Economy

Much like the rest of the global economy, oil markets await the lift in demand that fiscal and monetary stimulus have delivered in the past. As the debate among BCA Research’s strategists demonstrated, this is not a given. Uncertainty over the effectiveness of these policy responses will remain elevated as 2H19 evolves.1 For our part, we expect global stimulus – led by easing financial conditions in the U.S. and China – will reboot demand. On the supply side, we expect OPEC 2.0 production discipline and capital-constrained U.S. shale-oil production to keep output growth just below demand growth for the next year (Chart of the Week, top panel).2 Markets arguably have not been on the same page as us for the past two months or so, and appear to be pricing in supply-demand assumptions similar to those contained in the U.S. EIA’s latest Short-term Energy Outlook (STEO).3 These generate lower forecasts – $61/bbl and $57/bbl – than the $75/bbl and $70/bbl we expect for Brent and WTI next year, when we run them through our fundamental econometric model (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekOil Supply - Demand Balance Will Continue To Tighten We argue below the EIA’s assumptions are consistent with current price levels, but inconsistent with current Brent and WTI forward curves. We remain long September – December 2019 Brent vs. short September – December 2020 Brent, which is up 76% since inception February 28, 2019, and long 1Q20 vs. 1Q21 Brent, which is up 39% since inception July 18, 2019, in anticipation of steeper backwardations. We also expect the combination of global fiscal and monetary stimulus, along with the aforementioned production constraints, will lift price levels in line with our forecasts. Highlights Energy: Overweight. In line with our expectation, U.S. crude oil inventories drew 8.5mm barrels last week, posting a record seventh consecutive draw. Last week’s inventory drawdown follows a massive draw in crude oil of close to 11mm barrels the previous week. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot treatment and refining charges (TC/RC) for copper fell to $51.20/MT last week, the lowest reading since the launch of Fastmarkets MB’s Asia-Pacific index in 2013. This is consistent with tighter spot supplies – low TC/RC levels mean demand for spot refining services is weak due to low concentrate supply. Our long Dec19 $3.00/lb calls vs. short Dec19 $3.30/lb call on the COMEX was stopped out after hitting our -15% stop-loss limit. We remain bullish and will re-visit this recommendation in the near future. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices remain well supported by global monetary accommodation, as seen this week following the Fed’s decision to lower its policy rate by 25bps to 2.25%. We expect another “insurance cut” later this year, and remain long gold, which is up 12% this year as central banks scramble to redress tightening financial conditions globally. Ags/Softs: Underweight. 54% of the U.S. soybean crop was rated in good or excellent condition in states accounting for 95% of bean acreage. Last year at this time, 70% of the crop was rated good or excellent, according to the USDA’s Crop Progress Report. Feature The oil market presently is pricing to a weaker set of fundamentals, which are very close to those assumed by the U.S. EIA in its monthly STEO forecast. Easing financial conditions in the U.S. and China, along with higher fiscal outlays globally, are necessary and likely sufficient to reboot global oil demand, in our assessment of fundamentals.4 On the supply side, our modeling assumes OPEC 2.0’s production discipline and capital-constrained U.S. shale-oil production will be sufficient to keep output growth just below demand growth for the next year.5 Chart 2Oil Markets Pricing Weaker Fundamentals Than BCA Expects In our modeling, these supply-demand effects combine to lift prices, and to further backwardate the Brent and WTI forward curves as global storage levels fall, as the top panel of Chart 2 shows. However, as the bottom panel of Chart 2 illustrates, the oil market presently is pricing to a weaker set of fundamentals, which are very close to those assumed by the U.S. EIA in its monthly STEO forecast. The EIA assumes demand growth of 1.1mm b/d this year, versus our assumption of 1.25mm b/d, and 1.4mm b/d next year, versus our 1.5mm b/d assumption. When we push the EIA’s assumptions through our fundamental supply-demand-inventory model, we get average Brent prices of $64/bbl this year and $61/bbl in 2020, versus our expectations of $70/bbl this year and $75/bbl next year for Brent.6 For WTI, the EIA’s fundamentals produce prices of $57/bbl in 2019 and $57/bbl in 2020, versus our expectation of $63/bbl and $70/bbl. Whither Storage? The EIA’s supply-demand fundamentals produce price levels closer to where the market is trading currently, when we run them through our fundamental model. However, they are not consistent with forward-curve dynamics, which presently are backwardated. Using the EIA’s supply and demand assumptions for this year and next in our econometric model produces an increase in oil inventories, which grows next year, as opposed to our expectation inventories will shrink over the course of the next year (Chart 3, bottom panel). If the EIA’s expectation for inventories was shared by market participants, Brent and WTI forward curves would be in contango, not backwardation as they are presently. In this respect, our estimates are more consistent with current forward-curve dynamics (Chart 3, top panel). Chart 3Inventories Swell Assuming EIA's Supply-Demand Fundamentals Chart 4Crude Inventories' Days-Forward-Cover This also can be seen in an analysis of days-forward-cover (DFC) dynamics, in which we compare deviations from the five-year average (trend) number of days’ worth of demand that can be covered by current inventory levels (Chart 4). Our assumptions produce deviations that align with the differentials between prompt and deferred futures contracts, which measures the backwardation and contango in Brent and WTI markets. The implied DFC ratio that falls out of running the EIA’s supply-demand assumptions in our fundamental model shows inventories in 2020 level out, even as market participants continue to price in a backwardated forward curve for Brent and WTI.7 If we are correct in our assessment of inventories, Brent volatility will increase next year as inventories and DFC fall (Chart 5).   Whither Global Trade, Manufacturing? As we’ve noted above, the next few months will provide important information to markets and policymakers alike, as both wait to see whether the concerted monetary policy efforts aimed at reviving the real economy – manufacturing, in particular – will be effective. As an aside, uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of what, in the not-too-distant past, was considered standard macroeconomic stimulus is not restricted to market participants and practitioners. Central banks, and the economics profession itself are in the midst of a fundamental rethink of its foundational assumptions and models, and will be dialed in on this entire process.8 We continue to expect demand to revive on the back of global monetary and fiscal stimulus, and for supplies to be constrained this year and next. The global manufacturing slowdown in 1H19 is confirmed in EM trade data (Chart 6). This has the potential to continue if the Sino-U.S. trade war retards capex and durable-goods spending. The IMF notes the linkage between manufacturing and global trade exists because trade includes a lot of durables, which are energy-intensive in their production and transportation.9 Again, the big unknown here is whether the fiscal and monetary stimulus in systematically important economies will be sufficient to revive manufacturing globally and commodity demand, particularly for energy. There is enough cognitive dissonance around the effectiveness of monetary policy – and the channels through which it operates – to give even a hardened monetarist pause. If, as we expect, U.S. monetary stimulus succeeds in weakening the USD, global trade and EM GDP levels can be expected to increase.10 This will be supportive of commodity demand generally, oil demand in particular. In a simulation of oil prices as a function of the broad trade-weighted USD, we found Brent prices could rally sharply on a 10% depreciation between now and end-2020 (Chart 7). Chart 6Fiscal and Monetary Stimulus Will Lift Global Trade and Manufacturing Chart 7Fed Policy Should Weaken USD, Boost Oil Demand Such a rally is unlikely to occur due to USD weakness alone, given the mitigating factors observed in recent excursions above $80 Brent. OPEC 2.0 likely would raise production as prices moved through $80/bbl, and we expect demand destruction in EM economies would quickly follow, due to the removal of fuel subsidies in many EM economies. These supply-demand responses would push prices lower after a few months. However, this exercise is worthwhile in forming an expectation around successful Fed stimulus, given the long-term equilibrium between the broad USD TWIB and oil prices since 2000. This analysis also suggests there is a role for OPEC 2.0 in increasing production, if systematically important central banks succeed in reviving global demand, and the Fed can lower the USD TWIB. Keeping production too low at that point would be self-defeating for the coalition. Successfully managing this balance would support EM GDP growth and, in so doing, lift commodity demand. Bottom Line: Oil prices are trading to lower expected levels of demand and higher supply than we currently are using in our forecasts. However, we continue to expect demand to revive on the back of global monetary and fiscal stimulus, and for supplies to be constrained this year and next. As such, we are maintaining our expectation Brent crude will average $70 and $75/bbl this year and next, with WTI trading $7 and $5/bbl lower, respectively. We also expect these forces to steepen the backwardation in Brent and WTI forward curves this year and next. Big policy issues – the Sino-U.S. trade war, U.S.