Economy

Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead.     Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.    

HighlightsDuration: The Fed will probably signal a slowing of its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace during the next few months. However, rate hikes will ramp up again after a brief pause, and the Fed will ultimately deliver more tightening than is currently priced. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration.Credit Spreads: Our checklist of global growth and monetary policy indicators does not yet signal a tactical buying opportunity in credit. A dovish message from the Fed tomorrow would bring us closer to meeting the criteria on our checklist.Fed Balance Sheet: It is likely that the Fed will continue running down its balance sheet throughout all of 2019. However, if it turns out that the amount of bank reserves demanded exceeds $1.1 trillion, it will force the Fed to halt the run-off next year. The timing will only become clear when the effective fed funds rate threatens to break above the upper-end of the Fed’s target band.FeatureThis will be the last U.S. Bond Strategy report of 2018. Publication will resume on January 8 with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for January 2019. Until then, we extend our best wishes for a wonderful holiday and a Happy New Year. With the stock market well off its highs and credit spreads in the midst of an uptrend, there is an uncommon amount of pressure on tomorrow’s FOMC meeting. For their part, interest rate curves have already moved to discount a substantial dovish shift in Fed policy. In fact, our 12-month fed funds discounter has fallen all the way down to 36 bps (Chart 1). Chart 1All Eyes On The Fed With the market even more focused on the Fed than usual, there is a chance that a dovish signal tomorrow could spark a rally in risk assets. Conversely, a more hawkish Fed could prolong the market’s pain. Against that back-drop, in this week’s report we discuss what we are likely to hear from the Fed tomorrow and over the course of 2019.The Fed’s RoadmapIn our view, a recent speech from Fed Governor Lael Brainard gives a good indication of the Fed’s current thinking:1Our goal now is to sustain the expansion by maintaining the economy around full employment and inflation around target. The gradual path of increases in the federal funds rate has served us well by giving us time to assess the effects of policy as we have proceeded. That approach remains appropriate in the near term, although the policy path increasingly will depend on how the outlook evolves.This passage strongly suggests that the Fed is committed to delivering one more 25 basis point rate hike this week. But starting next year, the Fed is likely to abandon the predictable +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace that has been in place since December 2016, and shift to a regime in which rate hikes at any given meeting are much more dependent on the incoming economic and financial market data.What To Look For TomorrowFirst off, the Fed is very likely to deliver a rate hike tomorrow, a move that is widely anticipated. Failure to do so would constitute a major dovish surprise that would lead to a bounce in risk assets. We agree with the market that a rate hike tomorrow is highly probable.The DotsBeyond the actual policy move, the most important thing to watch will be the changes to FOMC participants’ forecasts for where the fed funds rate will be at the end of 2019, aka the 2019 dots. This is the easiest place to look to get a sense for how the recent market turmoil and global growth weakness is impacting the Fed’s thinking. At present, the median 2019 dot is between 3% and 3.25%. This suggests that, after lifting rates once more this week, the median Fed member anticipates three more rate hikes in 2019. We expect that the median 2019 dot will shift lower tomorrow, and that the magnitude of the shift will determine the reaction in financial markets. If the downward revision is considered sufficiently dovish, then expect risk assets to rally. If not, then risk assets could sell off.As always, it will be interesting to see whether Fed members revise their longer run rate expectations, i.e. their estimates of the neutral fed funds rate. However, we expect very little movement in neutral rate estimates tomorrow. In any case, the market will be much more focused on the expected policy path for 2019.The StatementIn tomorrow’s post-meeting statement, the following passage will likely be edited:The Committee expects that further gradual increases in the target range for the federal funds rate will be consistent with sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective over the medium term.The minutes from November’s FOMC meeting suggest that the committee is increasingly uncomfortable with the phrase “further gradual increases”. The Fed will probably remove this phrase from tomorrow’s statement and replace it with guidance