Economy

Highlights So What? The late-cycle rally still faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit continue to pose risks. A shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a temporary negative impact on equity markets. A bombshell would increase Trump’s chances of removal from office. We give 35% odds to tarrifs on autos and auto parts, and 10% odds to a hard Brexit. Feature In our February 6 report we outlined how a “Witches’ Brew” of geopolitical risks had the potential to short-circuit the late-cycle equity rally. A month later, that brew is still bubbling. President Donald Trump’s approval rating has rebounded but going forward it faces challenges from negative headlines (Chart 1). These include a soaring trade deficit, a large influx of illegal immigrants on the southern border, a weak jobs report for February, a setback in North Korean diplomacy, and an intensification of the scandals plaguing Trump’s inner circle. Chart 1Don't Get Comfortable Just Yet, Mr. President Each of these issues calls into question the effectiveness of Trump’s core policies and the stability of his administration, though in reality they are only potentially problematic. While Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s forthcoming report poses a tail risk, the substantial threat remains Trump’s trade policy.  Indeed, investors face “the persistence of uncertainties related to geopolitical factors” and the “threat of protectionism,” according to European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, who spoke as he rolled out a new round of monetary stimulus for Europe and its ailing banks. What did Draghi have in mind? The obvious culprits are the U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit. There were other issues – such as “vulnerabilities in emerging markets” – but the first three are the most likely to have turned Draghi’s head. The global economic outlook is likely to improve on the back of Chinese stimulus and policy adjustments by the ECB and Federal Reserve. But growth has not yet stabilized and financial markets face additional volatility due to the fact that none of these “geopolitical factors” is going to be resolved easily. The good news is that Trump, overseeing a precarious economy ahead of an election, has an incentive to play softball rather than hardball.  Mueller’s Smoking Gun? News reports suggest that Mueller will soon issue the final report of his investigation into President Trump’s election campaign links with Russia. There is really only one way in which the Mueller report could be market relevant: it could produce smoking-gun evidence that results in non-trivial impeachment proceedings. Any scandal big enough to remove Trump from office or clearly damage his reelection chances is significant because financial markets would dislike the extreme policy discontinuity (Chart 2). Anything short of this will be a red herring for markets, though admittedly many of our clients disagree. Very little is known about what Mueller will report and how he will interpret his mandate. Mueller’s investigation may or may not make it to the public in full form, at least initially, and he may or may not make any major additional indictments. Congress will strive to get access to the report, which is internal to the Justice Department, while spin-off investigations will proliferate among lower-level federal district attorneys and congressional committees. The legal battle, writ large, will run into the 2020 election and beyond. House Democrats alone can decide whether to bring articles of impeachment against Trump, but the case would be struck down in the Senate if it did not rest on ironclad evidence of wrongdoing that implicated Trump personally. Republican Senators will not jump ship easily – especially not 18 of them. That would require a sea change in grassroots support for Trump. Trump’s approval among Republicans remains the indicator to watch, and it is still strong (Chart 3). If this number crashes in the aftermath of the Mueller report, then Trump could find himself on a Nixonian trajectory, implying higher odds of a Senate conviction (Chart 4). At that point, markets would begin discounting a Democratic sweep in 2020, with business sentiment and risk assets likely to drop at the prospect of higher taxes and increased regulation (Chart 5). Chart 5A 2020 Democratic Sweep Would Dent Business Sentiment After all, if scandals remove Trump from office, then not only is a Democrat likely to win the White House, but any Democrat is likely to win – even a non-centrist like Bernie Sanders or other Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris who have swung hard to the left. Meanwhile, the odds of Democrats taking control of the Senate (while keeping the House) will rise. With Democratic candidates flirting with democratic socialism and proposing a range of left-wing policies, the prospect of full Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches would weigh on financial markets. We doubt that the Mueller report can fall short of a smoking gun while still dealing a fatal blow to Trump. The Democrats control the House, so if the scandal grows to gigantic proportions, they will impeach. Yet if they impeach without an ironclad case, Trump will be acquitted. And if Trump is acquitted, it is hard to see how his chances of reelection would fall. The impeachment of former President Bill Clinton looms large over Democrats, since it ended up boosting his popularity. If Democrats are overzealous to no end, it will help Trump’s campaign. If Trump should then win re-election, he will have veto power and likely a GOP Senate, so his policies will remain in place. The outcome for markets would be policy continuity, though the market-positive aspects of Trump’s first term may not be improved while the market-negative aspects, such as his trade policy and foreign policy, may reboot. Mueller is an all-or-nothing prospect: he either leads us to the equivalent of the Watergate Tapes or not. Lesser crimes are unlikely to have a decisive impact on the election. But volatility is likely to go up as the report comes due, just as it did during the Lewinsky scandal (Chart 6), at least until the dust settles and there is clarity on impeachment. And an equity sell-off at dramatic points in the saga cannot be ruled out, especially if global factors combine with actual impeachment (Chart 7). Chart 6Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol... Chart 7… And Potentially Dampen Returns Bottom Line: A specific, shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a negative impact on equity markets and risk assets, but any such moves would be temporary as long as the growth and earnings backdrop remain positive and Mueller does not drop a bombshell that increases Trump’s chances of removal from office. Separating The Budget From The Border The president faces adverse developments on the southern border after having initiated a controversial national emergency in order to transfer military funds to construct new barriers. The U.S. has seen an abnormally large increase in apprehensions and attempted entries this year (Charts 8A & 8B). Ultimately the influx calls attention to the porous southern border and as such may help to justify Trump’s policy focus. For now it raises the question of why the administration’s tough tactics are failing to deter immigrants. Meanwhile his emergency declaration has divided the Republican Party, with several members likely to join with Democrats in a resolution of disapproval that Trump will veto. Congress will not be able to override the veto, but Trump’s decree also faces challenges in the judicial system. We doubt that the Supreme Court will rule against him but it certainly is possible. The ruling is highly likely to come before the election. Meanwhile Trump is kicking off the FY2020 budget battle with his newest request of $8.6 billion for the border wall and cuts to a range of discretionary non-defense spending. The presidential budget is a fiction – it is based on unrealistic cuts to a range of government programs. Any budget that is passed will bear no relation to the administration’s proposals. Opinion polls referenced above clearly demonstrate that Trump’s approval rating suffered from the recent government shutdown. This does not mean that he will conclude the next budget battle by the initial deadline of October 1 or that a late-2019 shutdown is impossible. He might accept a short shutdown to try to secure defense spending that would arguably legitimize his repurposing of military funds for border construction. But his experience early this year means that the odds of another long-running, bruising shutdown are low. Might Trump refuse to raise the debt ceiling later this year to get his way on the wall? This is even less likely than a shutdown due to the negative impact that a debt ceiling constraint would have on social security recipients