEI languishing. There is, however, a sign of optimism in the export sub-index of the ISM manufacturing data. That measure surged nine points in October from 41.0 to 50.4, signaling a potential bottoming of the overall ISM index within the next three months (Chart 3).  While the ISM exports index is volatile, the modest improvement seen in the export order series from the China manufacturing PMI over the past few months (bottom panel) suggests that there may be a more significant improvement in global trade activity brewing – as signaled by the improvement in our global LEI index. Another possible explanation for the reduction in U.S. capital spending is slowing growth in corporate profits, which is related to a number of factors beyond the impact of tariffs and the trade war. Chart 2Global PMIs Are A Mixed Bag Chart 3Momentum Turning For The Trade Warriors? Bottom Line: Global growth momentum is bottoming out, leading indicators are improving, inflation is subdued, and central bankers are biased to maintain accommodative monetary policies. This is a bullish “sweet spot” for financial markets, suggesting further upside for global risk assets like equities and corporate credit, especially relative to government bonds. US Capital Spending Slowdown:  Only A Cautious Pause Chart 4Rising Uncertainty? Or Just Slowing Profit Growth? For growth pessimists in the US, a modest boost to “soft” data like the ISM does not allay their concerns about a broadening US economic slowdown. The trade war with China and the global manufacturing recession have had a clear negative impact on business confidence when looking at measures like the Conference Board CEO survey.  At the same time, US capital spending has contracted in real terms during the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2019.  A logical inference would be to say that uncertainty over the trade war has led to a reduction in capex. Another possible explanation for the reduction in U.S. capital spending is slowing growth in corporate profits, which is related to a number of factors beyond the impact of tariffs and the trade war. Like the fading impact of the 2018 U.S. corporate tax cuts (that helped trigger a surge in after-tax earnings growth) and the squeeze on profit margins from higher labor costs. On a year-over-year basis, US profit growth has slowed from nearly 25% in 2018 to 1.8% in the 3rd quarter (a projection based on the 76% of S&P 500 companies that have already reported).  The real non-residential investment spending category from the US GDP accounts has slowed alongside profits, from 6.8% to 1.3% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4). At the same time, annual growth in US non-farm payrolls has slowed only modestly from 1.91% to 1.4%, with average hourly earnings growth falling from a 2019 peak of 3.4% to 3.0% in October. Given the tightness of the US labor market, with firms continuing to report difficulties in finding quality labor, it should come as no surprise that employment and wages have not slowed as much as capital spending, despite the sharp downturn in profit growth.  Businesses that see their earnings getting squeezed will seek to protect profits by cutting back on investment and hiring activity. With a tight labor market, however, cutting capital spending is an easier and less costly decision than laying off workers, as it may be even harder to re-hire those employees if the economy starts to improve once again. With the US Treasury curve no longer inverted, after -75bps of Fed rate cuts and with longer-dated Treasury yields starting to increase, the US economy is stepping back from the recessionary abyss that worried investors during the summer. That can also be seen when breaking down the US non-residential investment data into its broad sub-components (Chart 5).  On a contribution-to-growth basis, the only part of US investment spending that is outright contracting year-over-year is Structures. There is still modest positive annual growth in Equipment investment, although that did contract on a quarter-on-quarter basis in Q3/2019. The Intellectual Property Products category (which includes Software, in addition to Research & Development) continues to expand at a steady pace. Chart 5Slowing US Capex Focused On Structures Chart 6The Fed Has Dis-Inverted The UST Curve So similar to signals from global PMIs and LEIs, the U.S. capital spending and employment data are sending a mixed message about U.S. growth. Yes, capital spending has slowed but the bulk of the deceleration has come in the component where canceling or delaying investment plans is easiest – buildings and construction. It is not necessarily an indication that a deeper economic downturn is unfolding. Similar cutbacks in Structures investment, without a broader decline in overall capital spending, occurred in 2013 and 2015/16.  During the past two U.S. recessions in 2001 and 2008, however, all categories of capital spending contracted. If we look at the breakdown of the contribution to US investment spending today, the backdrop looks more like those non-recessionary years. With the US Treasury curve no longer inverted, after -75bps of Fed rate cuts and with longer-dated Treasury yields starting to increase, the US economy is stepping back from the recessionary abyss that worried investors during the summer (Chart 6).  