that is more consistent with the above excerpt from Governor Brainard’s speech. In general, the Fed wants to signal that it is transitioning away from a predictable +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace and toward a reaction function that is much more data dependent.The Press ConferenceSince the beginning of his tenure, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has preached a message of uncertainty and data dependence.2 These themes will be stressed again tomorrow and we expect his forward guidance will be consistent with what we already heard from Governor Brainard. As such, we view any revisions to the 2019 dots as having more potential to move markets than what Powell says in the press conference.Other BusinessAs was the case in June, tomorrow’s rate hike will result in a 25 bps shift higher in the target range for the fed funds rate, from 2%-2.25% to 2.25%-2.5%, but only a 20 bps increase in the interest rate paid on excess reserves (IOER). This means that the IOER will rise to 2.4%, 10 bps below the upper-end of the Fed’s target range.The smaller IOER increase will occur because the Fed is trying to pressure the effective fed funds rate back toward the middle of its target range. The funds rate has been creeping higher in recent months and the Fed is taking steps to limit its rise. This will continue to be an operational issue for the Fed next year, which we discuss in more detail below.Investment ImplicationsWe think tomorrow’s Fed meeting could be more important for credit spreads than for Treasury yields. In recent reports we discussed why the combination of weakening global growth and relatively hawkish Fed policy is causing credit spreads to widen, and suggested that a significant dovish turn from the Fed could prompt a recovery in global growth and a near-term rally in credit.Our checklist of global growth and monetary policy indicators (Charts 2A & Chart 2B) does not yet decisively signal a tactical buying opportunity in corporate credit, but we have seen the 12-month discounter fall and the gold price rally in recent weeks. A dovish message from the Fed tomorrow would bring us closer to meeting the criteria on our checklist, and thus closer to a near-term peak in spreads. Chart 2AChecklist For Peak Spreads: Global Growth  Chart 2BChecklist For Peak Spreads: Fed Capitulation   On the duration front, with the market already priced for essentially no further rate hikes in 2019 (after a rate hike tomorrow), we view any potential dovish move as already in the price. Since we expect the economic environment will support further rate hikes in 2019, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration while we look for an opportunity to tactically buy credit.What To Expect In 2019More important for portfolios than what to expect from tomorrow’s Fed meeting is what to expect from the Fed over the course of next year. As we have already mentioned, the path for rate hikes will be much less predictable in 2019. An increased focus on the incoming data will replace the Fed’s current predilection for consistent quarterly rate hikes.The Fed will also hold a press conference after all eight FOMC meetings in 2019. Until now, press conferences have only occurred four times per year – in March, June, September and December – and the Fed has shown a reluctance to change interest rates at meetings without a scheduled press conference. Next year, with press conferences after every meeting, the Fed will have more flexibility to vary the pattern of hikes.But what will determine the number of rate hikes in 2019? We focus on three main areas.1) Financial ConditionsBy tightening policy, the Fed is trying to both prevent a future overshoot of its inflation target and tighten financial conditions at the margin. The Fed also increasingly recognizes the importance of financial conditions relative to inflation. As Governor Brainard noted in her recent speech:The last several times resource utilization approached levels similar to today, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation.But overheating is not the only concern. Excessive tightening in financial conditions could also force the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy stance. In fact, this is exactly what we see happening in the next few months. Financial conditions are already tightening (Chart 3), and will continue to do so until the Fed moderates its pace of rate hikes. At that point, financial conditions will probably ease, and that will allow the Fed to speed up the pace of hikes in the back half of 2019. Chart 3Financial Conditions Are Tightening 2) InflationCore inflation remains relatively close to the Fed’s target. While year-over-year core PCE fell back to 1.78% in October, year-over-year core and trimmed mean CPI came in at 2.24% and 2.22%, respectively, in November (Chart 4). We expect that inflation will move higher in 2019, but will remain relatively close to the Fed’s target. Base effects will pose a high