and bond markets. Trump also has the most to lose if the 2011 budget caps snap back into place in 2020 due to any failure of the FY2020 negotiations (Chart 9). As such, the debt ceiling – which the Treasury Department can keep at bay until the end of the fiscal year in October – and the 2020 budget may be resolved together this time around. In short, Trump will be forced to punt on congressional funding for the wall later this year and will have to campaign on it again in November 2020, with the slogan “Finish the Wall.” This is a market-positive outcome, as the hurdles to fiscal spending in 2020 are likely to be reduced: Trump will have to concede to some Democratic priorities and abandon his proposed cuts. The Democrats, for their part, are likely to have enough moderates to get the next budget over the line with Republican support. To illustrate, Republicans only need 21 votes for a majority, while no fewer than 26 Democrats were recently chastised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for cooperating with Republicans. The implication is that a bipartisan majority can be found. Since Trump cannot get his budget cuts, and does not really even want them, the projected contraction of the budget deficit in 2020 will be reduced or erased (Chart 10). On the margin, this would support higher inflation and bond yields.  The biggest threat to Trump’s reelection is still the risk that the long business cycle will expire by November next year. However, the exceedingly low February payrolls print was misleading – the unemployment rate fell and wage growth was firm (Chart 11). American households are in relatively good shape and that bodes well for Trump, for the time being. Chart 11American Households Are In Good Shape Bottom Line: The economy is relatively well supported and Trump and the Democrats are ultimately likely to cooperate on the budget under the table, reducing the risks of a debt ceiling breach, or an extended government shutdown later this year, or a fall off the 2020 stimulus cliff. The Trade Deficit: Trump’s Pivot To Europe Trade policy is where Trump’s challenges merge with Draghi’s woes. The U.S. trade deficit lurched upwards to a ten-year high of $621 billion in 2018 (Chart 12). The trade deficit is uniquely important to Trump because he campaigned on an unorthodox protectionist agenda in order to reduce it. It will be very difficult for him to evade the consequences if the deficit is higher, as a share of GDP, in November 2020 than it was in January 2017. Chart 12Trade Deficit Jump Is A Blow To Trump The underlying cause of the rising deficit is that a growing American economy at full employment with a relatively strong dollar will suck in larger quantities of imports. This effect is overriding any that Trump’s tariffs have had in discouraging imports. Meanwhile the global slowdown, reinforced by trade retaliation and negative sentiment, are harming U.S. exports (Chart 13). The administration’s policies of fiscal stimulus combined with encouraging private investment are guaranteed to lead to a higher current account deficit, barring an offsetting (and highly unlikely) rise in private saving. The current account deficit must equal the gap between domestic saving and investment and a rising fiscal deficit represents a drop in saving. Chart 13Trade War Hurting U.S. Exports What does the trade deficit imply for the U.S.-China talks? On one hand, the U.S. could put more pressure on China after feeling political heat from the large deficit. On the other hand, China has always offered to reduce the bilateral trade deficit directly through bulk purchases of goods, particularly commodities. It is Trump’s top negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, who has insisted that China make structural changes to reduce trade imbalances on a long-term and sustainable basis.1  In a sign of progress, the U.S. and China have reportedly arrived at a currency agreement. No details are known and therefore it is impossible to say if it would mean a more “market-oriented” renminbi, which could fluctuate and have a variable impact on the trade deficit, or a renminbi that is managed to be stronger against the dollar, which would tend to weigh on the deficit, as Trump might wish. The two negotiating teams are working on the text of five other structural issues that should also mitigate the deficit. Moreover, China’s new foreign investment law, if enforced, could increase American market access by leveling the playing field for foreign firms. However, there is still no monitoring mechanism, the two presidents have not scheduled a final signing summit, and the deterioration in North Korean peace talks also works against any quick conclusion. If Trump concludes a deal, the next question for investors is whether he will impose Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto imports on the EU and other partners (Chart 14). The European Commission’s top trade negotiator, Cecilia Malmstrom, recently met with Lighthizer in Washington to discourage tariffs. She refused to admit agriculture into the negotiations, as per a U.S.-EU joint statement in July 2018, but proposed equalizing tariffs on industrial goods as a way for both sides to make a positive start (Chart 15). She said that the U.S. repealing the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs are necessary for any final deal. And she reiterated that any new tariffs (e.g., the proposed Section 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts) would prevent a deal and provoke immediate retaliation on $23 billion worth of American exports. Malmstrom also said that the EU would prefer to work with the U.S. on reforming the World Trade Organization and addressing China’s trade violations. This approach fits with that of Japan, which has joined the U.S. and EU in trilateral discussions toward reforming the global trade architecture in a bid to mitigate U.S. protectionism and constrain China. The problem with the EU’s position is that once the U.S. and China make a trade deal, the U.S. will not have as immediate of a need to form a trade coalition against China (other than in dealing with WTO issues). Moreover, Japan will be forced to accept a deal with the U.S. in short order. A rotation of Trump trade policy to focus on Europe is likely. We give 35% odds to tariffs on autos and auto parts. The USMCA will increase the cost of production in North America while Europe is so far excluding cars from negotiations with the U.S., so there is room for a clash. But any tariffs on autos will be less sweeping than those against China. Trump will play softball rather than hardball for the following reasons: The public is less skeptical of trade with Europe and Japan than with China. The auto sector is heavily concentrated in the Red States and many states that are heavily exposed to trade with the EU are also critical to Trump’s reelection (Map 1). Section 232 tariffs that are required to be enacted by May 18 would have plenty of time to impact the U.S. economy negatively by November 2020. Congress and the defense establishment are against a trade war with U.S. allies, while bipartisanship reigns when it comes to tougher actions toward China. The bilateral trade deficit is less excessive with Europe than with China (see Chart 12 above). The U.S. carmaker and auto parts lobby are unanimously against the tariffs – and in fact has called for the removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs in a stance that echoes that of the EU. The existing steel and aluminum tariffs provide Trump with leverage in the negotiations with the EU and Japan, whereas the U.S. has agreed not to impose new tariffs on these partners while trade negotiations are underway. New tariffs would nix negotiations and ensure that the ensuing quarrels are long and drawn out, with a necessarily worse economic impact. To initiate a new trade war in the wake of the U.S.-China war would be to undercut the positive impact on trade, financial conditions, and sentiment that is supposedly driving Trump’s desire for a China deal in the first place. The U.S. eventually will need to build a trilateral coalition to hold China to account and ensure that it does not slide back into its past mercantilist practices. Even limited or pinprick tariffs will have an adverse impact on equity markets, given that they will hit Europe at a time when its economy is decelerating dangerously and when Brexit uncertainty is already weighing on European assets and sentiment (see next section).  This may be why both the U.K. and Germany have recently softened their positions on Chinese telecom company Huawei, which they have been investigating for national security concerns related to the rollout of 5G networks. They are signaling that they are not going to sacrifice their relationship with China if the U.S. is dealing with China bilaterally while threatening to turn around and slap tariffs on their auto exports. If the U.S. goes ahead with tariffs – on the basis that its China agreement allows it to isolate Europe – the EU will not be a pushover, as exports to the U.S. only amount to 2.6% of GDP (Chart 16). The result of the U.S.