The trade détente between the US and China will help boost depressed business confidence, especially with global growth already showing signs of bottoming out. This, along with a softer US dollar and some easing of wage pressures, will help put a floor underneath US corporate profit growth. Treasury yields have more upside from here, as markets are still priced for -25bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year that is unlikely to happen if the US economy rebounds, as we expect.  Bottom Line:  The overall US economy is weathering the storm from the global manufacturing slump, which is showing signs of bottoming out.  Stay below-benchmark on US Treasury duration, with an initial yield target of 2.25% for the benchmark 10-year. The Bank Of Canada’s Newfound Caution Is Unwarranted Chart 7Canada Is A High-Beta Bond Market The Bank of Canada (BoC) has been one of the few central banks to resist the shift towards easier global monetary policy in 2019.  This has resulted in Canadian government bonds trading at relatively wide yield spreads to other countries in the developed world, even as global growth has slowed in 2019 (Chart 7).  With global growth now set to improve over the next 6-12 months, Canada’s historic status as a “high yield beta” bond market during periods of rising global yields suggests that Canadian government bonds should underperform in 2020. However, in the press conference following last week’s policy meeting, BoC Governor Stephen Poloz noted that the BoC was “mindful that the resilience of Canada’s economy will be increasingly tested as trade conflicts and uncertainty persist.” Poloz even revealed that an “insurance” rate cut was discussed at the policy meeting, although the BoC Governing Council decided against it.  This is similar language to that parroted by the more dovish global central bankers over the past several months, raising the risk that Canada could be a lower-beta bond market if the Canadian economy falters. That outcome seems unlikely, given the indications of improving growth momentum, occurring alongside tight labor markets and stable inflation: The RBC/Markit Canadian manufacturing PMI has climbed from a trough of 49 in May to 51 in October, indicating that real GDP growth accelerated in Q3 (Chart 8, top panel); The BoC’s Autumn 2019 Business Outlook Survey (BoS) showed that an increasing share of firms are reporting labor shortages, coinciding with a sharp pickup in the annual growth rate of average weekly earnings to just over 4% (middle panel); Core inflation measures remain right at the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target range, although breakeven inflation rates from Canadian Real Return Bonds remain closer to the bottom end of that range (bottom panel); After a long period of adjustment, house prices and housing activity are showing some signs of recovery in response to easier financial conditions, rising household incomes and improved affordability (Chart 9); Chart 8Resilience In Canadian Growth & Inflation Chart 9Canadian Housing Showing Improvement Canadian investment spending is set to pick up, as the Autumn 2019 BoS reported a modest improvement in overall business sentiment and an increase in capital spending plans with a growing number of firms facing capacity pressures (Chart 10). Our bias is to downgrade Canadian government bonds to underweight heading into 2020, as we expect a return to their typical high-beta status during a period of accelerating global growth and rising bond yields. Chart 10Signs Of Life For Canadian Capex? Looking forward, reduced U.S.-China trade tensions should provide a boost to Canadian capex. Firms that had previously held off in the past few months due to the slowdown in the economy, caused partially by worries over global trade, will start to invest again. The BoC’s updated forecasts in the latest Monetary Policy Report released last week showed that the central bank expects Canadian exports to resume their expansion in 2020 – despite Governor Poloz’s stated concerns over global growth. Oil and gas exports are expected to improve as pipeline and rail capacity gradually expand, while consumer goods excluding automobiles should remain strong. Improvement in Chinese economic activity would provide a meaningful lift to Canadian exports, as Chinese imports from Canada are still contracting at a double-digit rate (Chart 11).  More importantly, Canadian exports to the country’s largest trade partner, the US, have already stabilized and should accelerate as the US economy gains momentum in the next 6-12 months. As Governor Poloz mentioned during the press conference, the BoC's decisions are not going to be directly influenced by political events such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent re-election. Yet the odds of Canadian fiscal stimulus have shot up after Trudeau could only secure a minority government in the Canadian Parliament. Any fiscal stimulus is starting from a healthier place with the budget deficit currently at only -1% of GDP and the net government debt-to-GDP ratio falling towards a low 40% level (Chart 12).  Expected fiscal stimulus will provide an incremental boost to Canadian growth in 2020. Chart 11The Global Trade Slump Has Hurt Canada Chart 12Canada Can Afford A Fiscal Stimulus Net-net, the Canadian economy appears to be in good shape, with momentum starting to improve.  