- Iran tensions in the Persian Gulf, uncertainty around how the crisis in Venezuela is resolved – still dog markets, as do persistent doubts re the effectiveness of monetary policy.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see What Goes On Between Those Walls? BCA’s Diverging Views In The Open, a Special Report published by BCA Research July 19, 2019. It is available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which was founded in 2016 to reduce global oil inventory levels bloated by a market-share war launched by the original OPEC cartel in 2014. Backwardation is a term of art in commodity markets, which describes a forward curve in which prompt prices exceed deferred prices. The opposite of backwardation is contango. 3      The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Short-term Energy Outlook is published monthly. 4      Please see Weak 1H19 Oil Demand Data Fuels Market Uncertainty, published July 18, 2019, for our latest forecast. 5      NB: Our forecast for U.S. shale-oil production includes the drawdown of excess drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells, especially in the Permian as pipeline constraints are removed this year. Recent reports have suggested DUC excess inventory is over-estimated in EIA data we use in our models, and that more wells than actually are reported by the EIA are required to produce the volumes reported for the Permian Basin. Please see Analytics Firm: Permian Fracturing Work Underreported by 21% in 2018 published by the Journal of Petroleum Engineering July 24, 2019. 6      The EIA’s forecast calls for Brent to average $67/bbl in 2H19 and for all of 2020, and for WTI to trade $5/bbl and $4/bbl under Brent in 2H19 and 2020, respectively. For 2H19, we expect Brent to trade at $74/bbl; we expect WTI to trade $7/bbl below Brent in 2H19 and $5/bbl lower in 2020. 7      We assume OPEC 2.0 will need to increase production in 2H20, to keep inventories from falling so low that Brent prices risk breaching $80 - $85/bbl, which we view as the no-go zone the producer coalition is most sensitive to. 8      Please see Rebuilding macroeconomic theory Volume 34, Issue 1-2 of the Spring-Summer 2018 issue of the Oxford Economic Policy Review for an excellent treatment of this effort. The Fed also is examining how it conducts monetary policy, in an effort led by Vice Chair Richard Clarida. The initial research goals were laid out in November 2018, when the Fed announced it would be conducting a comprehensive review of its monetary policy strategy, tools, and communication practices. In June of this year, the Fed followed through with a two-day symposium to discuss many of the topics we routinely address in our publications. Prof. Maurice Obstfeld of Berkeley’s Global Dimensions of U.S. Monetary Policy was an insightful paper re how U.S. monetary policy affects global growth; Prof. Kristin Forbes of MIT’s discussion also was excellent, and highlighted the role of commodity markets in this framework. 9      Please see Still Sluggish Global Growth in the IMF’s World Economic Outlook Update, published July 23, 2019. The Fund lowered its global growth forecast slightly, and cautioned, "GDP releases so far this year, together with generally softening inflation, point to weaker-than-anticipated global activity. Investment and demand for consumer durables have been subdued across advanced and emerging market economies as firms and households continue to hold back on long-term spending. Accordingly, global trade, which is intensive in machinery and consumer durables, remains sluggish. The projected growth pickup in 2020 is precarious, presuming stabilization in currently stressed emerging market and developing economies and progress toward resolving trade policy differences." 10     These variables are intimately connected. Please see Third Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: The Long Hurrah published by BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy June 28, 2019, for our House view on global growth, interest rates and the expected evolution of the USD. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades  

Special Report

Highlights China’s infrastructure investment growth rate could rebound moderately from its current nominal 3% pace, but will remain well below the double-digit rate it has registered for most of the past decade.  A lack of funding for local governments and their financing vehicles will somewhat cap the upside in infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI) in the next six to nine months. Special bond issuance will be insufficient to ensuring a major recovery in infrastructure spending. Investors should tread cautiously on infrastructure plays in financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Nominal infrastructure investment growth in China has slowed from over 15% in 2017 to 3% currently (Chart I-1). This is the weakest growth rate since 2005 excluding the late 2011-early 2012 period. Over the past decade, each time the Chinese economy experienced a considerable slowdown, infrastructure construction was ramped up to revive growth. Infrastructure spending growth skyrocketed in 2009 and was also boosted in 2012. In 2015-2016, it was not allowed to decelerate with the issuance of nearly RMB 2 trillion of special infrastructure bonds. This time the government has also reacted. Since mid-2018, the Chinese authorities have dramatically raised local governments’ special bonds balance limits, prompted local governments to front-load their issuance this year, and also encouraged the private sector to participate in public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects. Will Chinese infrastructure FAI growth accelerate over the next six to nine months from its current nominal 3% pace to double digits? The short answer is no. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. For purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service, (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management, and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. Chart I-2 presents the breakdown of the nominal infrastructure FAI by category. Funding Constraint Preceding both the 2011-2012 and 2018 infrastructure investment slumps, the Chinese central government increased its scrutiny on local government debt and tightened funding conditions for infrastructure projects. As a result, all three categories of infrastructure spending experienced a sharp deceleration (Chart I-3). Overall, financing and qualitative limitations that Beijing imposes on local government infrastructure spending hold the key to the outlook. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. Looking forward, without a considerable recovery in available financing, there will be no meaningful rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment and construction activity. For now, we are not very optimistic on financing. Chart I-4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. All of them are likely to face considerable funding constraints over the next six to nine months. Chart I-3Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board   1. Self-Raised Funds Self-raised funds contribute nearly 60% of overall infrastructure funding. They include net local government special bond issuance, PPP financing and government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues excluding proceeds from special bond issuance. A. Local government special bond issuance, which is exclusively used to fund infrastructure projects, has been the major source of financing for local governments in the past 12 months. The authorities significantly boosted net local government bond issuance to RMB 1.2 trillion in the first six months of this year from only RMB 361 billion in the same period in 2018. However, the amount of special bond issuance in the second half of this year will unlikely be significant enough to boost infrastructure FAI greatly. First, the central government has not only set a limit on the aggregate local government special bond balance, but it also set limits for each of the 31 provinces/provincial-level cities.1 In the past three years, nearly all provinces did not use up their special bond issuance quotas. This resulted in an outstanding aggregate amount of special bonds of only about 85% of the limit.2 In both 2017 and 2018, local governments were left with RMB 1.1 trillion special bond issuance quota unused for that year. Second, based on the limit on outstanding amount special bonds set by the central government for the end of 2019, local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of this year. In comparison, in 2018, the issuance was heavily concentrated in the second half of the year with RMB 1.6 trillion. Our estimate shows there will be only RMB 400-600 billion increase in net total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018.3 This will translate into a merely 2-3% growth in Chinese infrastructure investment. Third, net local government special bond issuance made up only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Hence, there is still a huge financing gap to be filled (Chart I-5). B. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are unlikely to meet the financing shortage either. PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments since 2014. Nevertheless, to control rising local government debt risks, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early last year. A series of tightened rules have resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPPs contributions to total infrastructure FAI have plunged from over 30% in 2017 to 10% currently (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Chart I-6Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage   So far, the rules on PPP projects on local governments remain tight. In March, the central government tightened its rule on local government participation in PPP projects. The new rule states that, if a local government has already spent more than 5% of its overall general expenditures on PPP projects excluding sewage and waste disposal PPP projects, it will not be allowed to invest in any new PPP projects. Before March, the threshold was over 10%. In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded all PPP projects undertake a thorough feasibility study. The NDRC emphasized that PPP projects that do not follow standard procedures will not be allowed. Chart I-7Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales C. Government-managed funds (GMF) excluding special bond issuance accounts, which contribute about 15% of overall infrastructure financing, are also facing constraints. According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures of the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. Land sales by local governments are one major revenue source for GMFs. Contracting property floor space sold is likely to depress real estate developers’ land purchases, further reducing local governments’ revenues from selling land (Chart I-7). This will curb local governments’ ability to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. 2. Domestic Loans Domestic loans contribute to about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. Infrastructure projects are generally long term in nature. Presently, the impulse of non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) lending has stabilized but has not yet improved (Chart I-8). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending reflects commercial banks’ reluctance to finance infrastructure projects. We believe a decelerating economy, mounting local government debt, and often-low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to constrain loan funding of infrastructure projects from both banks and the private sector. 3. General Government Budget The general government budget (which includes central and local governments) accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. The general budget is also facing headwinds from declining revenue due to recent tax cuts and lower corporate profit growth (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Chart I-9Government General Budget: Large Deficit   Bottom Line: Funding constraints will likely linger, making any recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment growth moderate over the next six to nine months. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. While local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of 2019, it would be well below the RMB 1.4 trillion of special bond issuance that was rolled out in the second half of 2018. FAI In Transportation: In Nominal Terms… The transportation sector accounts for about 31% of total Chinese infrastructure investment. It includes railway, highway, urban public transit, air and water transport. Table I-1 shows the 13th five-year (2016-2020) transportation investment plan released by the government in February 2017,4 which excludes urban public transit. The authorities planned to invest RMB 15 trillion in the transportation sector over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020, with highways accounting for over half of the investment, followed by railways (23%), air transportation (4.3%) and water transportation (3.3%). The table also shows our calculation of the realized investment amount in these four sub-sectors for the period of January 2016 to June 2019. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Table I-1 suggests the remaining FAI for the transportation sector for the July 2019 to December 2020 period will be considerably smaller than the FAI amount over the past 18 months. This entails a major drag on infrastructure investment at least over the next 18 months. It is important to emphasize that this is conditional on the central planners in Beijing sticking to their five-year plan for infrastructure FAI. As of now, there has been no announcement of revisions to these five-year FAI targets. Bottom Line: China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. …And Real Terms Table I-2 summarizes the 2020 targets for major Chinese infrastructure development (urban rail transit, railway, highway and airport) in real terms. Chart I-10Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away In real terms, the annual growth of transportation infrastructure will likely be 4.2% in both 2019 and 2020. We illustrated in the previous section that the five-year budget plan had been front-loaded, leaving a very small budget for transportation investment over the next 18 months. This may suggest that without considerably exceeding the budget, transportation infrastructure will fail to achieve the 4.2% annual growth in real terms both this year and next. In brief, more funding should be dispatched/allowed by the central planners in Beijing for infrastructure FAI not to shrink. Second, urban rail transit, high-speed railways, highways and airports will reach their respective 2020 targets, while non-high-speed railway construction will likely be a little bit off its 2020 target. Third, based on the 2020 targets, urban rail transit will enjoy very fast growth over the next one and a half years. Fourth, the growth of high-speed railways and highways will be very low, at around 1-2% in real terms (Chart I-10). Finally, while the number of airports will increase at a faster pace, their contribution to overall infrastructure investment will remain insignificant as they only account for about 1.4% of overall infrastructure investment. Bottom Line: In real terms, transport infrastructure growth will likely be only about 4% over the next six to nine months. Future Infrastructure Investment Focus Urban rail transit, environmental management and public utility management will likely be the major driving forces for Chinese infrastructure investment over the next 18 months. Urban rail transit line length will likely register fast growth of around 10% over the next six to nine months. As the central government enforces increasingly stringent rules on environmental protection, investment in environmental management will likely experience continued growth acceleration (Chart I-11). China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, as the country’s urbanization continues and more townships and city suburbs become urbanized,5 public utility management investment will also grow moderately. Public utility management investment, contributing a massive 45% of overall infrastructure investment, includes sewer systems, sewer treatment facilities, waste treatment and disposal, streetlights, city roads construction, parks, bridges and tunnels in the city. Investment Implications Investors should not hold their breath expecting a major upswing in infrastructure FAI and a major rally in related financial markets. Chinese steel demand is sensitive to construction of railways and urban rail transit lines (Chart I-12, top panel). In turn, mainland cement demand is dependent on highway construction (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Chart I-12Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand...   Chart I-13...