-China quarrel has been a deepening EU-China trade relationship and that trend is set to continue (Chart 17), especially if the U.S. continues to use punitive measures that increase the substitution effect and the strategic value of the Chinese and European markets to each other. Chart 16The EU Will Not Be A Pushover In Face Of U.S. Tariffs Chart 17EU-China Trade Relationship Deepening Bottom Line: In the wake of any U.S.-China agreement, we give a 35% chance that Trump will impose tariffs on European cars and car parts. Such tariffs are not our base case because they are unlikely to shrink the U.S. trade deficit and would have a negative impact on the Red State economy. But lower magnitude tariffs cannot be ruled out – and the impact on the euro and European industrial sector would clearly be detrimental in the short run. Assuming that global and European growth is recovering, a tariff shock to Europe’s carmakers could present a good opportunity to buy on the dip. Any U.S.-EU trade war will ultimately be shorter-lived and less disruptive than the U.S.-China trade war, which is likely to resume at some point even if Presidents Trump and Xi get a deal this year. The United Kingdom: Snap Election More Likely A series of important votes is taking place in Westminster this week, with the end result likely to be an extension to negotiations over a withdrawal deal at the EU Council summit on March 21. Conditional on that extension, the odds of a new election are sharply rising. The first vote, as we go to press on Tuesday, has resulted in a rejection of Prime Minister Theresa May’s exit plan by 149 votes – the second rejection after her colossal defeat in January by 230 votes. The loss was expected because the EU has not offered a substantial compromise on the contentious Irish “backstop” arrangement, which would keep Northern Ireland and/or the U.K. in the European Customs Union beyond the transition date of December 31, 2020. All that was offered was an exit clause for the U.K. sans Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is part of the U.K. and the introduction of additional border checks on the Irish Sea would mark a new division within the constitutional fabric. This is unacceptable to the Conservative Party and especially to the Democratic Union Party of Northern Ireland, which gives May her majority in parliament. On Wednesday, we expect the vote for a “no deal” exit, in which the U.K. simply leaves the EU without any arrangements as to the withdrawal (or future relationship), to fail by an even larger margin than May’s plan. Leaving without a deal would cause a negative economic shock due to the automatic reversion to relatively high WTO tariff levels with the EU, which receives 46% of the U.K.’s exports and is thus vital in the maintenance of its trade balance and terms of trade (Chart 18). It is impossible to see parliament voting in favor of such an outcome – parliament was never the driving force behind Brexit, with most MPs preferring to remain in the EU.     Chart 18No Deal Brexit A Huge Blow To U.K. The risk is that parliament should fail repeatedly to pass the third vote this week, a motion asking the EU for an extension period to the March 29 “exit day.” This is unlikely but possible. In this case, the supreme decision-making body of the U.K. will be paralyzed. A bloodbath will ensue in which the country will either see Prime Minister May ousted, a snap election called, or both. If the extension passes, the EU Council is likely to go along with the decision. It is in the EU’s near-term economic interest not to trigger a crash Brexit and in its long-term interest to delay Brexit until the U.K. public decides they would rather stay after all. The problem is that it will not want to grant an extension for longer than July, when new Members of the European Parliament take their seats after the May 23-26 EU elections. The U.K. may be forced to put up candidates for the election. What good would an extension do anyway? The likeliest possibility is, yet again, a new election. The conditions are not yet ripe for a second referendum, though the odds are rising that one will eventually occur. The Labour Party has fallen in the opinion polls amidst Jeremy Corbyn’s indecisive leadership and a divisive platform change within the party to push for a second Brexit referendum (Chart 19). An election now gives May’s Conservatives an opportunity to build a larger and stronger majority – after all, in the U.K. electoral system, the winner takes all in each constituency, so the Tories would pick up most of the seats that Labour loses. May’s faction might be able to strengthen its hand vis-à-vis hard Brexiters who have less popular support yet currently have the numbers to block May’s withdrawal plan. Chart 19A New Election Would Be Opportunistic Theresa May might be unwilling to call an election given her fateful mistake of calling the snap election of 2017. If she demurs, she could face an internal party coup. There is a slim chance that a hard Brexiter could take the helm, bent on steering the U.K. out of the EU without a deal. Parliament, however, would rebel against such a leader. Ultimately, the economic and financial constraints of a crash Brexit are too hard and we expect that the votes will reflect this fact, whether in an adjusted exit deal or a new election. But both outcomes require an extension.  However, we must point out that the constitutional and geopolitical constraints alone are not sufficient to prevent a crash out: parliament is the supreme lawmaking authority and there is no other basis for the U.K. to leave in an orderly fashion. The United Kingdom has survived worse, as many hard Brexiters will emphasize. A crash is a mistake that can happen. But the odds are not higher than 10%-20% given the stakes (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers With the EU economy not having stabilized and the U.S. contemplating Section 232 trade tariffs, Brexit is all the more reason to be wary of sterling, the euro, and European equities in the near term, especially relative to the U.S. dollar and U.S. equities. Gilts can rally even in the event of an extension given the uncertainty that this would entail, though the BCA House View is neutral. Bottom Line: Expect parliament to ask for an extension. At the same time, the odds of a new election have risen sharply. The absence of a new election could lead to a power struggle within the Tory party that could escalate the risk of a hard Brexit, though we still place the odds at 10%. A second referendum is rising in probability but will only become possible after the dust settles from the current crisis. Investment Conclusions The ECB’s stimulus measures are positive for European and global growth over a 6-to-12-month time frame. They suggest that financial assets could be supported later in the year, depending in great part on what happens in China. China’s combined January and February total social financing growth reinforces our Feb 20 report arguing that the risk of stimulus is now to the upside. As People’s Bank Governor Yi Gang put it, the slowdown in total social financing last year has stopped. The annual meeting of the National People’s Congress also resulted in largely accommodative measures on top of this credit increase. Nevertheless, stimulus operates with a lag, and for the reasons outlined above we are not yet willing to favor EUR/USD or European equities within developed markets. A 35% chance of tariffs is non-negligible. We expect U.S. equities to outperform within the developed world and Chinese equities to outperform within the emerging world on a 6-to-12 month basis.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Lighthizer now has bipartisan support in Congress, whose members will lambast Trump if he squanders the historic leverage he has built up in exchange for a shallow deal that only temporarily weighs on the trade deficit. 