Inflation remains close to the BoC target, with rising pressures stemming from a tight labor market. This is not a backdrop that would be conducive to an “insurance” rate cut in December or even in early 2020.  Only -18bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months are discounted in the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. Yet there is only a 16% chance of a -25bp cut expected at the December 2019 meeting, according to Bloomberg.  In other words, the markets are not taking the threat of a BoC rate cut seriously – a view that we agree with. Chart 13Stay Neutral On Canadian Government Bonds We suspect that Governor Poloz’s comments about a potential BoC policy ease were more designed to take some steam out of the strengthening Canadian dollar (Chart 13), which was threatening a major breakout going into last week’s BoC meeting.  We would be surprised if a rate cut was delivered at the December 2019 BoC meeting, but the dovish message sent last week does raise the possibility that the BoC could shock us. For now, we are choosing to stick with our neutral recommendation on Canadian government bonds, but we will re-evaluate after the December 4 BoC meeting. Our bias is to downgrade Canadian government bonds to underweight heading into 2020, as we expect a return to their typical high-beta status during a period of accelerating global growth and rising bond yields. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada is hinting that “insurance” rate cuts may be needed, but with the Canadian economy and inflation both remaining resilient, the central bank is more likely to keep rates steady until global growth improves.  Stay neutral on Canadian government bonds, for now, but prepare to move to underweight in early 2020. A Brief Follow Up To Our US MBS Versus IG Corporates Recommendation Chart 14Spread Targets Reached - Downgrade US IG To Neutral In last week’s report, we made the case for raising allocations to US Agency MBS while reducing exposure to higher-quality US investment grade (IG) corporate credit.1 We implemented the trade in our model bond portfolio, lowering our recommended allocation to US IG and increasing the weighting to US Agency MBS.  We now see a case for shifting to a formal strategic recommendation, upgrading US Agency MBS to overweight (a ranking of 4 out of 5 in the tables on page 14) and downgrading US IG to neutral (3 out of 5).  The rationale for the shift is based on valuation. Our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy calculate spread targets for each credit tier within US IG (Aaa, Aa, A and Baa). The targets are determined using a methodology that ranks the option-adjusted spread (OAS) of the Bloomberg Barclays index for each credit tier relative to its history, while controlling for the “phase” of the economic cycle as determined by the slope of the US Treasury yield curve.2 The latest rally in IG has driven the OAS for all tiers below those targets, with the Baa tier looking less expensive than the others (Chart 14).  As a result, we now advise only a neutral allocation to US IG corporates, with a preference for the Baa credit tier. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Big Mo(mentum) Is Turning Positive”, dated Oct 29, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2For details on how those spread targets are determined, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 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 While the Caixin PMI is pointing to improving economic conditions, other data series still reflect weak growth. China’s business cycle is likely to bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. The failure of Chinese stocks to significantly outperform the global benchmark and the continued underperformance of cyclical stocks underscore the near-term risks to equities if this month’s trade & manufacturing data disappoint. We continue to recommend a neutral tactical stance (0-3 months) towards Chinese equities versus global stocks, but expect them to outperform on a cyclical (6-12 month) time horizon after economic growth firmly bottoms. Feature 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, the data remains mixed: the strength in the October Caixin PMI and the September pickup in electricity production are positive signs, but other important datapoints still point to weak conditions. We continue to expect that China’s business cycle is likely to bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. We continue to expect that growth will bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, Chinese stocks have rallied in absolute terms over the past month in response to greatly increased odds of a trade truce between China and the US, but have failed to outperform the global benchmark. This, in combination with the continued underperformance of cyclical stocks, suggests that hard evidence of an economic improvement in China will be required before Chinese stocks begin to rise in relative terms. The risk of near-term underperformance is still present, especially if October’s hard trade and manufacturing data disappoint. We continue to recommend a neutral tactical stance (0-3 months) towards Chinese equities versus global stocks, but expect them to outperform on a cyclical (6-12 month) time horizon after economic growth firmly bottoms. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1Not Yet A Clear Change In Trend The Bloomberg Li Keqiang index (LKI) ticked up in September, led by an improvement in electricity production. An improvement in the LKI in lockstep with a rising Caixin manufacturing PMI (discussed below) raises the odds that the Chinese economy may be bottoming earlier than we expect, but for now only modestly so. Chinese economic data is highly volatile, and Chart 1 shows that the improvement in the LKI is very muted when shown as a 3-month moving average. In addition, a slight improvement also occurred earlier this year, but proved to be a false signal. All told, for now we continue to expect that growth will bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. Our leading indicator for the LKI was essentially flat in September on a smoothed basis, with sequential declines in M3 growth and the credit components of the indicator offsetting improvements in monetary conditions and M2. From a big picture perspective, the story of our LKI leading indicator remains unchanged: it continues to trend higher, at a much shallower pace than has been the case during previous easing cycles. The uptrend is the basis of our forecast that China’s growth will soon bottom, but the uncharacteristically shallow nature of the rise suggests that the eventual recovery will be modest. On a smoothed basis, Chinese residential floor space sold improved again in September, following a very significant rise in August. Over the past 12-18 months, we had emphasized that the double-digit pace of growth in China’s housing starts was unsustainable because it had entirely decoupled from the trend in sales (which have reliably led construction activity over the past decade). This gap disappeared over the summer due to a significant slowdown in starts, which is what we predicted would occur. However, the recent acceleration in floor space sold represents a legitimate fundamental improvement in the housing market, that for now is difficult to attribute to the recent drivers of housing demand (Chart 2).1 Still, investors should continue to watch China’s housing demand data closely over the coming few months, for further signs of a potential re-acceleration in housing construction. Investors need to see meaningful sequential improvements in China’s October trade and manufacturing data. The October improvement in China’s Caixin PMI was quite notable, as it appears to confirm the full one-point rise in the index that occurred in September and suggests that manufacturing in China’s private-sector is now durably expanding. Still, conflicting signals remain: the official PMI fell in October and remains below 50, and the significant September improvement in the Caixin PMI was not corroborated by an improvement in producer prices or nominal import growth (Chart 3). As PMIs are simply timely coincident indicators that do not generally have leading properties, investors will need to see meaningful sequential improvements in China’s October trade and manufacturing data in order to have confidence that the Caixin PMI improvement is not a false signal. Chart 2It Is Not Yet Apparent What Is Driving A Pickup In Housing Demand Chart 3If The Caixin PMI Is Not A False Signal, A Hard Data Improvement Must Occur Soon Chinese stocks have rallied 6-7% over the past month in absolute terms, but have modestly underperformed global equities. The rally in global stock prices has occurred largely in response to the mid-October announcement of a trade truce between China and the US. The failure of Chinese stocks to outperform during this period suggests hard evidence of an economic improvement in China will be required before Chinese stocks begin to outpace their global peers. At the regional equity level, the other notable development over the past month has been the continued outperformance of the MSCI Taiwan Index versus the global benchmark. Taiwan’s outperformance has been boosted by a rising TWD versus the dollar, but Taiwanese stocks have also outperformed in local currency terms. Taiwan province is highly exposed to global trade, and it is not surprising that equities have reacted positively to the prospect of a trade truce between the US and China. Further meaningful outperformance, however, will likely require a re-acceleration in Taiwanese exports, as export growth has merely halted its contraction (Chart 4). Within China’s investable equity market, cyclicals have underperformed defensives over the past month after having rallied significantly from late-August to mid-September (Chart 5). We noted in our October 30 Special Report that these cyclical sectors have historically been positively correlated with pro-cyclical macroeconomic and equity market variables,2 and their underperformance versus defensives is thus consistent with the failure of Chinese stocks in the aggregate to outperform global equities over the past month. In both cases, outperformance likely requires hard evidence of an upturn in China’s business cycle. Chart 4Export Growth Needs To Improve In Order To Expect Further Taiwanese Relative Outperformance Chart 5Cyclical Underperformance Underscores The Near-Term Risks To Chinese Vs. Global Stocks We do not take the rise in Chinese government bond yields as necessarily indicative of an imminent breakout in relative equity performance. Chart 6Chinese Relative Equity Performance Leads Bond Yields, Not The Other Way Around Chinese 10-year government bond yields have risen roughly 15bps over the past month, and are now 30bps off of their mid-August low. Many market participants view Chinese government bond yields as a leading growth barometer, but 10-year yields have actually lagged Chinese investable stock performance over the past two years (Chart 6). As such, we do not take the rise in yields as necessarily indicative of an imminent breakout in relative equity performance. Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have declined over the past month as government bond yields have been rising, continuing a pattern of negative correlation between the two that has prevailed since early-2018. A negative correlation between yields and corporate bond spreads is a normal relationship, and it suggests that spreads may narrow over the coming year if the Chinese economy bottoms in Q1, as we expect. Spreads remain elevated despite the substantial easing in monetary conditions that occurred last year, due to persistent concerns about rising onshore defaults. While we acknowledge that defaults are indeed occurring, we have argued on several occasions that the pace of defaults would have to be much faster in order for current spreads to be justified.3 We continue to recommend a long RMB-denominated position in China’s onshore corporate bond market. The RMB has appreciated over the past month in response to news of a likely trade truce between the US and China, with most of the rise having occurred versus the US dollar. USD-CNY is likely to sustainably trade below the 7 mark in a trade truce scenario, but how much further downside is possible in the near-term absent a re-acceleration in Chinese economic activity remains an open question. With the Fed very likely on hold for the next year, stronger than expected economic growth in China would likely catalyze a persistent selloff in USD-CNY barring a re-emergence of the Sino-US trade war. This, however, is not our base-case view, meaning that we expect modest post-deal strength in the RMB.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1. Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?” dated September 13, 2018. 2. Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance,” dated October 30, 2019. 3. Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “A Shaky Ladder,” dated June 13, 2018, "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War,” dated September 19, 2018 and "2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year,” dated December 5, 2018. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Earnings season concerns will not materialize, … : The energy sector is suffering, but overall third-quarter S&P 500 earnings are comfortably beating consensus expectations and the bears’ worst-case-scenario handwringing.  … but there are other snares that could trip up the economy: Business and consumer pessimism can become self-fulfilling, and a material worsening in U.S.-China relations could trigger a fresh wave of gloom. We examined past bull-market cycles for a sense of the rally’s vulnerability: Cycle-on-cycle analysis of economic activity, inflation pressures, earnings expectations and investor sentiment does not suggest that the end of the bull market is yet in sight. Feature Chart 1Just Enough Earnings Growth For A New High Earnings season will not short-circuit the equity rally. Nearly three-quarters of S&P 500 constituents have reported their third-quarter results, and while Friday’s releases from the oil majors erased modest year-over-year growth in index earnings per share, earnings have beaten expectations by 3 to 4%. That’s not much to write home about in an absolute sense, but financial assets are graded on a curve, and earnings are poised to beat projections of a 2-4% year-over-year decline for the third consecutive quarter. Flat-to-slightly-higher earnings (Chart 1, second panel), combined with two-plus points of multiple expansion since the beginning of the year (Chart 1, bottom panel), have allowed the S&P 500 to gain 20% year to date (Chart 1, top panel), recouping the ground lost in last year’s fourth-quarter swoon and powering the index to new all-time highs. Stocks are not cheap, but we find that valuation only matters at extremes. At about three-quarters of a standard deviation above the mean, the S&P 500 is hardly trading at an extreme valuation (Chart 2). As Chart 1 showed, the large-cap benchmark is simply back to the 17 multiple that has been its mean valuation over the last three years. Investors are not euphoric, and the S&P 500 is therefore not in danger of a sudden de-rating. Chart 2Stocks Aren't Cheap, But Valuation Is Not A Pressing Concern Very slightly higher earnings and a restored multiple explain how stocks have surpassed their previous high, but where do they go from here? The bull market may be long in the tooth, but it can continue as long as the conditions supporting its rise to date remain in place. Monetary policy is easy, there is no recession in sight, and global growth is poised to revive. If the U.S. and China can reach enough of a détente to prevent a recession-inducing free fall in business and/or consumer confidence, equities should resume bounding up the wall of worry. Equity bull markets explode out of the gate and sprint to the finish, with a lot of trotting and grazing in between. Our view isn’t new, however, and an earnings stumble was not a major consensus concern. U.S.