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of total Chinese steel use, and about 30-40% of Chinese cement consumption. Nevertheless, given that we believe Chinese infrastructure spending will only have a moderate recovery, the positive effect on steel and cement prices will be muted as well (Chart I-13). The same holds true for spending on industrial machinery, equipment, chemicals and various materials. Notably, risks to this baseline scenario of a muted recovery are to the downside because of the lack of funding. Barring a substantial increase in the special bond issuance quota this year or a major credit binge, infrastructure FAI growth could in fact stall. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please note that the central government only set the special bond balance limit (not the quota) for local governments. The often-cited “quota” in the news is derived by calculating the difference between the current limit and the previous year’s limit. The “quota” used in this report is the difference between the current special bond balance limit and the actual special bond balance of the previous year end. 2  At the end of 2018, Chinese special bond balance was RMB 7.4 trillion, only 85.8% of the special bond balance limit of RMB 8.6 trillion. This ratio was 84.6% in 2017 and 85.5% in 2016. On average, the ratio was 85.3% in the past three years. 3  Given that the central government is aiming to somewhat stimulate infrastructure spending by increasing special bond issuance, we assume special bond balance at the end of 2019 to reach 88%-90% of the limit (RMB 10.8 trillion) that it has set for 2019. This will be higher than the 85% average of the past three years. In turn, this means that the special bond balance at the end of this year will likely be RMB 9.5-9.7 trillion. Since the balance at the end of last year was RMB 7.4 trillion, this results that net special bond issuance will be around RMB 2.1-2.3 trillion in 2019. Given the net special bond issuance last year was RMB 1.7 trillion, it follows that there will only be a RMB 400-600 billion increase in total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018. 4  Please see www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-02/28/content_5171576.htm, published February 28, 2017, by the Chinese central government website. 5  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report “Industrialization-Driven Urbanization In China Is Losing Steam,” dated January 2, 2019, available on ems.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Fed: The Fed will deliver a 25bp rate cut this week, despite a firmer tone to recent U.S. economic and inflation data, and the door will be left open to an additional “insurance” cut in September. ECB: The ECB will unveil a package of easing measures, from interest rate cuts to restarting asset purchases – including a healthy dose of corporate bond buying – in September. Fixed Income Strategy: The Fed is more likely to disappoint deeply dovish market expectations than the ECB over the next 6-12 months. European fixed income should outperform U.S. equivalents, both for government bonds and corporate debt, especially with the ECB ready to buy bonds again. Stay overweight Bunds vs Treasuries and euro area corporate debt vs U.S. equivalents on a USD-hedged basis. Feature Chart of the WeekData To Satisfy Both The Optimists & Pessimists In normal years, the final days of July are a quiet time for financial markets, with investors focused on preparations for August vacations rather than fretting about the performance of their portfolios. This is not one of those years. Central banks are springing into action to combat a global manufacturing downturn, creating a peculiar divergence of market price signals - elevated stock prices and depressed bond yields. BCA exposed our own internal debate on the growth outlook, and the implications for financial markets, in a recent Special Report.1 Our latest discussions with clients show similar splits within investment committees. While Global Fixed Income Strategy is in the optimist camp at BCA, we do recognize that there is enough news and data at the moment to satisfy both bullish and bearish investors (Chart of the Week). The growth bears can point to the continued deceleration of global trade and manufacturing data, with our global PMI indicator now sitting below the 2015/16 lows. The bulls, on the other hand, can highlight the bottoming of forward-looking data like our global leading economic indicator or the pickup in Chinese credit growth. Most importantly, the bulls are having a very enjoyable summer with interest rate cuts expected from the Fed and ECB, and the latter likely to restart quantitative easing. In this Weekly Report, we focus on monetary policy – specifically, the outlook for the Fed and ECB’s next moves over the next few months – and the implications for financial markets. Our conclusion is that the likely policy choices will benefit the relative performance of European fixed income markets versus U.S. equivalents over a 6-12 month horizon. The ECB’s Next Move: See You In September Chart 2A "Manufacturing-Only" Slump The global trade downturn has hit growth in the U.S. and Europe in a similar fashion, with PMI data showing substantially weaker activity in manufacturing compared to more domestically focused service industries (Chart 2). In Europe, there is an unprecedented divergence, with the services PMI rising and the manufacturing PMI plummeting over the past several months. At his press conference after last week’s monetary policy meeting, ECB President Mario Draghi described the European manufacturing data as “getting worse and worse”. He is right, as evidenced by the downtrends seen in other cyclical data like the ZEW and IFO surveys. European bond markets are betting that the ECB will focus on the manufacturing side of the export-heavy euro area economies and will soon ease monetary policy. Draghi gave strong indications that the ECB will deliver a package of easing measures at the September policy meeting, ranging from interest rate cuts to restarting the Asset Purchase Program (APP) for both government and corporate debt. Bond investors have been making large bets on the ECB delivering a big easing, with European bond yields plummeting to new cyclical lows. Investors remain highly skeptical that robust, inflationary growth – and higher interest rates – will ever return to Europe. The surge in the amount of debt trading at negative yields has gotten the attention of the market. By our count, 53% of all government bonds in the developed economies are now trading with a negative yield, with much of those in Europe (Chart 3). Investors are reaching for anything with a positive yield, including formerly toxic debt like Italian and Greek government bonds, with the benchmark 10-year yields in those markets now down to 1.6% and 2.1%, respectively. The rally has extended into spread product, creating oddities such as shorter-maturity EUR-denominated emerging market bonds – some with credit ratings below investment grade – trading at negative yields.2 From a longer-term perspective, the European bond rally continues a trend seen over the past decade where the relative performance of European equities versus government bonds, a.k.a. the stock-to-bond ratio, has been anemic compared to the similar metric in the U.S. (Chart 4). Investors remain highly skeptical that robust, inflationary growth – and higher interest rates – will ever return to Europe. Chart 3Positive Yields Are Getting Harder To Find Chart 4Structural Market Pessimism On Europe From a cyclical perspective, the case for a comprehensive easing package from the ECB now is a strong one, for several reasons: There is a broad-based slowing of growth and inflation within the euro area. Our diffusion indices of individual country data for real GDP growth and the OECD’s leading economic indicators show that the overwhelming majority of euro area nations are seeing slowing growth (Chart 5). Similar readings coincided with multiple interest rate cuts in 2001, 2008/09 and 2012. Chart 5Good Reasons For An ECB Rate Cut Chart 6Can The ECB Stop A Credit Crunch In Italy? Realized inflation and inflation expectations remain muted. Our diffusion indices for inflation rates among euro area countries are more mixed, with almost all nations actually seeing a slight uptick in core inflation over the past three months (bottom panel). Yet given the plunge in market-based inflation expectations, with the 5-year/5-year forward EUR CPI swap rate now down to 1.35%, the ECB must focus on trying to put a floor under growth to stabilize inflation expectations. Banks are starting to tighten lending standards. The ECB’s latest Bank Lending Survey showed a sharp tightening of lending standards to businesses during Q2/2019 (Chart 6) in France and, more worryingly, Italy where loan growth has been contracting on a year-over-year basis. The ECB already took action back in March to introduce a new targeted bank funding program (TLTRO3), largely to prevent a possible credit crunch in Italy where cheap ECB loans have funded 10% of total Italian bank lending. Yet with Italian banks already tightening lending standards to domestic borrowers, the ECB must take other actions to fight off a deeper contraction in Italian corporate loans. So what can the ECB plausibly do to ease monetary conditions that are already very loose? Cut the deposit rate. Given the ECB’s large