Highlights February’s credit release earlier this week confirmed that credit growth is not yet on a “blowout” trajectory. If maintained, the recent pace of credit expansion implies a moderate credit cycle, not a large acceleration like what occurred in 2015/2016. We agree that a trade deal between China and the U.S. is likely to occur, but a sustained, cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) rise in Chinese relative equity performance requires stability in the outlook for earnings, which have not yet reflected the ongoing economic slowdown. A confirmed meeting date between Presidents Trump & Xi coupled with more evidence that a moderate credit expansion is underway would likely lead us to upgrade our cyclical stance towards Chinese investable stocks (to overweight). 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, data releases later this week will provide a crucial read on the pace of the slowdown in coincident economic activity. The ongoing weakness in trade and producer prices suggests that activity has continued to decelerate as the previously beneficial trade frontrunning effect washes out of the data. While we agree that January’s gargantuan credit number means that growth will bottom at some point this year, the February data released earlier this week highlights that credit growth is not yet on a “blowout” trajectory. If maintained, the recent pace of credit expansion implies a moderate credit cycle, not a large acceleration like what occurred in 2015/2016. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary From an investment strategy perspective, we recommended in our February 27 Weekly Report that investors place Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch, but that an immediate shift to a cyclical overweight was not yet warranted. The recent outperformance of investable stocks vs. the global benchmark largely reflects global investor expectations of a trade deal between China and the U.S. in the very near future, which we agree is likely to occur. But we have underscored that a sustained, cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) rise in Chinese relative equity performance requires stability in the outlook for earnings, which have not yet reflected the slowdown that is underway. Barring a substantial trade-deal-driven rise in the RMB (which would dampen profits further and raise the bar for credit), a confirmed meeting date between Presidents Trump & Xi coupled with further evidence that a moderate credit expansion is underway would likely lead us to upgrade our cyclical stance towards Chinese investable stocks (to overweight). In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data below: The January and February data for several measures of coincident activity, including both measures of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) that we track, are set to be updated tomorrow. However, a number of data series that have been released over the past two months point to a continued deceleration: growth in rail cargo volume ticked down in January, producer prices are on the cusp of deflation, and nominal import and export growth decelerated again in February (measured either in US$ or RMB terms). The four components of our LKI leading indicator available for February have all sequentially declined, including the growth in adjusted TSF and adjusted TSF as a share of GDP. Credit had surged in January, but ticked down in February. Chart 1 illustrates the likely path of adjusted TSF as a share of GDP if the average pace of credit growth over the past three months is sustained. The chart implies that credit will have durably bottomed, but that the pace of advance will be weaker than that experienced in past cycles. Chart 1The Recent Pace Of Growth Implies A Moderate Credit Cycle​​​​​​​ January and February data for residential floor space started and sold will also be updated tomorrow, and it will be important to see whether the gap that has emerged between construction and sales has persisted. Floor space sold has reliably led starts since 2010, and we recently highlighted that the PBOC pledged supplementary lending program has led sales since 2015. The pace of PSL decelerated further in February, suggesting that the outlook for sales (which are already in negative YoY territory) is deteriorating. Based on the leading relationships that we have identified, residential construction volume is unsustainably strong. The seemingly inconsistent messages between the NBS and Caixin manufacturing PMIs in February (down and up, respectively) may in fact reflect the PBOC’s focus on easing financial conditions for small businesses. While the NBS PMI includes a much broader sample of firms than the Caixin PMI, the latter focuses heavily on private sector SMEs. Given this, February’s data may suggest that the export outlook is improving, but we would caution against the conclusion that the overall manufacturing sector has bottomed until both PMIs are clearly rising. Over the past month, the most notable development in China’s equity market has been the near-vertical outperformance of A-shares versus the global benchmark. A catch-up period for A-shares was arguably warranted given the sustained rally in investable stocks since early-November, but Chart 2 highlights that the speed of the recent rise has pushed relative A-share performance quickly into overbought territory. At a minimum, a period of consolidation over the coming few weeks is likely. Chart 2Too Far, Too Fast​​​​​​​ The relative performance of EM stocks ex-China is one of the equity components of our BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator, which has recovered over the past few months. However, Chart 3 highlights that the performance of EM ex-China reliably led Chinese investable stocks since the beginning of last year, and are now raising a red flag. A near-term relapse in investable equity performance would be consistent with our view that earnings face further downside risk over the coming few months. ​​​​​​​Chart 3EM Ex-China Is Flashing A Warning Sign For Chinese Investable Stocks Within the investable equity market, our low-volatility sector portfolio remains in an uptrend versus the broad market, although the composition of this portfolio has shifted significantly over the past few weeks. Financials, industrials, and energy stocks now account for 86% of our long MSCI China Low-Beta Sectors / short MSCI China trade, which is likely surprising to many investors given their traditionally cyclical characteristics. Chart 4 highlights that the relative performance of our low-beta trade has exhibited a reliably counter-cyclical message; this, in combination with the fact that it remains above its 200-day moving average, signals that it is still premature to shift to a cyclical overweight stance favoring Chinese stocks. Chart 4No Green Light Yet From Low-Vol Stocks Value stocks have been responsible for more of the rally in China’s investable market versus the global average than their growth peers (Chart 5). This underscores that at least part of the rise in investable performance has been due to a relative valuation trade, rather than strong conviction that the Chinese economy will strengthen materially over the coming year. Chart 5The Rally Has Been Led By Cheap Stocks Table 2 highlights that the 3-month interbank repo rate is down materially from its 12-month high, a decline that is now passing through into lower bank lending rates. According to the PBOC, the weighted average lending rate declined 30 basis points in Q4, after having been essentially unchanged in Q3. The decline validates our model for predicting the rate, which had been calling for a non-trivial decline. Despite the continual expression of concern in the financial press about rising onshore corporate bond defaults, spreads on SOE corporate bonds have been steady over the past 6 months. Spreads remain elevated when compared with late-2016 levels, but the recent trend in spreads does not suggest that domestic financial conditions are getting tighter. Chart 6 shows that the recent rise in CNY-USD is consistent with a tariff-based framework that we had presented for the exchange rate several times last year. While the rate was on its way to breaking through the psychologically important level of 7 for USD-CNY, trade talks with the U.S. have helped the rate rise to a point that is consistent with the current tariff regime. CNY-USD has already overshot to the upside based on interest rate differentials, but Chart 6 implies that further gains may occur if tariff rollbacks are part of an eventual deal with the U.S. Chart 6CNY-USD May Rise Materially Further If Tariffs Are Rolled Back Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Dovish Central Banks & Duration: Bond markets have shifted rapidly in recent weeks, pricing out any and all rate hikes expected over the next year in the major developed economies. With global growth likely to rebound in the latter half of the year, bond yields are now exposed to a hawkish repricing and recovery in inflation expectations, especially in the U.S. Stay below benchmark on overall portfolio duration on a medium-term basis. Model Bond Country Allocations: We are sticking with our current country tilts in our model bond portfolio, as the recent shift in central banker biases has done little to change the relative fundamental drivers between countries. Stay underweight the U.S., Canada & Italy, and overweight core Europe, Japan, the U.K., Spain & Australia, in currency-hedged global government bond portfolios. Feature Well, That Escalated Quickly With global growth remaining soggy, an increasing number of major central banks have been forced to rapidly