hurdle for year-over-year inflation during the next few months, but inflationary pressures in the economy continue to rise. Survey data on firms’ input prices (Chart 4, panel 3) and planned selling prices (Chart 4, bottom panel) remain very strong. Chart 4Expect Higher Inflation In 2019 Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are at odds with the economy’s inflationary backdrop. They remain below levels that have historically been consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (Chart 4, panel 2). Relatively low TIPS breakeven rates give the Fed cover to slow the pace of rate hikes during the next few months. However, long-maturity breakevens can also rise quickly, and we anticipate that they will return to our target 2.3%-2.5% range in 2019.3) Recession SignalsIn last week’s Key Views for 2019 report, we discussed in detail why we think the Fed’s rate hike cycle will continue throughout 2019, and also why it will probably slow down during the next few months.3 In summary, we see tighter financial conditions causing the Fed to slow the pace of hikes in the near term, but we also doubt that interest rates will get high enough next year to send the U.S. economy into recession.That said, in our Key Views report we flagged several economic indicators to watch that could force us to change our view. Specifically, if the 12-month moving averages in housing starts and new home sales turn down, or if the unemployment rate rises, then it would suggest that a recession is closer than we currently anticipate.Concerning the unemployment rate, it will also be important to watch the trend in initial jobless claims (Chart 5). Rising claims tend to precede increases in the unemployment rate and claims have bounced during the past few weeks. We expect the bounce will prove temporary, but are monitoring it closely. Chart 5Rising Claims A Risk Bottom Line: The Fed is likely to signal a slowing of its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace during the next few months. This move will be in response to financial conditions that are tightening more quickly than is desirable. But after a pause, we see rate hikes resuming in the second half of 2019 and the Fed will ultimately deliver more rate hikes than are currently priced into the Treasury market.The Balance Sheet In 2019It is also possible that the Fed will have to take steps to deal with its balance sheet in 2019. Right now, the runoff of the balance sheet is proceeding quite smoothly, but as mentioned above, there is some concern that the effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of its target range.Table 1 shows the Fed’s balance sheet compared to just before it started to run down its assets. The table illustrates how the size of the Fed’s securities portfolio determines the amount of reserves supplied to the banking system. The concern is that for the Fed to maintain control of the funds rate using its current “floor system”, it needs to supply more reserves to the banking system than are demanded.4 If it fails to do so, then the fed funds rate will rise above the upper-end of its target range. Table 1A Simplified Federal Reserve Balance Sheet A further complication is that the strict post-crisis regulatory regime makes it difficult to know what level of reserves are currently in demand. In essence, the Fed does not know when it will be time to stop shrinking its balance sheet. The plan appears to be that it will wait for signs that the effective fed funds rate is breaking above the upper-end of its target range, and will then decide that balance sheet run-off needs to stop.Last September, we projected that the Fed would continue to run down its balance sheet until bank reserves reached a steady state of $650 billion. Using that same assumption today, the Fed would shrink its portfolio until March 2021 and would still have combined Treasury and MBS holdings of $3 trillion at that time (Chart 6A). Chart 6AFed Balance Sheet: $650 Billion Steady-State Reserves  Chart 6BFed Balance Sheet: $1.1 Trillion Steady-State Reserves However, the fact that the effective fed funds rate has mostly been near the upper-end of its target range this year has caused many market participants to revise their estimates for the steady state of bank reserves higher. In fact, we infer from responses to the New York Fed’s most recent Survey of Primary Dealers that most dealers think that the steady state for bank reserves is above $1 trillion.5If we use an assumption of $1.1 trillion for steady state bank reserves, then we project that the Fed will stop running down its portfolio in March 2020 and will have combined Treasury and MBS holdings of $3.3 trillion at that time (Chart 6B).Bottom Line: It is likely that the Fed will continue running down its balance sheet throughout all of 2019. However, if it turns out that the amount of bank reserves demanded exceeds $1.1 trillion, it will force the Fed to halt the run-off next year. The timing will only become