balance sheet, swollen by asset purchases, the deposit rate on the excess reserves of banks is now effectively the ECB’s main policy rate. The deposit rate is currently -0.40%, and the ECB is concerned about the impact on European bank profitability by pushing that rate even deeper into negative territory. Draghi noted in his press conference last week that the ECB would consider “tiering” interest rates on excess deposits – essentially, exempting portions of European banks’ excess reserves from being charged negative deposit rates – to help offset the hit to bank profits from negative rates. Chart 7The ECB Can Help Finance European Companies Tiering has been introduced in other countries with negative deposit rates (Japan, Switzerland, Denmark), with limited impacts on bank profitability. The experience of those countries, however, suggests that an introduction of tiering by the ECB could put a floor under interest rate expectations, as it would indicate that additional rate cuts would be too damaging for European bank profitability to be considered by the ECB. For that reason, the ECB could decide to cut rates in September, but without tiering to ensure the maximum effect on European interest rates and bond yields. Restart the Asset Purchase Program (APP). This option is the most intriguing, as it would be a more direct way for the ECB to directly lower the cost of borrowing for European companies where credit conditions are becoming tighter. During the corporate bond buying phase of the APP in 2016-2018, the ECB was not only buying bonds in the secondary market but was buying corporates in the primary (new issue) market. At the peak, the central bank was buying around 18% of all the primary issuance by euro area companies eligible for the APP (Chart 7). This allowed many smaller European companies that relied entirely on bank loans to begin issuing publicly traded corporate bonds to diversify their sources of funding, with the ECB as a guaranteed buyer – in some cases, at interest rates even lower than corporate bank lending rates. With the ECB having fewer constraints on its corporate bond buying (i.e. no Capital Key as in the case of government bond purchases), the big policy surprise in September could be a bigger focus on corporates over sovereigns in the restarted APP. That would be good news for euro area corporate bond performance.  Chart 8Markets Discounting New ECB Corporate Bond Purchases? Investors seem to have already priced in some expectation of a resumption of the ECB’s corporate bond buying program, as euro area credit spreads have tightened sharply despite weakening economic growth (Chart 8). The spread tightening has occurred across all countries and investment grade credit tiers, pushing valuations back to towards the levels seen during the height of the ECB’s last period of corporate bond buying in 2017. The ECB will likely have to start out fairly aggressively with its pace of corporate bond buying, likely with more than €10bn/month, to justify current valuations. With the ECB having fewer constraints on its corporate bond buying (i.e. no Capital Key as in the case of government bond purchases), the big policy surprise in September could be a bigger focus on corporates over sovereigns in the restarted APP. That would be good news for euro area corporate bond performance. Bottom Line: The ECB will unveil a package of easing measures, from interest rate cuts to restarting asset purchases – including a healthy dose of corporate bond buying – in September. The Fed’s Next Moves: Insurance Cuts In July & September, No More After That The latest batch of data from the U.S. suggests that tomorrow’s widely-expected Fed rate cut will not be the start of a full-blown easing cycle. Expect a 25bp cut, with forward guidance suggesting another 25bps in September to protect against the adverse effects on the U.S. from any additional trade policy uncertainty and the associated deterioration of non-U.S. economic growth. Any further easing beyond that is unnecessary given the current state of U.S. growth and inflation. While the year-over-year growth rates of real GDP and core durable goods orders have slowed, the annualized changes over the past six months have shown some reacceleration (Chart 9). Consumer spending has also perked up after the sharp drop fueled by the government shutdown back in January, while the lagged impact of the sharp fall in mortgage rates over the past year should provide a moderate boost to housing activity. A similar dynamic is seen on the inflation front, where the marginal 6-month annualized rate of change of core PCE inflation has picked up to 2% (Chart 10). Less volatile inflation gauges like the Dallas Fed’s trimmed mean core PCE inflation rate are also at 2%. Furthermore, one of the main causes of the unexpected downturn in core PCE inflation in 2018, the Financial Services component, is already rebounding – a trend that will continue given the U.S. equity market’s strong gains in 2019 (bottom panel). Chart 9U.S. Growth Rebounding Chart 10U.S Inflation Rebounding Look for the Fed to signal a cautious tone tomorrow, but without sounding overly pessimistic on U.S. growth prospects. Bottom Line: The Fed will deliver a 25bp rate cut this week, despite a firmer tone to recent U.S. economic and inflation data, and the door will be left open to an additional cut in September. Additional moves after that are unlikely, given signs of reaccelerating momentum in U.S. economic growth and inflation. Investment Implications For The U.S. Versus Europe Over The Next 6-12 Months Looking ahead over the rest of 2019, relative economic performance should continue to favor the U.S. over Europe, creating a backdrop where relative monetary policies will support euro area fixed income returns versus U.S. equivalents.  Looking ahead over the rest of 2019, relative economic performance should continue to favor the U.S. over Europe, creating a backdrop where relative monetary policies will support euro area fixed income returns versus U.S. equivalents. Chart 11Too Soon To See An Export-Led Rebound In Europe The European economic downturn seen over the past year has come almost entirely from the trade side, when looking at the contributions to real GDP growth from net exports and domestic demand (Chart 11). This is also consistent with the manufacturing/services gap discussed earlier in this report, given the large share of manufactured goods in overall euro area exports. China will play a huge role in determining the future path of European economic growth through the trade channel, and already the pickup in Chinese credit growth is heralding a future rebound in European exports to China (third panel). A recovery in euro area exports to other countries besides China is also in store, based on our global leading economic indicator diffusion index (i.e. the net number of countries seeing a rising leading indicator). Yet given the long lead time before changes in those leading European export indicators and the subsequent growth of European exports – between 9-12 months – an improvement in euro area exports will not be visible in the hard data until late in 2019. It will likely be even longer than that given the additional publishing lags of the export data. Importantly, while the recent headlines have provided grounds for more cautious optimism on U.S.-China trade talks, any breakdown on that front would potentially delay any recovery in euro area exports (even if that is met by a bigger policy stimulus from China). At the moment, the U.S. economy is better positioned to withstand a renewed bout of trade uncertainty than the euro area, even though U.S. growth would take a hit through higher market volatility and tighter financial conditions if investors turn more risk averse on another failure of U.S.-China trade talks. Chart 12Not Much Downside Left For Bond Yields So after looking at the relative outlooks for economic growth in the U.S. and Europe, and the likely paths to be taken by the Fed and ECB, we come up with the following fixed income investment recommendations: Maintain below-benchmark overall global duration exposure: At an overall portfolio level, we continue to recommend a moderate below-benchmark global duration stance (Chart 12). Our global leading economic indicator diffusion index suggests that global real yields should soon bottom. At the same time, the annual rate of change of oil prices will accelerate over the rest of the year simply based on comparisons versus the sharp plunge in energy prices in the latter months of 2018. If the bullish oil forecast of BCA’s commodity strategists comes to fruition, the growth rate of oil prices will be even higher (see the “X” in the middle panel of Chart 12). Given the correlations between market-based inflation expectations and oil prices, a rebound in oil on a rate of change basis should put a floor under the inflation expectations component of government bond yields in the developed markets. Expect a rebound in the Treasury/Bund spread: The ECB is more likely to deliver on the policy expectations for the next twelve months discounted in Overnight Index Swap curves (-22bps of rate cuts) compared to the Fed (-89bps of rate cuts). This suggests that the spread between 10-year U.S. Treasury yields and 10-year German Bund yields is likely to widen, but coming first through higher relative market-based U.S. inflation expectations - a trend that is already starting to unfold (Chart 13).   