shift in a more dovish direction. This past week alone, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) all signaled that interest rates would be on hold for some time. The ECB went the extra step of announcing a new bank funding program (TLTRO-3), as we predicted last week, to prevent a deeper euro area growth downturn at a time of, as ECB President Mario Draghi described it, “pervasive uncertainty”. Government bond yields declined sharply in all three regions, as markets digested the dovish message from more cautious policymakers. Our Central Bank Monitors for the major developed economies are all decelerating, in line with the soft patch of global growth. Yet only the RBA Monitor has fallen to a level clearly signaling a need for easier monetary policy in Australia. For the other major countries, the Monitors are indicating that an unchanged monetary policy stance is appropriate, and all for the same reason – the loss of economic momentum has not been enough to loosen tight labor markets and drive core inflation rates lower. Government bond yields have already responded to a loss of global growth momentum by pricing out any rate hikes that were expected over the next year, most notably in the U.S. and Canada. Inflation expectations have also adjusted downwards in response to both diminished growth expectations and last year’s sharp plunge in global energy prices. We expect global growth to rebound in the latter half of 2019, alongside higher oil prices, leaving bond yields exposed to upside data surprises and a repricing of expectations for inflation and rate hikes (Chart of the Week). We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon, as government bond yields are likely to rise above the very flat forwards in most markets. Chart 1A Bottoming Out Process For Bond Yields While maintaining a below-benchmark duration stance, the synchronized shift in central bank forward guidance justifies a review of the recommended country allocations in our model fixed income portfolio. Taking Stock Of Our Country Tilts In Our Model Bond Portfolio Global government bond yields peaked back in early November and have fallen in all of the major developed economies (Chart 2). Decomposing the move in benchmark 10-year yields into inflation expectations (using CPI swap rates) and real yields (the difference between nominal yields and CPI swap rates) shows that the bulk of that decline has come from lower real rates in the countries with positive policy rates (U.S., Canada, U.K. and Australia). For countries with zero or negative policy rates (core Europe, Japan), most of the yield decline has been due to falling inflation expectations. Yet the drivers of the decline in yields have changed from the latter two months of 2018 to the first few months of 2019. Generally speaking, the late-2018 bond market rally reflected falling inflation expectations, while recent changes have been a function of moves in real yields. Only in Australia have real yields and inflation expectations both declined steadily since the early November peak in global bond yields. The greater influence of the real component of yields makes sense, as markets now discount fewer rate hikes and more accommodative monetary policy. Currently, our recommended country allocation in the Governments portion of our model bond portfolio includes underweights in the U.S., Canada and Italy and overweights in Australia, the U.K., Japan, Germany, France and Spain (the latter is a position versus Italy within an overall underweight stance on Peripheral European debt). In light of the more ubiquitously neutral/dovish global policy bias, we are reevaluating those country tilts per the following indicators: 1. Cyclical growth indicators: Both manufacturing purchasing managers indices (PMIs) and the leading economic indicators (LEIs) produced by the OECD are well off the cyclical peaks (Chart 3). In terms of levels, the PMIs are holding above the 50 threshold, suggesting expanding manufacturing activity, in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Australia, but are below 50 in the euro area and Japan. Chart 3Growth Has Lost Momentum Everywhere 2. Market-based inflation expectations: 10-year CPI swap rates have generally stabilized alongside energy prices, after the sharp drops seen in the latter months of 2018 (Chart 4). Australia is the lone exception where expectations continue to drift lower. The correlations between CPI swap rates and oil prices denominated in local currency are strongest in the U.S. and Canada and weakest in Australia. There is great diversity of the levels of CPI swap rates, however, from as low as 0.2% in Japan to as high as 3.5% in the U.K. Chart 4Inflation Expectations Are Stabilizing Outside Of Japan & Australia 3. Our Central Bank Monitors vs. our 12-month discounters: Except for Australia, our Monitors are all hovering very close to the zero line, indicating no pressure on policymakers to move policy rates (Chart 5). Our 12-month discounters, which measure the interest rate changes over the next year priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS), are all close to zero, as well (again, with the exception of Australia, where a full 25bp rate cut is already priced). Chart 5Our Central Bank Monitors Are Calling For Stable Policy (ex Australia) Just looking at these indicators, the ideal combination would be to underweight countries where yields are vulnerable to an upward repricing (PMIs still above 50, higher oil/CPI swaps correlations and no rate hikes priced) and to overweight countries where yields are less likely to rise (PMIs below 50, lower oil/CPI swaps correlations and where our 12-month discounters are not priced for rate cuts). Under these criteria, underweights in the U.S. and Canada are still justified, as are overweights in core Europe and Japan. The surprising firmness of the U.K. manufacturing PMI relative to the persistent downtrend in the U.K. LEI muddies the message a bit on Gilts, although the relatively high level of our 12-month discounter (still 13bps of hikes priced) is a bullish sign with our BoE Monitor now sitting right near zero. In Australia, the manufacturing PMI is also surprisingly firm but, the underlying weak momentum in overall Australian growth is leaving the door open to potential RBA rate cuts later this year. For all our country recommendations within our model bond portfolio framework, we always look at yields and returns on a currency-hedged basis in U.S. dollar terms. We do this to separate the fixed income component of global bond returns from the currency component. Yet when looking at the government bond yield curves in our model bond portfolio universe, hedged into USD, there is very little differentiation among those countries with the higher credit ratings (Chart 6). Only Spain (A-rated) and Italy (BBB-rated) have hedged yields that are outside the 2-3% range seen in the other major developed economies. From a fundamental point of view, those narrow yield differentials among the higher-rated markets largely reflect the convergence of trend economic growth rates. In a recent Weekly Report, we looked at the long-run growth rates of potential GDP and labor productivity for the U.S., euro area and Japan and noted that the differences between them were fairly modest.1 This justified narrow currency-hedged yield differentials between U.S. Treasuries, German Bunds and Japanese government bonds (JGBs). When we add Canada, Australia and the U.K. to the mix (Chart 7), we can see similar convergence of potential GDP growth to rates between 1-2% and long-run productivity growth around 0.5% (using OECD data for both). Chart 7No Major Differences In Long-Run Growth Rates The convergence is largely complete for all countries except Australia, where potential GDP growth is estimated to be 2.4%. Yet the long-run downtrend in potential growth is powerful and full convergence to the sub-2% levels seen in the other countries appears inevitable (and goes a long way in explaining the historically low level of Australian bond yields versus global peers). We can also see convergence in looking at the more recent history of the market pricing of the expected long-run neutral interest rate, using our real terminal rate proxy (the 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year CPI swap rate 5-years forward). Those measures for all of the major developed markets in our model bond portfolio are shown in Chart 8. The markets are pricing in real policy rate convergence, as well, with real rates expected to stay in a range between -0.5% (core Europe) and +0.5% (Canada). The U.K. is the one outlier, with the market pricing in a terminal real rate of -2%, although this likely reflects the markets discounting in the long-run effects of Brexit on the U.K. economy. Chart 8Markets Expect Near-Zero Real Terminal Rates (ex the U.K.) So what does all this mean for our recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio? In