-China relations appear to be moving in the right direction, but our Geopolitical Strategy team has repeatedly cautioned against expecting a quick or clear solution to the trade component of what projects to be a lengthy struggle for hegemony between the established economic superpower and the new kid on the block. For new insight into the remaining duration of the equity bull market, we examined the contours of past cycles. We compared today’s economic and market conditions to the conditions that have commonly prevailed in the waning days of the six complete S&P 500 bull markets of the last 50-plus years. On balance, it does not appear that the current bull market is nearing its expiration date. Ground Rules We define a bull market as a 20% trough-to-peak gain in S&P 500 closing prices, and a bear market as a 20% peak-to-trough closing-price decline. Since 1966, there have been seven bear markets, six completed bull markets, and the current bull market that is now over ten-and-a-half years old (Table 1). We have slightly tweaked our definitions from prior analyses, leaving out the S&P 500’s 19.9% peak-to-trough decline from July to October 1990, and excluding the 21% gain from late September 2001 to the beginning of January 2002, which was more of a dead-cat bounce than a true bull market. The completed bull markets in our sample span 8,400 trading days, or the equivalent of over 33 market years. Table 1Bear And Bull Markets, 1966-2019 Bull Markets End In Stampedes We have noted before that bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line. The six completed bull markets from 1966 have exhibited a pronounced pattern in which they only materially exceed their overall pace of gains in their first and last deciles (Chart 3). The first-decile performance is easy to explain: bull markets begin in despair, when investors largely lament their equity holdings, and have little interest in adding to them. Falling earnings expectations and low P/E multiples push stocks down, but set the stage for a rapid move higher once sellers become exhausted. Chart 3Bull Markets Sprint To The Finish Line Chart 4Could This Bull Have Ended So Quietly?   The last decile’s surge seems to be the mirror image, powered by professional investors who’ve failed to participate in at least the latter stages of the advance and capitulate under the pressure of relative underperformance. They are joined by individuals who have turned green with envy at their co-workers’ and neighbors’ lusty tales of market conquest and jump into the market in an attempt to capture their share of the bounty. The buying pressure they produce is often accompanied by earnings expectations that extrapolate a favorable fundamental backdrop well into the future. The bull market ends when there are no more marginal buyers left to maintain the upward impulse, just as bear markets end when there are no more sellers to sustain downward pressure. The real economy is not running hot the way it typically does at the end of the cycle. If the bull market ended last Wednesday, when the S&P 500 made its record closing high of 3,046.77,1 this bull market will have quietly expired after thirteen months of bumping around a tight range (Chart 4). Bull markets typically burn out, rather than fade away, and it would be unusual if the current bull were to finish without a bang, while its failure to better its overall return in its last decile would be unprecedented (Chart 5). We project that the next recession will not begin until the second half of 2021 at the earliest, which would suggest the bull market will extend at least until the end of 2020. If the bull market were to last that long, the last year-plus of range-bound moseying would shift from the tenth to the ninth decile (Chart 6), preparing the ground for a characteristic closing surge. Chart 5Individual Bull Market Returns By Decile Chart 6A More Familiar Pattern (If The Bull Lasts Through 2020) Bottom Line: Ever since the mid-‘60s, the pace of returns has quickened in bull markets’ final stages. It would be unprecedented if the current bull market were to quietly peter out. Goldilocks Trumps John Henry Bull markets, like economic expansions, end once they can no longer be sustained. When investors begin to extrapolate that feverish activity will continue well into the future, stocks and the economy are primed for disappointment. The cycle analysis of real activity suggests that bull markets don’t typically meet their demise when the real economy is pushed to its maximum speed, but rather when it’s been operated at a level above the speed limit for an extended period. Historically, real GDP has swiftly accelerated after briefly contracting, cooled off over an extended period, and then powered to a new cycle high, from which it only slowly and slightly tapered off as the end of the bull market approached (Chart 7, top panel). Consumer spending