ECB rate cuts, and the return of the ECB as a buyer of euro area non-financial corporate debt, will provide an obvious boost to the relative performance of euro area corporate debt (both investment grade and high-yield) over U.S. equivalents. Favor euro area corporates versus U.S. corporates: ECB rate cuts, and the return of the ECB as a buyer of euro area non-financial corporate debt, will provide an obvious boost to the relative performance of euro area corporate debt (both investment grade and high-yield) over U.S. equivalents. Another factor supporting European corporates is the better state of financial health among euro area companies, according to our Corporate Health Monitors (Chart 14). Chart 13Inflation Expectations Bottoming Out, Led By The U.S. The gap between the “bottom-up” versions of the Monitors tracks the spread differentials of the benchmark corporate bond indices quite closely, and is currently pointing to a more solid fundamental underpinning for euro area corporates on a cyclical (6-12 months) horizon. Chart 14Favor Euro Area Corporates Over U.S. Corporates   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Special Report, “What Goes On Between Those Walls? BCA’s Diverging Views In The Open”, dated July 19, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-15/em-succumbs-to-sub-zero-epidemic-as-debt-pile-doubles-in-a-weekD The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Despite the Fed’s supra natural powers, the deep rooted global growth slowdown will likely win the tug of war versus flush liquidity, especially if the trade war spat stays unresolved and the U.S. dollar remains well bid, both of which undermine U.S. corporate sector profitability. Recent Changes There are no changes to the portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities hit all-time highs last week, eagerly anticipating this Wednesday’s Fed decision to commence an easing interest rate cycle and save the day. The looming global liquidity injection is the sole reason that stocks are holding near their all-time highs. While markets are treating the Fed as a deity, empirical evidence suggests that risks are actually lurking beneath the surface. Over the past two decades the correlation between stocks and the fed funds rate has been tight and positive. Given the bond market’s view of four fed cuts in the coming year, equity gains are likely running on fumes (Chart 1). Chart 1Mind The Positive Correlation As we highlighted recently, we remain perplexed that stocks are diverging from earnings.1 Anticipating a flush global liquidity backdrop (i.e. global central banks increasing their reflationary efforts) likely explains this dynamic as the former should ultimately rekindle economic growth, which in turn should boost profit growth. However, the disinflationary fallout from the ongoing manufacturing recession and the petering out in the global credit impulse signal that the liquidity pipes remain clogged. We recently read and re-read the Bank For International Settlements (BIS) Hyun Song Shin’s “What is behind the recent slowdown” speech where he eloquently argues that the global trade deceleration predates last spring’s U.S./China trade dispute.2 Shin has a compelling argument blaming the growth deceleration on the drop in manufactured goods global value chains (GVC) and he depicts this as global trade trailing global GDP (top panel, Chart 2). Interestingly, despite the V-shaped recovery following the Great Recession, global trade never really regained its footing, failing to surpass the 2007 peak. Shin then links this slowdown in global supply chains to financial conditions and the role that banking plays in global trade financing. The middle panel of Chart 2 shows that the GVC move with the ebbs and flows of global banks. In other words, healthy banks tend to boost global trade and vice versa. Finally, given that most trade financing is conducted in U.S. dollars, the greenback’s recent appreciation also explains trade blues. Simply put, decreased availability of U.S. dollar denominated bank credit as a result of a rising greenback is another culprit (U.S. dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2). Ergo, there is no miracle cure for the sputtering world economy, especially given the recent re-escalation in global trade tensions and the stubbornly high U.S. dollar, and the gap between buoyant share prices and poor profit performance is likely to narrow via a fall in the former. Two weeks ago we highlighted that foreign sourced profits for U.S. multinationals are under attack as BCA’s global ex-U.S. ZEW survey ticked down anew (top panel, Chart 3). Tack on the global race to ZIRP (and in some cases further into NIRP) and it is crystal clear that the profit recession has yet to run its course. Chart 2Grim Trade Backdrop... Chart 3...Will Continue To Weigh On Foreign Sourced Profits   Meanwhile, China is likely exporting its deflation to the rest of the world and until its business sector regains pricing power, U.S. profits will continue to suffer (bottom panel, Chart 3). Turning over to U.S. shores and domestic corporate pricing power, the news is equally grim. Our pricing power proxy is outright contracting and warns that revenue growth is also under duress for U.S. corporates. Similarly, the ISM manufacturing prices paid subcomponent fell below the 50 boom/bust line and steeply contracting raw industrials commodities are signaling that 6%/annum top line growth for the SPX is unsustainable (Chart 4). On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. Chart 4Sales Pressures... Chart 5...Are Building Rapidly Melting inflation expectations and the NY Fed’s softening Underlying Inflation Gauge (UIG) best encapsulate this softening revenue backdrop and warn that any further letdown in inflation risks sinking S&P 500 sales growth below the zero line (Chart 5).   Netting it all out, despite the Fed’s supra natural powers, the deep rooted global growth slowdown will likely win the tug of war versus flush liquidity, especially if the trade war spat stays unresolved and the U.S. dollar remains well bid, both of which undermine U.S. corporate sector profitability. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. What follows is a recap of recent (mostly) defensive moves in the health care, consumer staples, materials, tech, consumer discretionary and communication services sectors.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   S&P Health Care (Overweight) Upgraded from Neutral S&P Health Care Equipment (Overweight) Upgraded from Neutral Fear-based sell-off created a buying opportunity in the U.S. health care equipment index as fundamentals remain upbeat. Rising U.S. medical equipment exports are a tailwind for this health care subgroup as 60% of its revenues are generated outside the United States (second panel). The EM demographic shift (not shown) represents yet another boost to the sector as U.S. companies are the technology leaders and often the only source for equipping hospitals/clinics around the globe. Our move to upgrade the S&P health care equipment index also pushed the entire health care sector from neutral to overweight (bottom panel). S&P Health Care S&P Managed Health Care (Overweight) Upgraded from Neutral The Bernie Sanders “Medicare For All” bill reintroduction created a buying opportunity in the S&P managed health care index and we were swift to act on it in mid-April. Contained industry cost factors including wages staying at the 2% mark help preserve industry margins (bottom panel). Melting medical cost inflation signals that HMO profit margins will likely expand (third panel). Overall healthy labor market conditions with unemployment insurance claims probing 60-year lows should underpin managed health care enrollment (top & second panels). S&P Managed Health Care   S&P Hypermarkets (Overweight) Upgraded from Neutral S&P Soft Drinks (Neutral) Upgraded from Underweight A deteriorating macro landscape reflected in the steep fall in U.S. economic data surprises, the drubbing of the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield and melting inflation make a compelling case for an overweight stance in the S&P Hypermarkets index (top & second panels). Similarly, safe haven soft drinks stocks shine when economic conditions are deteriorating (third panel). This defensive pure-play consumer goods sub-sector is also enjoying a rebound in operating metrics, and thus it no longer pays to stay bearish. We lifted exposure to neutral last week, locking in gains of 5.5% since inception. S&P Hypermarkets   S&P Materials (Neutral) Downgraded from Overweight S&P Chemicals (Underweight) Downgraded from Neutral Global macro headwinds continue to weigh on this deep cyclical sub-index as the risks of a full-blown trade war will likely take a bite out of final demand (third panel). Chemical producers garner 60% of their revenues from