Chart 9, we show the relative performance of the each country, hedged into U.S. dollars and duration-matched) versus the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index. Our overweight tilts are in the top panel, while our underweight tilts are in the bottom panel. Chart 9Sticking With The Country Allocations In Our Model Bond Portfolio Generally speaking, are recommendations have done well. Given our read on the indicators above, we see little reason to change the allocations. Our biggest concerns would be the underweights in Canada and Italy, given the sharp weakening of growth in both countries. For Italy, however, we view that as a negative given Italy’s high debt levels that require faster nominal growth to ensure debt sustainability. A more dovish ECB should help keep European bond volatility low, to the benefit of carry trades like Italian government bonds. However, we prefer to play that through our overweight in Spain while we await signs of stabilization in the Italian LEI before upgrading Italy in our model bond portfolio. As for Canada, we plan on doing a deeper dive on their economy and inflation trends in next week’s report before considering any changes to our allocation. Bottom Line: We are sticking with our current country tilts in our model bond portfolio, as the recent shift in central banker biases has done little to change the relative fundamental drivers between countries. Stay underweight the U.S., Canada & Italy, and overweight core Europe, Japan, the U.K., Spain & Australia, in currency-hedged global government bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com     1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Europe & Japan: The Anchor Weighing On Global Bond Yields”, dated February 26, 2019, available at gfis.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 Duration: With rate hikes more likely than cuts over the next 12 months, it makes sense to maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. However, timing the next up-move in Treasury yields is difficult. We recommend that investors initiate positive carry yield curve trades to boost returns while we wait for Treasury yields to bottom alongside the CRB/Gold ratio. Corporates: The Fed’s pause is leading to improvement in our global growth indicators. The end result is a window where corporate spreads will tighten during the next few months. Remain overweight corporate bonds, but be prepared to downgrade when spreads reach our targets. CMBS: We upgrade our allocation to non-agency CMBS from underweight to neutral, due to elevated spreads relative to other Aaa-rated sectors. While spreads are currently attractive, the macro back-drop is also fairly bleak. If spreads tighten to more reasonable levels or CMBS delinquencies start to rise we will be quick to downgrade. Feature Green Shoots For Global Growth Since 1994 the Global (ex. U.S.) Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has contracted relative to its 12-month trend six times. In all six episodes it eventually dragged the U.S. LEI down with it (Chart 1). As we predicted last August, the U.S. economy cannot remain an oasis of prosperity when the rest of the world is in turmoil.1 However, to focus on the weakening U.S. data right now is to miss the bigger picture. Chart 1U.S. Follows The Rest Of The World Corporate bond spreads already reacted to the global slowdown by widening near the end of last year. Then, the Federal Reserve reacted to tighter financial conditions by signaling a pause in its rate hike cycle. We took that opportunity to turn more bullish on spread product, and now, there are budding signs of improvement in the global growth outlook. While the Global LEI (including the U.S.) remains in a downtrend, our Global LEI Diffusion Index is well off its lows (Chart 2). Historically, the Diffusion Index has a good track record leading changes in the overall indicator. Chart 2Global LEI Diffusion Index Is Back Above 50% Similarly, the timeliest indicators of global growth that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are starting to improve (Chart 3). The CRB Raw Industrials index is breaking out, the BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator has recovered and Global Industrial Mining Stock prices are heading up. Chart 3Global Growth Checklist All told, it appears that the Fed’s pause and related dollar weakness, along with less restrictive fiscal and monetary policies in China, are starting to pay dividends.2 The end result is a window where leading global growth indicators will improve and financial conditions will ease. We recommend that investors maintain an overweight allocation to corporate bonds during this supportive window, though we also note that the continued rapid pace of corporate re-leveraging is a cause for concern. We will be quick to downgrade our recommended allocation to corporate bonds when our near-term spread targets are hit. Our spread target for Aa-rated corporates is 57 bps, the current spread level is 61 bps. Our spread target for A-rated corporates is 85 bps, the current spread level is 92 bps. Our spread target for Baa-rated corporates is 128 bps, the current spread level is 159 bps. Our spread target for Ba-rated corporates is 188 bps, the current spread level is 243 bps. Our spread target for B-rated corporates is 297 bps, the current spread level is 400 bps. Our spread target for Caa-rated corporates is 573 bps, the current spread level is 827 bps. We recommend avoiding Aaa-rated corporate bonds, which already look expensive. We explore the universe of Aaa-rated spread product in more detail below. Implications For Treasury Yields The Fed’s pause and the nascent improvement in global growth are both obvious positives for corporate spreads. The impact on Treasury yields is somewhat less obvious. We contend that once financial conditions ease sufficiently, the market will start to price-in further Fed rate hikes and this will pressure Treasury yields higher at both the short and long ends of the curve. The ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and the gold price can help clarify this concept. Chart 4 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield tends to rise when the CRB index outpaces gold, and vice-versa. The rationale for this correlation is that the CRB index is a proxy for global growth and gold is a proxy for the stance of monetary policy. Chart 4Timing The Next Treasury Sell-Off A rising gold price suggests that monetary policy is becoming increasingly accommodative. This eventually leads to an improvement in global growth and a rising CRB index. But Treasury yields do not rise alongside the CRB index. They only increase once the improvement in global growth is sufficient for the market to discount a tighter monetary policy. That moment occurs when the CRB index rises more quickly than the gold price. The bottom line is that with rate hikes more likely that cuts over the next 12 months it makes sense to maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. However, timing the next up-move in Treasury yields is difficult. We recommend that investors initiate positive carry yield curve trades to boost returns while we wait for Treasury yields to bottom alongside the CRB/Gold ratio.3 Checking In On The Labor Market Based on the number of emails we’ve received on the topic, the last two U.S. employment reports have stoked some confusion among investors. This is not surprising given the volatility in the headline numbers: Nonfarm payrolls increased +311k in January and only +20k in February. The U3 unemployment rate jumped to 4% in January, then fell back to 3.8% in February. The U6 unemployment rate jumped to 8.1% in January, then fell back to 7.3% in February. Much of the volatility is likely explained by data collection issues related to the partial government shutdown, which makes it useful to look through the noise and focus on a few important trends. Trend #1: Slow Growth In Q1 The employment data clearly point to a U.S. growth slowdown in the first quarter of 2019. Real GDP growth can be proxied by looking at the sum of the growth rate in aggregate hours worked and the growth rate in labor force productivity (Chart 5). The recent steep decline in hours worked suggests that first quarter growth is going to be weak. Chart 5Employment Data Point To Slow Growth In Q1 But as was noted in the first section of this report, weak Q1 GDP is the result of the global growth slowdown dragging the U.S. lower. Crucially, the market has already discounted this eventuality and the budding improvement in leading global growth indicators suggests that the U.S. slowdown will prove temporary. Trend #2: No More Slack A broad set of indicators now all point to the fact that the U.S. economy is at full employment (Chart 6). The implication is that we should expect wage growth to accelerate and payroll growth to decelerate as we move