clear when the effective fed funds rate threatens to break above the upper-end of the Fed’s target band. Ryan Swift, Vice PresidentU.S. Bond Strategyrswift@bcaresearch.comFootnotes1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20181207a.htm2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Powell Doctrine Emerges”, dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com4 For a detailed description of the floor system for controlling interest rates please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood”, dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com5 The survey shows that the median dealer thought that a reserve balance of $1 trillion would cause IOER to trade 5.5 bps below the effective fed funds rate. In other words, reserve balances would be sufficiently scarce for the effective fed funds rate to rise relative to the rates controlled directly by the Fed. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/markets/survey/2018/nov-2018-spd-results.pdfFixed Income Sector PerformanceRecommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Differences of opinion are what make a market, and we’ve got a big one when it comes to the Fed: The money market says the fed funds rate goes no higher than 2.75%; BCA says 3.5% by the end of 2019, and possibly 4% sometime in 2020. We are confident in our assessment of the economy’s underlying strength, … : Fiscal stimulus will keep the economy growing above trend in 2019, and the unemployment rate will almost certainly continue to grind lower. ... even if many commentators are accentuating the negative: The experts quoted in Barron’s found abundant fault with the November employment situation report, and the yield curve is out-trending all of the Kardashians combined. Amidst all the uncertainty, we’re sticking with an investment strategy that is more cautious than our outlook: The monetary backdrop is still too accommodative to spell the end of the equity bull market, but we are waiting for a better entry point to put our cash overweight to work. Feature Dear Client, This is our last report of 2018. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on Monday, January 7th. We wish you a happy, healthy and prosperous new year. Best regards, Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy   We have often remarked how we feel that we are watching a different game than the money market when it comes to the gap in our respective terminal fed funds rate expectations. Both we and the market expect a 25-basis-point (“bps”) hike to 2.5% at the conclusion of the FOMC’s two-day meeting on Wednesday, but from there our paths diverge sharply. The market grudgingly allows that one more hike, to 2.75%, is possible, though it is by no means certain. It sees about a 60% chance that the Fed will make that additional rate hike toward the end of 2019, but then proceeds to price that hike out by the end of 2020 (Chart 1). Chart 1Mind The Gap The terminal rate’s ultimate destination, and the path it follows along the way, is not just an academic matter. Once the fed funds rate crosses above the equilibrium fed funds rate (r-star, in economics-speak), monetary policy will become restrictive for the first time since the crisis began to break. We expect the shift to a restrictive policy setting will herald the end of the expansion. Most importantly for investors, it will mark the point when asset allocation should become considerably more defensive. Getting the Fed right, then, is of the utmost importance, and we need to get to the bottom of our differences with the market. We suspect they come down to disparate assessments of the state of the economy and the state of policy. The money market seems to believe that the economy is weaker than we perceive, and that the fed funds rate is currently much closer to equilibrium than we realize. In both cases, we are vulnerable if it is later in the cycle than we think, because we are not positioned for an imminent inflection. Is The Business Cycle Closer To Ending Than We Think? Real GDP growth will slow in 2019, just as one would expect when 60 bps of fiscal thrust is taken away from an economy that was already operating at its full 2-2.25% capacity (Chart 2). Per the IMF’s fiscal estimates, 2020 shapes up as the real challenge for the economy, especially once the Fed crosses the equilibrium-rate Rubicon. In October and November, however, financial markets acted as if they feared the beginning of the recession was considerably nearer (Chart 3). Our clients’ concerns seemed to coalesce around the implications of a slowdown in housing. Chart 2Lessened Thrust, Lessened Growth   Chart 3Growth Scare We do not worry about residential investment pulling down the economy,1 but we do pay close attention to nonfarm payrolls. Employment may be a coincident indicator, but it is powerfully self-reinforcing, and the sub-NAIRU2 unemployment rate looms large in the Fed’s policy calculus. Payrolls growth is robust, and our model projects that