abroad and falling U.S. chemical exports are troublesome for this index (top & second panels). Given that chemicals have a 74% market cap weight in the S&P materials index, our move to underweight on the sub-index level also pushed the entire S&P materials index to neutral from overweight. S&P Materials   S&P Technology (Neutral) Downgrade Alert S&P Software (Overweight) Lifted trailing stops As a part of our portfolio de-risking measures, we put a 27% profit-taking stop loss on our overweight S&P software index call on June 10. Once triggered, a downgrade to neutral in the S&P software index would also push our S&P tech sector weight to a below benchmark allocation. Meanwhile, our EPS model for the overall tech sector is on the verge of contraction on the back of sinking capex and a firming U.S. dollar (middle panel). The San Francisco Fed’s Tech Pulse Index is also closing in on the expansion/contraction line warning that tech stocks are in for a rough ride (bottom panel). S&P Technology   S&P Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals (Neutral) Downgraded from Overweight As nearly 60% of the revenues for the S&P technology hardware, storage & peripherals (THS&P) index are sourced from abroad, deflating EM currencies sap foreign consumer purchasing power and weigh on the industry’s exports (third panel). Global export volumes have sunk into contractionary territory, to a level last seen during the Great Recession (not shown) and underscore that industry exports will remain under pressure. The IFO World Economic Survey confirms this challenging export backdrop as it is still pointing toward sustained global export ails (second panel). As a result, all of this has shaken our confidence in an overweight stance in the S&P THS&P and we were compelled to move to the sidelines in early June for a modest relative loss since inception. S&P Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Upgrade Alert S&P Home Improvement Retail (Neutral) Upgraded from underweight In the July 8 Weekly Report, we put the S&P consumer discretionary sector on an upgrade alert as this early-cyclical sector benefits the most from lower interest rates (bottom panel). The way we will execute this upgrade will be by triggering the upgrade alert on the S&P internet retail index. Melting interest rates and rebounding lumber prices are a boon for home improvement retailers (HIR, second & third panels). Tack on profit-augmenting industry productivity gains and it no longer pays to be bearish HIR. S&P Consumer Discretionary S&P Homebuilders (Neutral) Downgraded from overweight Long S&P Homebuilders / Short S&P Home Improvement Retail Booked Profits Lumber represents an input cost to homebuilders (we booked profits of 10% in our overweight recommendation on May 22 and downgraded to neutral) whereas it is an important selling item in Big Box building & supply retailers that make a set margin on it (third panel). On June 18, as part of our de-risking strategy, we locked in 10% gains in the long S&P homebuilders/short S&P home improvement retail trade that hit our stop loss and we moved to the sidelines. S&P Homebuilders S&P Telecommunication Services (Neutral) Upgraded from Underweight The recent escalation of the trade spat has pushed July’s Markit’s flash U.S. manufacturing PMI reading to 50 - the lowest level since the history of the data. Historically, relative S&P telecom services share price momentum has moved inversely with the manufacturing PMI and the current message is to expect a sustained rebound in the former (bottom panel). Rock bottom profit expectations and firming industry operating metrics signal that most of the grim news is priced in bombed out telecom services valuations (middle panel), and it no longer pays to be underweight. In late-May, we lifted exposure to neutral for 6% relative gains since inception. S&P Telecommunication Services S&P Movies & Entertainment (Overweight) Upgraded from Neutral Structural shifts in the streaming services industry marked a start of a pricing war with incumbents and new entrants fighting for market share, as evidenced by DIS’s pricing of their upcoming Disney+ service. Consumer confidence remains glued to multi-decade highs and there are high odds that the big gulf that has opened up between confidence and relative S&P movies & entertainment share prices will narrow via a rise in the latter (top panel). Moreover, more dollars spent on recreation is synonymous with a margin expansion in the S&P movies & entertainment index (bottom panel). This consumer spending backdrop is also conducive to a rise in relative profitability, the opposite of what the sell-side currently expects. S&P Movies & Entertainment   Arseniy Urazov, Research Associate ArseniyU@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Beware Profit Recession” dated July 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp190514.pdf   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights The global manufacturing cycle has averaged about three years in length (peak-to-peak). We are near the bottom of the current cycle, which should set the stage for a recovery phase lasting around 18 months. The global economy will start to slow in 2021, culminating in a recession in 2022. The long-term global disinflationary cycle is drawing to a close. Investors should remain bullish on risk assets for the next two years, but expect subpar returns over a longer-term horizon.  Feature The Wheels Are Turning BCA Research has a long and proud history of analyzing economic and financial market cycles. Three types of cycles, in particular, have proven to be important to investors: Short-term manufacturing cycles lasting roughly three years. Medium-term business cycles affecting the entire economy. Long-term supercycles that can span decades. These often involve significant economic, social and political changes. What Really Caused The Global Manufacturing Downturn? The latest global manufacturing downturn has been widely attributed to the escalation of the trade war, the Chinese deleveraging campaign, and the end of the “sugar rush” from the Trump tax cuts. We have no doubt that all these factors exacerbated the downturn. However, it is not clear whether they caused it. As Chart 1 illustrates, the Chinese deleveraging campaign began in late 2016, more than a year before the global manufacturing sector peaked. The trade war only heated up in the spring of last year, after manufacturing activity had already begun to roll over. The jury is still out on the extent to which U.S. corporate tax cuts spurred capital spending, as opposed to being funnelled into retained earnings and share buybacks. Regardless, the fact that capex has weakened less in the U.S. than abroad over the past 18 months suggests that the fading impact from U.S. tax cuts was not the main culprit (Chart 2). Chart 1Chinese Credit Growth Deceleration Preceded The Global Manufacturing Slowdown Chart 2The Capex Slowdown Has Been Less Severe In The U.S.   A Predictable Cycle Chart 3The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom Lost in the discussion over the cause of the slowdown is that global manufacturing activity follows a fairly predictable three-year growth cycle: up for the first 18 months, down for the second 18 months (Chart 3). This is not an immutable law of nature, but it is a handy rule of thumb. The last growth cycle began in the late spring of 2016 and reached a crescendo in December 2017 (based on the global manufacturing PMI). For now, the global manufacturing sector remains in the doldrums, with this week’s worse-than-expected Markit PMI readings for both the U.S. and the euro area being prime examples. However, if history is any guide, activity should begin to rebound over the coming months. Global manufacturing activity follows a fairly predictable three-year growth cycle. The large improvement in the Philly Fed manufacturing PMI – arguably the most important of all the regional Fed manufacturing surveys1 – in July, strong U.S. core capital goods orders, as well as the slight uptick in Korean exports on a month-over-month basis, are positive signs in that regard. The same goes for the sales outlook of two manufacturing bellwether companies which reported earnings this week: United Technologies and Texas Instruments. The former manufactures Otis elevators, Carrier air conditioning/HVAC, and Pratt & Whitney jet engines. The latter’s components are widely used throughout the global semiconductor industry. Chart 4 shows that the semiconductor cycle closely tracks the overall manufacturing cycle. Chart 4Semiconductor And Manufacturing Cycles Tend To Overlap Cycles And Feedback Loops What drives the short-term manufacturing cycle? The answer is the same thing that drives all cycles: The existence of self-limiting feedback loops. In the case of the manufacturing cycle, the feedback loop is fairly straightforward to describe. A pickup in manufacturing sales boosts profits and creates new jobs. This causes consumer and business confidence to rise. Improving confidence leads to more sales, which generates even higher confidence. If that were all there was to the story, this virtuous cycle would never end. This is where the “self-limiting” part comes in. Most manufactured goods are durable goods, meaning that they retain value for some time after they are purchased. When spending on, say, automobiles or computers rises to a high level for an extended period of time, a glut will form, requiring a period of lower production. This, in turn, will generate a negative feedback loop where falling sales lead to lower confidence and so forth. The glut will eventually shrink. Once enough pent-up demand has accumulated, a new upcycle will begin.  