has followed the same basic pattern (Chart 7, middle panel), accompanied by elevated and rising credit growth (Chart 7, bottom panel). Consumer spending is well below the average pace of past bull markets, as is credit growth, which has been roughly flat at a moderate pace for four years, falling well below the average bull market pace. The Fed isn't about to get in the economy's way any time soon. Capacity utilization has spent much of past bull markets at or above 80%, but has yet to approach that level in this cycle (Chart 8, top panel). The manufacturing inventory-to-sales ratio has similarly lagged the average level of past bull markets (Chart 8, middle panel), and elevated inventories do not appear to be a source of vulnerability. Housing is one of the most cyclical elements of the economy, and with housing starts lagging household formations, it is not at all overheated relative to past bull market cycles (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 7No Overheating In Real Activity (I) Chart 8No Overheating In Real Activity (II)   Chart 9The Fed Will Lay Off Despite A Positive Output Gap Pressures that knock the economy off course aren’t entirely endogenous; inflation concerns can provoke the Fed to make a deliberate attempt to cool activity. Inflation is well below the average of past bull cycles (Chart 9, top panel), and the fact that it has not yet gotten enough traction to be threatening, here or abroad, would seem likely to keep the Fed from hiking rates until well into next year at the earliest. It takes a positive output gap (output exceeds capacity) to promote inflation pressures. Though the IMF estimates that the U.S. output gap has been positive for the last three years (Chart 9, middle panel), persistently soft inflation expectations will likely allow it to remain positive for longer without causing a problem. Real yields are also well below the level that has typically been associated with expiring bull markets (Chart 9, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Cyclical segments of the real economy do not show signs of overheating on their own, and low inflation will keep the Fed from stymying growth with tighter monetary policy until at least the second half of next year. Expectations Matter As we mentioned above, overly optimistic expectations can trip up a bull market. If the earnings bar is set too high, companies have an elevated probability of failing to reach it. P/E multiples are a mean-reverting series, and overly ambitious valuations make stocks vulnerable to an inevitable de-rating. Sentiment is also mean-reverting, and surveys shedding light on investors’ aggregate bullishness or bearishness are classic contrarian indicators. Chart 10Expectations Are Undemanding, But Multiples Are Elevated Earnings expectations have oscillated across the three bull market cycles for which they’ve been compiled, but have risen to double-digit levels at past S&P 500 peaks (Chart 10, top panel). After the immediate aftermath of the crisis, expectations in the current bull market have been muted relative to history, but multiples have been steadily rising over the last five years (Chart 10, bottom panel). Some of the multiple-related concern is relieved by our composite sentiment survey, which is as close to the bottom of its historical range as it has been to the top of the range at the onset of the previous two market peaks (Chart 11, bottom panel). Multiples are the only series in our review that is approaching a danger zone, and we will keep an eye on them.   Chart 11... But Sentiment Is Not Soft Sentiment Is A Tailwind For Stocks Investment Implications Sentiment is a classic contrarian indicator. We took some comfort last week in Barron’s downbeat semi-annual Big Money poll, which jibes with the wariness we’ve sensed in the institutional investors we’ve met. There are credible reasons for concern, and while our base-case scenario is market friendly, this is not a time to load up on risk exposures. Until the skeptical show-me climate eases, big bets could be buffeted by volatility that may undermine an investor’s ability to maintain them. Volatility spikes will occur in spite of the Goldilocks economy. The October employment report showed that she is still alive and well. On the verge of a too-cold reading – the consensus expected a three-month moving average of 130,000 net payroll additions – a hearty October beat, along with significant upward revisions to August and September, produced a 176,000 three-month moving average, smack dab in just-right territory. In our base-case macro scenario, the economy will continue to produce trend growth, helped along by the lagged effect of easier monetary policy in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world. S&P 500 earnings will get a boost from a global ex-U.S. growth revival and the dollar softness that will accompany it. Credit performance will continue to be very good as investor constituencies needing yield, and other parties pressured by FOMO (fear of missing out), keep capital flowing into spread product. The equity bull market will remain intact, and investors should stay the risk-friendly course.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 As we were going to press on Friday, it appeared that a new high would be set around 3,060.