deeper into the cycle. Chart 6At Full Employment Some investors may retain the belief that a rising labor force participation rate will keep wage growth capped, but even here the prospects are dim. The participation rate for people of prime working age (25-54) has risen rapidly during the past few years, but that has only led to a small bounce in overall participation (Chart 7). This is because the aging of the population has pushed more and more people out of that prime working age demographic bucket. Chart 7Labor Force Participation The dashed line in the top panel of Chart 7 shows where the labor force participation rate would be, based on current demographics, if the participation rate for each narrow age cohort reverted to its July 2007 level. The message is that the scope for a further increase in labor force participation is limited. Trend #3: No Recession Risk Yet The full employment state of accelerating wage growth and decelerating employment growth can last for some time before a recession hits. In our research we have noted that, from a financial markets perspective, one of the best leading indicators is the change in initial jobless claims. Typically, a bottom in initial jobless claims coincides with an inflection point in Treasury excess returns (Chart 8). Chart 8Jobless Claims Have Called Troughs In Treasury Returns Initial jobless claims have risen somewhat during the past few weeks, and while this trend is worth monitoring, it is premature to flag it as a concern. The 4-week moving average in claims has already fallen back to 226k from a recent high of 236k, and next week an elevated print of 239k will roll out of the 4-week average. Any initial claims print below 239k next week will cause the 4-week average to decline further. Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market has reached full employment. Going forward we should expect a continued acceleration in wage growth and deceleration in payroll growth. This situation can persist without causing a recession until initial jobless claims start to head higher. We see no evidence of this as of yet. Aaa-Rated Spread Products In this week’s report we consider the risk/reward trade-off on offer from the major Aaa-rated spread products. Specifically, we consider corporate bonds, agency and non-agency CMBS, conventional 30-year residential MBS and consumer ABS (both credit cards and auto loans). Focusing purely on expected returns, we find that non-agency CMBS offer the highest option-adjusted spread of 73 bps. This is followed by 65 bps from corporates, 50 bps from Agency CMBS, 41 bps from MBS, 35 bps from auto ABS and 31 bps from credit card ABS. But this is just one side of the equation. Chart 9 shows each sector’s spread relative to the likelihood that it will experience losses versus Treasuries. To measure the risk of losses we use our measure of Months-To-Breakeven. This is defined as the number of months of average spread widening that each sector requires before it starts to lose money relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Essentially, the Months-To-Breakeven measure is each sector’s 12-month breakeven spread adjusted by its spread volatility since 2014. We only calculate spread volatility since 2014 because that it is when data for Agency CMBS start. Chart 9 shows that while Aaa corporate bonds offer elevated expected returns compared to the other sectors, they also offer a commensurate increase in risk. Similarly, consumer ABS offer lower expected returns than the other sectors but with considerably less risk. According to Chart 9, the only sector that offers an attractive risk/reward trade-off is non-agency CMBS. This warrants further investigation. Looking at spreads throughout history, we see that non-agency CMBS spreads also look relatively attractive. While Aaa-rated consumer ABS spreads are near all-time lows, non-agency CMBS spreads are still not quite one standard deviation below the pre-crisis mean (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Spreads Have Room To Narrow We noted in last week’s report that consumer ABS look even worse when we incorporate the macro environment.4 All-time tight ABS spreads currently coincide with tightening consumer lending standards and a rising consumer credit delinquency rate. This is why we downgraded consumer ABS from neutral to underweight last week. The macro environment for CMBS is also fairly bleak (Chart 11). Commercial real estate lending standards are tightening, loan demand is waning and prices are decelerating. The one saving grace is that, so far, this has not translated into a rising CMBS delinquency rate (Chart 11, bottom panel). It is probably only a matter of time before CMBS delinquencies start to trend higher, but with spreads so attractive relative to the investment alternatives, the sector warrants better than an underweight allocation. Chart 11Delinquencies Biased Higher? Bottom Line: We upgrade our allocation to non-agency CMBS from underweight to neutral. Spreads are currently attractive relative to other Aaa-rated sectors, but we will keep a close eye on the evolving macro backdrop. If spreads tighten to more reasonable levels or if CMBS delinquencies start to rise, we will be quick to downgrade.   Ryan Swift,  U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on recent shifts in Chinese policy please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative”, dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on the attractiveness of positive carry yield curve trades please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Sequence Of Reflation”, dated March 5, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights All the U.S. data look broadly similar to us, …: The data series are decelerating, one by one, but they generally remain at a fairly high level relative to history. … and we have begun sounding like a broken record in our morning meetings, … : “There’s no doubt that [insert data series name here] is slowing, but it’s still nowhere close to heralding a recession. As a matter of fact, it remains at a level consistent with above-trend growth. That’s what we should expect given the pattern of fiscal thrust across last year and this year, combined with still-accommodative monetary policy.” … so we’re revisiting our checklists to see if we should change our bearish rates and bullish equities views: We periodically review our checklists, which we rolled out in the fall, to assess whether or not our positioning rationale still applies. Our recommendations may still be the same, but at least we put them to the test: The business cycle, the inflation outlook, the Fed’s reaction function, the corporate profit outlook, and valuations have not changed enough to dictate changing our views. We continually seek out evidence that we’re getting it wrong, but we haven’t found any in the current data. Feature We have become a bit self-conscious about offering our take on the latest U.S. economic data releases at BCA’s daily morning meetings. It’s one thing to be out of step with the prevailing view, or to offer a novel theory that fails to achieve much traction in the room. (Strategists who don’t get shot down by their peers every once in a while aren’t pushing the conventional wisdom enough.) It’s quite another to keep recycling the same narrative, and we’re at something of a loss for a way to maintain our colleagues’ interest. Beep. You’ve reached the voicemail box of the U.S. Investment Strategy team. We believe today’s (insert series name here) release indicates that while the U.S. economy is decelerating, it continues to be on a path to grow at, if not above, trend in 2019. This is consistent with the 60-basis-point decline in fiscal thrust from 2018 to 2019. That decline is large enough to ensure deceleration in 2019, but the 40 bps that’s still going to be deployed this year is also sufficient to ensure that the economy will be able to grow above its 2% trend rate, provided the rest of the world does not fall apart. Thank you for your call, and please do not hesitate to call again if we can be of any further assistance. Beep. We created our bond upgrade and equity downgrade checklists last fall to help guard against sticking with our views beyond their sell-by date. Both checklists have a negative bias, in that they’re meant to help reveal the points at which the underpinnings of our views no longer apply. The bond checklist is broadly geared to identifying either, one, the presence of slack in the economy that might call for easier policy, or, two, a convergence of the fixed-income markets’ views with ours that would limit the potential payoff from maintaining below-benchmark duration positioning.1 Our equity downgrade checklist looks out for signs of an approaching recession, pressure on corporate earnings, inflation pressures that might inspire the Fed to remove accommodation in a hurry, or signs of euphoria that can’t be sustained.2 Reviewing the data series that comprise the checklists did not lead us to change our views. The exercise does help us adhere to a process, however, and we think they help keep us from falling into an analytical rut. We will revisit them with increasing frequency as the cycles we’re trying to track approach their inflection points, while keeping an eye out for any new indicators that might broaden their insights. Is A Bearish Rates View Still Appropriate? The first section of our bond checklist (Table 1) focuses on market perceptions of the Fed. Following our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule, if the Fed hikes more than it is expected to hike, long-duration positions will underperform. If it hikes less than expected, long-duration positions will outperform. As implied by the overnight index swap (OIS) curves, the money market now expects that the fed funds rate has peaked at 2.5%, and that a rate cut will likely bring it down to 2.25% by the end of 2020 (Chart 1). Table 1Bond Upgrade Checklist Chart 1Markets Are Pricing In A Rate Cut We beg to differ. With little to no slack remaining in the economy as a whole (the output gap is closed), and unemployment well below its natural level and poised to fall further, we think inflation pressures are percolating below the surface. Once they begin to reveal themselves, we expect the Fed will have no choice but to resume its tightening campaign. Our estimate of the equilibrium rate (3% now, rising to about 3⅜% by year-end) appears to be well above the financial markets’ estimate, and we therefore believe the Fed has plenty of room to hike without capsizing the economy. An inverted yield curve has historically been a reliable sign that the Fed has gone too far in its efforts to prevent overheating, and we are watching it now for hints that the fed funds rate may be done rising. Though the curve flattened considerably as the 10-year Treasury yield plunged in the fourth quarter (Chart 2), we think it’s very unlikely to invert while the Fed is on hold. An on-hold Fed implies that the 3-month bill rate will remain in the mid-to-high 2.40s and that the 10-year Treasury yield would have to dip below 2.5% for the curve to invert. Such an outcome would be completely incompatible with below-target inflation and above-trend economic growth. Chart 2The Yield Curve Has Flattened, But Inversion Is A Stretch Inflation is not yet an issue on most investors’ radar screens because it has been conspicuously missing in action around the developed world for the last ten years. In the U.S., headline measures rolled over upon oil’s slide, masking the fact that the core measures are hovering around 2% and remain in uptrends (Chart 3). Inflation break-evens have plunged, and are well below the 2.3-2.5% level that is consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target, but their decline was nearly entirely a function of the decline in oil prices (Chart 4). Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is calling for higher crude prices across the rest of this year, so even though we’ve checked the break-evens box, we expect we’ll be unchecking it as the break-evens reverse in step with oil. Chart 3Headline Inflation's Decline ... Chart 4... Is An Oil Story The labor market remains quite tight. Although the unemployment rate ticked up in December and January, it came down again in February and remains below the estimated natural rate of unemployment where upward wage pressures typically begin to take hold (Chart 5, top panel). Unemployment ticked higher in December and January, despite robust job gains, because the share of working-age Americans participating in the labor force rose. The exodus of the baby boomers from the work force will make it very difficult for the participation rate to keep rising, however (Chart 5, middle panel), and the elevated level of workers quitting their jobs (Chart 5, bottom panel) indicates that employers are poaching workers from one another, driving wages higher. Chart 5The Labor Market Is Tight And Getting Tighter Instability is a double-edged sword as it relates to monetary policy. The Fed is likely to return to hiking rates if it believes it can cut off rising instability before it goes too far. If instability is far enough advanced that it threatens the economy, however, the Fed may well ease policy to try to counteract it. For now, it appears to us that the key cyclical segments of the economy are on track to keep warming up, but are nowhere near overheating (Chart 6). We are not overly concerned about the frisky lending climate that Governor Brainard called out in September, but ongoing anecdotal reports of bond-market froth will presumably keep the Fed alert to the need to dial back accommodation. Acutely bad conditions elsewhere in the global economy would make the Fed consider rate cuts, but if the rest of the world perks up by mid-year, in line with BCA’s base case, the Fed will feel less urgency to indemnify the U.S. against foreign distress. Chart 6Cyclical Segments Are Warming Up Should We Still Be Constructive On Equities? Every box in our equity downgrade checklist remains unchecked, starting with our silent recession alarms (Table 2). The yield curve has not inverted, and as we noted in the review of our rates checklist, we do not believe it will while the Fed remains on hold. Growth has come off the boil, but the LEI is not close to contracting on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). The fed funds rate remains below our estimate of equilibrium, as we expect it will for the rest of the year, and the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has not risen by a third of a percentage point from its current cyclical bottom. Table 2Equity Downgrade Checklist Chart 7The LEI May Be Decelerating, But It's Still A Ways From Contracting Labor market tightness will eventually manifest itself in higher wages, which will squeeze corporate profit margins, but until real wage gains begin to outstrip productivity growth (i.e., until labor starts capturing a bigger piece of the pie), corporate earnings will not be at risk (Chart 8). The dollar has spent the last several months going sideways, and BBB corporate yields are now below their level when we rolled out the equity checklist in mid-October (Chart 9). The savings rate has backed up to near the top of its six-year range, and we would check the box if it were to break out of it (Chart 10). There have been no blowups in EM or anywhere in the rest of the world that cast a shadow over U.S. corporate earnings. Chart 8Wage Growth Doesn't Cut Into Profits Until It Outstrips Productivity And Inflation Chart 9Round Trip Chart 10The Savings Rate Has Risen, But Not Enough To Check The Box As noted in our bond checklist comments, above, core inflation measures have dipped below 2% but remain in an uptrend. Both headline CPI and the inflation break-evens relapsed with oil prices, but we expect that a crude recovery will help restore inflation expectations. Bull markets tend to end amid a general feeling of euphoria, and we therefore continue to keep an eye out for signs of over-exuberance. Valuations are elevated but hardly extreme, and we don’t see anecdotal indications of widespread silliness, or suspension of disbelief. Investment Implications From our perspective, overheating in the U.S. remains a very real possibility. Since that is a distinctly minority view, the potential reward for underweighting Treasuries and holding all bond exposures below benchmark duration is alluring. We reiterate our recommendations that investors underweight Treasuries and maintain below-benchmark-duration across their fixed-income portfolios. We expect we will continue to do so until the U.S. economy weakens, or the Treasury curve begins to price in some of our bearish rates view. We reiterate our cyclical recommendation to overweight equities despite the tactical caution we expressed last week.3 We simply expect that the S&P 500 will have to consolidate some of its rapid year-to-date gains before moving on to an eventual new cycle high at 3,000 or above. Stocks don’t go straight up, even if they did for nearly all of January and February, and it is reasonable to expect elevated volatility in the latter stages of a bull market. We thought that the 2,800 level might provide some technical resistance, offering tactically oriented sellers an attractive point to reduce equity exposures, while tactically oriented buyers were likely to find better entry points going forward.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What Would It Take To Change Our Bearish Rates View?,” published September 17, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Introducing Our Equity Downgrade Checklist,” published October 15, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much Do U.S. Equities Have Left?,” published March 4, 2019. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.