it will continue to be over the near term (Chart 4, top panel), as all of its components are in fine fettle, especially initial jobless claims (Chart 4, second panel), and small businesses’ hiring intentions (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Payrolls Should Keep Growing, ... As we have noted before, it only takes about 110,000 net new jobs every month to keep unemployment at a steady state. Even if our model turns out to be overly optimistic, the unemployment rate appears to be several months away from bottoming, unless the participation rate rises enough to materially increase the size of the labor force. Demographics argue against that, as the baby boomers, ages 54 to 72, exit the work world in a nearly interminable conga line. The participation rate has done well to stabilize in the face of the boomer headwind (Chart 5), but there’s a limit to how much more it can close the gap when businesses are already lamenting the difficulty of finding qualified workers (Chart 6). Chart 5... But The Part Rate Probably Won't   Chart 6Good Help Is Hard To Find A robust labor market suggests that households in the aggregate will have the means to support consumption. Now that payrolls have expanded for a record 98 straight months, the lowest-income households are finally in line to capture some of the benefits. Those households have the highest marginal propensity to consume, which may provide spending with an additional fillip. With the savings rate now back to its late-‘90s levels, better-heeled households are also in a position to do their part to keep consumption humming (Chart 7). Chart 7Plenty Of Dry Powder For Spending The near-term consumption outlook is additionally supported by the expectations component of the Conference Board’s consumer confidence survey, which has been a reliable coincident indicator throughout its entire history (Chart 8). The unusual divergence between the two series suggests that consumers may have more of an appetite to spend than they’ve demonstrated so far. Employment gains and real consumption also have a well-established history of traveling together (Chart 9). Chart 8Consumers' Optimism Points To More Spending ...\   Chart 9... And So Do Solid Employment Gains Bottom Line: We find it hard to believe the economy is set to weaken in a worrisome way when the labor market still has plenty of momentum, and consumption is well supported on multiple fronts. Is The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Further Along Than We Realize? The Real Economy Our equilibrium fed funds rate model continues to suggest that the target fed funds rate is well below its equilibrium level and will not exceed it until late next year.3 Equilibrium is only a concept, however, so we actively seek out objective data that may confirm or disprove our assessment. Our approach is to trust our modeled estimate of a concept, but verify it with as much real-time evidence as we can muster. Based on the current level of activity, housing seems to be the only major segment that is experiencing some indigestion from higher rates. Corporate investment may not have lived up to the most optimistic post-tax-cut estimates, but there is no evidence that corporations are holding back because of higher rates. A back-of-the-envelope proxy, calculating the difference between the S&P 500’s return on capital and the after-tax interest rate on BBB-rated corporate bonds, suggests that prospective returns to borrowing are near their best level in 30 years, even with the reduction in the debt tax shield4 (Chart 10). Through December 14th, the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model was projecting an increase of 3.8% in fourth-quarter final domestic demand, forcefully pushing back against the notion that r-star is at hand. Chart 10Higher Rates Aren't Biting Yet The ongoing application of fiscal thrust to an economy already operating at capacity argues for a higher equilibrium rate than would otherwise apply. The equilibrium rate is also higher because the unemployment rate is well below NAIRU (4.5%, per the dots), suggesting that the Fed will have to push harder against the economy than it otherwise would to keep it from overheating. Tepid post-crisis investment, mixed with unnecessary fiscal stimulus, and combined with a red-hot labor market, is a recipe for inflation pressures that can only be neutralized by a higher r-star. Financial Conditions As last week’s Google Trends chart of yield-curve searches made clear, investors have developed something of an obsession with an inverted yield curve. The yield curve’s ability to flag overly tight monetary policy in real time has made it a reliable leading indicator of recessions, and it is a key input into our simple recession indicator. The curve has flattened over the last five-plus weeks as the 10-year Treasury yield has melted, stoking recession fears. Before they get too worked up, however, investors should bear in mind that the depressed term premium has the potential to distort its signal in this cycle. The term premium is the yield differential between a Treasury note or bond, and a strip of T-bills, laddered to match the note or bond’s maturity. In line with its name, the term premium is typically positive, as investors have typically demanded compensation for bearing the increased interest-rate volatility embedded in longer-maturity instruments. That volatility may well have been restrained by the Fed’s large-scale asset purchase program, along with long yields themselves, though the entire matter of QE’s impact is subject to spirited debate. Whatever the mechanism, the term premium is considerably lower than it has been across the five decades that the yield curve has had a nearly perfect record of calling recessions (Chart 11). If the term premium were in line with its historical mean value, the yield curve would be nowhere near inverting. We continue to trust in the yield curve’s propensity to sense danger, but concede that the anomalously low term premium may render it somewhat less timely now. Given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, we are not concerned that it is signaling that r-star is materially closer than our equilibrium fed funds rate model estimates. Chart 11The Bar For Inversion Is A Lot Lower In This Cycle QE raises one more issue for our equilibrium fed funds rate model, which does not account for any tightening of monetary conditions occasioned by the unwinding of the Fed’s balance sheet. We assume that such tightening occurs only at the margin, but it could delay our recognition that policy has shifted from accommodative to restrictive. Attempting to isolate the impact of balance sheet reduction on monetary conditions would be more trouble than it’s worth, however, and we simply assume that it will cause the confidence interval around our equilibrium estimate to widen a little. Bottom Line: Our equilibrium fed funds rate model projects that policy is not nearing restrictive territory, and our interpretation of the whole of the real-time data supports that view. We think that the Fed is still several hikes away from reaching r-star. Investment Implications As we noted in last week’s 2019 outlook, the view that the economy is strong enough to overheat undergirds all of our recommendations. The potential for overheating is what will impel the Fed to hike aggressively through 2019 and possibly beyond. Investors should therefore underweight Treasuries in balanced portfolios, while maintaining below-benchmark duration. The idea that the economy will gather more momentum on its way to overheating keeps us constructive on equities. We do not believe the bull market is over, and are therefore keeping an eye out for an opportunity to overweight the S&P 500 before it makes new highs. We are confident that the unemployment rate will continue to decline, but must concede that the key outcome for Fed policy – higher wages – has been slow to materialize. Several investors have become impatient with waiting for the Phillips Curve to assert itself, and we cannot blame them. Shorn of its fancy trappings, though, the Phillips Curve is just a supply-and-demand story, and we have always found it hard to argue against supply-and-demand stories’ plain logic. The action in the 10-year Treasury nonetheless has us reviewing our call closely in search of anything that we may be missing. It appears that the decline in yields is better explained by the unwinding of lopsided positioning and sentiment (Chart 12), than by anything connected to economic growth. We are acutely conscious of how a worsening of U.S.-China trade tensions could impair global growth and subvert our constructive take on risk assets. U.S. equities may shine on a relative basis in the worst-case scenario, but absolute losses would be assured. We remain in wait-and-see mode, open to deploying our cash overweight if the opportunity presents itself, but happy to have it for ballast and insurance in the meantime. Chart 12Stretched Rubber Bands Snap Back   Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Housing: Past, Present And (Near) Future,” and “Housing Seminar,” published November 19 and December 3, 2018, respectively, at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 NAIRU, the non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment (also known as the natural rate of unemployment), is the unemployment rate that can be sustained over time without causing the economy to overheat. 3 Our model estimates that equilibrium fed funds is currently around 3%, will be around 3.25% by the middle of 2019, and will settle near 3⅜% at year end. 4 Before the 2017 tax reform act, corporations faced a top marginal rate of 35%, and could deduct interest expense without limit. After-tax interest expense for large corporations amounted to (1-.35), or 65% of the pre-tax expense. Now that the top marginal rate is 21%, after-tax interest expense is (1-.21), or 79% of pre-tax expense.