The Role Of Finance Banks and other financial institutions play a critical role in both perpetuating, and ultimately short-circuiting, the feedback loop described above. Business lending tends to ebb and flow with capital spending (Chart 5). It is not so much that one causes the other. It is better to think of the two as locked in a self-reinforcing tango: Faster output growth leads to more lending, and more lending leads to faster output growth. Chart 5The Ebb And Flow Of Lending And Capex Go Hand In Hand The amount of time it takes for the music to end, and for the dancers to part ways, varies from episode to episode. If both lenders and borrowers are feeling skittish, the party may never reach a fever pitch. While that may sound like a bad thing, it has the redeeming feature that imbalances never get a chance to reach critical levels. This brings us to today: Unlike in the pre-financial crisis period, when banks held Chuck Prince’s view that “as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance,” lenders are more circumspect. This is a critical reason why we think the next U.S. recession is not imminent. Private-Sector Imbalances Remain Low In The United States Despite this being the longest U.S. expansion on record, the ratio of private debt-to-GDP is still well below where it was at the start of the decade (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Private Sector Leverage Remains Below Its Previous Peak Granted, corporate debt levels have scaled new highs. However, thanks to low interest rates, interest coverage ratios remain above their post-1980 average. This is true for the economy as a whole, as well as for the broad equity market (Chart 7). Chart 7AInterest Coverage Ratios Are Not Particularly Stretched In Most Equity Sectors (I) Chart 7BInterest Coverage Ratios Are Not Particularly Stretched In Most Equity Sectors (II) Spending on business equipment, new homes, and consumer durables also remains restrained. This explains why the average age of the U.S. capital stock has increased sharply since the Great Recession (Chart 8). Chart 8The Capital Stock Is Aging Public-Sector Imbalances On The Rise, But Not Yet At Critical Levels Chart 9The Private Sector Is Not Living Beyond Its Means The Way It Was Before The Last Two Recessions The one area where clear imbalances in the U.S. are present is in public finances. The tentative deal between the Trump Administration and Congress to raise spending caps and increase the debt ceiling ensures that fiscal policy will stay accommodative for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the cost of this fiscal largesse is a budget deficit that is set to swell to $1 trillion (4.5% of GDP) in FY2020, up from $586 billion (3.2% of GDP) in FY2016. Financing this deficit over the next few years is unlikely to pose serious challenges because the private sector remains an ample source of savings (Chart 9). However, once this reservoir of savings starts to recede, bond yields could rise sharply.   Chinese Imbalances: How Much Of A Concern? Economic and financial imbalances are more pronounced abroad. In China, fixed investment spending has averaged 44% of GDP over the past decade. Debt levels have soared over this period. That said, much of this debt-financed investment should be regarded as a form of stimulus for an economy that suffers from a chronic shortfall of consumption. So far this year, the decline in Chinese private-sector fixed-asset investment has been counterbalanced by an increase in infrastructure spending (Chart 10). As in the U.S. and many other economies, abundant Chinese savings have allowed interest rates to stay low, thereby ensuring that borrowers are able to tap credit at favorable terms. We expect the Chinese authorities to continue stimulating their economy. Unlike in early 2017, credit growth is only modestly above trend nominal GDP growth (Chart 11). In addition, a stronger economy would give the Chinese government more leverage over trade negotiations. Chart 10China: Declining Private-Sector Investment Counterbalanced By Increasing Infrastructure Spending Chart 11China: The Deleveraging Campaign Has Been Put On The Backburner   A Turn In The Long-Term Inflationary Cycle? While the unemployment rate has returned to pre-recession levels in many economies, the scars from the Great Recession still remain. Nowhere is this more manifest than in the hypersensitivity that central banks have displayed towards bad economic news. Just as central bankers in the 1960s were fixated on avoiding the mass unemployment that accompanied the Great Depression, today’s central bankers are laser-focused on propping up demand at all costs. The new conventional wisdom is that the Phillips curve is dead. Chart 12 casts doubt on this assertion: It shows that the relationship between wage growth and various measures of labor market slack still seems very much alive and well. Chart 12A Tighter U.S. Labor Market Has Been Translating Into Stronger Wage Growth... Chart 13...But No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral Admittedly, faster wage growth has failed to push up inflation. However, this may be simply because productivity growth has sped up. In the U.S., unit labor cost inflation has actually decelerated sharply since late 2017 (Chart 13). If wage growth continues to grind higher, firms will have no choice but to start raising prices. This could set the stage for an upleg in the longer-term inflationary cycle.   Structural Forces: Not So Deflationary Anymore Once inflation starts to move higher, a number of structural forces could help it along. The period of hyperglobalization, which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the integration of China into the global economy, is over. The ratio of global trade-to-GDP has been flat for over a decade (Chart 14).  Chart 14Globalization Has Peaked Demographic trends are shifting from deflationary to inflationary. Now that baby boomers are starting to retire, they will begin running down their savings. Chart 15 shows that ratio of workers-to-consumers globally has begun to fall after a four-decade ascent. Chart 15The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Started Shrinking Globally As more people retire, aggregate savings will fall. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate of interest. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in the neutral rate, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up. The political winds are also blowing in the direction of higher inflation. Populism is on the rise. Whether it be right-wing populism or left-wing populism, the result is usually bloated budget deficits, compromised central bank independence, and productivity-reducing policies. Stagflation may once again rear its head. Investment Conclusions The path to higher interest rates is paved with lower rates, meaning that the longer a central bank keeps rates below their neutral level, the more economies will overheat, and the larger the eventual inflation overshoot will be. We expect the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points next week, with another cut possible in September. The ECB and most other central banks are also in easing mode. The good news is that inflation is a notoriously lagging indicator (Chart 16). It will probably take at least a year for clear evidence of overheating to emerge in the U.S., and even longer abroad. The bad news is that once inflation breaks out, it could do so quite dramatically. The market is not prepared for this (Chart 17).     Investors should maintain a bullish stance towards risk assets for the next 12-to-18 months, before starting to scale back exposure. Not only are central banks becoming more dovish, but the global manufacturing cycle is about to turn up. Stronger global growth will lead to a weaker U.S. dollar (Chart 18). EM and European stocks will start to outperform U.S. stocks (Chart 19). Cyclicals will trump defensives. Chart 18The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 19EM And Euro Area Equities Outperform When Global Growth Improves     As global yield curves steepen anew, bank stocks will power higher. U.S. small caps, with their relatively high weighting in regional banks, will outperform their large cap brethren (Chart 20). Chart 20Big Has Crushed Small   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    The manufacturing segment in the region covered by the Philadelphia Fed is representative of the national manufacturing sector and hence tracks the ISM manufacturing index better than the other regional Fed surveys. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades