Emerging Markets

Special Report

Highlights The Cold War is a limited analogy for the U.S.-China conflict; In a multipolar world, complete bifurcation of trade is difficult if not impossible; History suggests that trade between rivals will continue, with minimal impediments; On a secular horizon, buy defense stocks, Europe, capex, and non-aligned countries. Feature There is a growing consensus that China and the U.S. are hurtling towards a Cold War. BCA Research played some part in this consensus – at least as far as the investment community is concerned – by publishing “Power and Politics in East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” in September 2012.1 For much of this decade, Geopolitical Strategy focused on the thesis that geopolitical risk was rotating out of the Middle East, where it was increasingly irrelevant, to East Asia, where it would become increasingly relevant. This thesis remains cogent, but it does not mean that a “Silicon Curtain” will necessarily divide the world into two bifurcated zones of capitalism. Trade, capital flows, and human exchanges between China and the U.S. will continue and may even grow. But the risk of conflict, including a military one, will not decline. In this report, we first review the geopolitical logic that underpins Sino-American tensions. We then survey the academic literature for clues on how that relationship will develop vis-à-vis trade and economic relations. The evidence from political theory is surprising and highly investment relevant. We then look back at history for clues as to what this means for investors. Our conclusion is that it is highly likely that the U.S. and China will continue to be geopolitical rivals. However, due to the geopolitical context of multipolarity, it is unlikely that the result will be “Bifurcated Capitalism.” Rather, we expect an exciting and volatile environment for investors where geopolitics takes its historical place alongside valuation, momentum, fundamentals, and macroeconomics in the pantheon of factors that determine investment opportunities and risks. The Thucydides Trap Is Real … Speaking in the Reichstag in 1897, German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow proclaimed that it was time for Germany to demand “its own place in the sun.”2 The occasion was a debate on Germany’s policy towards East Asia. Bülow soon ascended to the Chancellorship under Kaiser Wilhelm II and oversaw the evolution of German foreign policy from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik. While Realpolitik was characterized by Germany’s cautious balancing of global powers under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Weltpolitik saw Bülow and Wilhelm II seek to redraw the status quo through aggressive foreign and trade policy. Imperial Germany joined a long list of antagonists, from Athens to today’s People’s Republic of China, in the tragic play of human history dubbed the “Thucydides Trap.”3 Chart 1Imperial Overstretch The underlying concept is well known to all students of world history. It takes its name from the Greek historian Thucydides and his seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides explains why Sparta and Athens went to war but, unlike his contemporaries, he does not moralize or blame the gods. Instead, he dispassionately describes how the conflict between a revisionist Athens and established Sparta became inevitable due to a cycle of mistrust. Graham Allison, one of America’s preeminent scholars of international relations, has argued that the interplay between a status quo power and a challenger has almost always led to conflict. In 12 out of the 16 cases he surveyed, actual military conflict broke out. Of the four cases where war did not develop, three involved transitions between countries that shared a deep cultural affinity and a respect for the prevailing institutions.4 In those cases, the transition was a case of new management running largely the same organizational structure. And one of the four non-war outcomes was nothing less than the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The fundamental problem for a status quo power is that its empire or “sphere of influence” remains the same size as when it stood at the zenith of power. However, its decline in a relative sense leads to a classic problem of “imperial overstretch.” The hegemonic or imperial power erroneously doubles down on maintaining a status quo that it can no longer afford (Chart 1). The challenger power is not blameless. It senses weakness in the hegemon and begins to develop a regional sphere of influence. The problem is that regional hegemony is a perfect jumping off point towards global hegemony. And while the challenger’s intentions may be limited and restrained (though they often are ambitious and overweening), the status quo power must react to capabilities, not intentions. The former are material and real, whereas the latter are perceived and ephemeral. The challenging power always has an internal logic justifying its ambitions. In China’s case today, there is a sense among the elite that the country is merely mean-reverting to the way things were for many centuries in China’s and Asia’s long history (Chart 2). In other words, China is a “challenger” power only if one describes the status quo as the past three hundred years. It is the “established” power if one goes back to an earlier state of affairs. As such, the consensus in China is that it should not have to pay deference to the prevailing status quo given that the contemporary context is merely the result of western imperialist “challenges” to the established Chinese and regional order. Chart 2China’s Mean Reverting Narrative In addition, China has a legitimate claim that it is at least as relevant to the global economy as the U.S. and therefore deserves a greater say in global governance. While the U.S. still takes a larger share of the global economy, China has contributed 23% to incremental global GDP over the past two decades, compared to 13% for the U.S. (Chart 3). Chart 3The Beijing Consensus Bottom Line: The emerging tensions between China and the U.S. fit neatly into the theoretical and empirical outlines of the Thucydides Trap. We do not see any way for the two countries to avoid struggle and conflict on a secular or forecastable horizon. What does this mean for investors? For one, the secular tailwinds behind defense stocks will persist. But what beyond that? Is the global economy destined to witness complete bifurcation into two armed camps separated by a Silicon Curtain? Will the Alibaba and Amazon Pacts suspiciously glare at each other the way that NATO and Warsaw Pacts did amidst the Cold War? The answer, tentatively, is no. … But It Will Not Lead to Economic Bifurcation President Trump’s aggressive trade policy also fits neatly into political theory, to a point. Realism in political science focuses on relative gains over absolute gains in all relationships, including trade. This is because trade leads to economic prosperity, prosperity to the accumulation of economic surplus, and economic surplus to military spending, research, and development. Two states that care only about relative gains due to rivalry produce a zero-sum game with no room for cooperation. It is a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” that can lead to sub-optimal economic outcomes in which both actors chose not to cooperate. The U.S.-China conflict will not lead to complete bifurcation of the global economy. Diagram 1 illustrates the effects of relative gain calculations on the trade behavior of states. In the absence of geopolitics, demand (Q3) is satisfied via trade (Q3-Q0) due to the inability of domestic production (Q0) to meet it. Diagram 1Trade War In A Bipolar World However, geopolitical externality – a rivalry with another state – raises the marginal social cost of imports – i.e. trade allows the rival to gain more out of trade and “catch up” in terms of geopolitical capabilities. The trading state therefore eliminates such externalities with a tariff (t), raising domestic output to Q1, while shrinking demand to Q2, thus reducing imports to merely Q2-Q1, a fraction of where they would be in a world where geopolitics do not matter. The dynamic of relative gains can also have a powerful pull on the hegemon as it begins to weaken and rethink its originally magnanimous trade relations. As political scientist Duncan Snidal argued in a 1991 paper, When the global system is first set up, the hegemon makes deals with smaller states. The hegemon is concerned more with absolute gains, smaller states are more concerned with relative, so they are tougher negotiators. Cooperative arrangements favoring smaller states contribute to relative hegemonic decline. As the unequal distribution of benefits in favor of smaller states helps them catch up to the hegemonic actor, it also lowers the relative gains weight they place on the hegemonic actor. At the same time, declining relative preponderance increases the hegemonic state’s concern for relative gains with other states, especially any rising challengers. The net result is increasing pressure from the largest actor to change the prevailing system to gain a greater share of cooperative benefits.5 The reason small states are initially more concerned with relative gains is because they are far more concerned with national security than the hegemon. The hegemon has a preponderance of power and is therefore more relaxed about its security needs. This explains why Presidents George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jr. all made “bad deals” with China. Writing nearly thirty years ago, Snidal cogently described the current U.S.-China trade war. Snidal thought he was describing a coming decade of anarchy. But he and fellow political scientists writing in the early 1990s underestimated American power. The “unipolar moment” of American supremacy was not over, it was just beginning! As such, the dynamic Snidal described took thirty years to come to fruition. When thinking about the transition away from U.S. hegemony, most investors anchor themselves to the Cold War as it is the only world they have known that was not unipolar. Moreover the Cold War provides a simple, bipolar distribution of power that is easy to model through game theory. If this is the world we are about to inhabit, with the U.S. and China dividing the whole planet into spheres like the U.S. and Soviet Union, then the paragraph we lifted from Snidal’s paper would be the end of it. America would abandon globalization in totality, impose a draconian Silicon Curtain around China, and coerce its allies to follow suit. But most of recent human history has been defined by a multipolar distribution of power between states, not a bipolar one. The term “cold war” is applicable to the U.S. and China in the sense that comparable military power may prevent them from fighting a full-blown “hot war.” But ultimately the U.S.-Soviet Cold War is a poor analogy for today’s world. In a multipolar world, Snidal concludes, “states that do not cooperate fall behind other relative gains maximizers that cooperate among themselves. This makes cooperation the best defense (as well as the best offense) when your rivals are cooperating in a multilateral relative gains world.” Snidal shows via formal modeling that as the number of players increases from two, relative-gains sensitivity drops sharply.6 The U.S.-China relationship does not occur in a vacuum — it is moderated by the global context. Today’s global context is one of multipolarity. Multipolarity refers to the distribution of geopolitical power, which is no longer dominated by one or two great powers (Chart 4). Europe and Japan, for instance, have formidable economies and military capabilities. Russia remains a potent military power, even as India surpasses it in terms of overall geopolitical power. Chart 4The World Is No Longer Bipolar A multipolar world is the least “ordered” and the most unstable of world systems (Chart 5). This is for three reasons: Chart 5Multipolarity Is Messy Math: Multipolarity engenders more potential “conflict dyads” that can lead to conflict. In a unipolar world, there is only one country that determines norms and rules of behavior. Conflict is possible, but only if the hegemon wishes it. In a bipolar world, conflict is possible, but it must align along the axis of the two dominant powers. In a multipolar world, alliances are constantly shifting and producing novel conflict dyads. Lack of coordination: Global coordination suffers in periods of multipolarity as there are more “veto players.” This is particularly problematic during times of stress, such as when an aggressive revisionist power uses force or when the world is faced with an economic crisis. Charles Kindleberger has argued that it was exactly such hegemonic instability that caused the Great Depression to descend into the Second World War in his seminal The World In Depression.7 Mistakes: In a unipolar and bipolar world, there are a very limited number of dice being rolled at once. As such, the odds of tragic mistakes are low and can be mitigated with complex formal relationships (such as U.S.-Soviet Mutually Assured Destruction, grounded in formal modeling of game theory). But in a multipolar world, something as random as an assassination of a dignitary can set in motion a global war. The multipolar system is far more dynamic and thus unpredictable. In a multipolar world, the U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system. Diagram 2 is modified for a multipolar world. Everything is the same, except that we highlight the trade lost to other great powers. The state considering using tariffs to lower the marginal social cost of trading with a rival must account for this “lost trade.” In the context of today’s trade war with China, this would be the sum of all European Airbuses and Brazilian soybeans sold to China in the place of American exports. For China, it would be the sum of all the machinery, electronics, and capital goods produced in the rest of Asia and shipped to the United States. Diagram 2Trade War In A Multipolar World Could Washington ask its allies – Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. – not to take advantage of the lucrative trade (Q3-Q0)-(Q2-Q1) lost due to its trade tiff with China? Sure, but empirical research shows that they would likely ignore such pleas for unity. Alliances produced by a bipolar system produce a statistically significant and large impact on bilateral trade flows, a relationship that weakens in a multipolar context. This is the conclusion of a 1993 paper by Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield.8 The authors draw their conclusion from an 80-year period beginning in 1905, which captures several decades of global multipolarity. Unless the U.S. produces a wholehearted diplomatic effort to tighten up its alliances and enforce trade sanctions – something hardly foreseeable under the current administration – the self-interest of U.S. allies will drive them to continue trading with China. The U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system; nor will China be able to achieve Xi Jinping’s vaunted “self-sufficiency.” A risk to our view is that we have misjudged the global system, just as political scientists writing in the early 1990s did. To that effect, we accept that Charts 1 and 4 do not really support a view that the world is in a balanced multipolar state. The U.S. clearly remains the most powerful country in the world. The problem is that it is also clearly in a relative decline and that its sphere of influence is global – and thus very expensive – whereas its rivals have merely regional ambitions (for the time being). As such, we concede that American hegemony could be reasserted relatively quickly, but it would require a significant calamity in one of the other poles of power. For instance, a breakdown in China’s internal stability alongside the recovery of U.S. political stability. Bottom Line: The trade war between the U.S. and China is geopolitically unsustainable. The only way it could continue is if the two states existed in a bipolar world where the rest of the states closely aligned themselves behind the two superpowers. We have a high conviction view that today’s world is – for the time being – multipolar. American allies will cheat and skirt around Washington’s demands that China be isolated. This is because the U.S. no longer has the preponderance of power that it enjoyed in the last decade of the twentieth and the first decade of the twenty-first century. Insights presented thus far come from formal theory in political science. What does history teach us? Trading With The Enemy In 1896, a bestselling pamphlet in the U.K., “Made in Germany,” painted an ominous picture: “A gigantic commercial State is arising to menace our prosperity, and contend with us for the trade of the world.”9 Look around your own houses, author E.E. Williams urged his readers. “The toys, and the dolls, and the fairy books which your children maltreat in the nursery are made in Germany: nay, the material of your favorite (patriotic) newspaper had the same birthplace as like as not.” Williams later wrote that tariffs were the answer and that they “would bring Germany to her knees, pleading for our clemency.”10 By the late 1890s, it was clear to the U.K. that Germany was its greatest national security threat. The Germany Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900 launched a massive naval buildup with the singular objective of liberating the German Empire from the geographic constraints of the Jutland Peninsula. By 1902, the First Lord of the Royal Navy pointed out that “the great new German navy is being carefully built up from the point of view of a war with us.”11 There is absolutely no doubt that Germany was the U.K.’s gravest national security threat. As a result, London signed in April 1904 a set of agreements with France that came to be known as Entente Cordiale. The entente was immediately tested by Germany in the 1905 First Moroccan Crisis, which only served to strengthen the alliance. Russia was brought into the pact in 1907, creating the Triple Entente. In hindsight, the alliance structure was obvious given Germany’s meteoric rise from unification in 1871. However, one should not underestimate the magnitude of these geopolitical events. For the U.K. and France to resolve centuries of differences and formalize an alliance in 1904 was a tectonic shift — one that they undertook against the grain of history, entrenched enmity, and ideology.12 History teaches us that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime. Political scientists and historians have noted that geopolitical enmity rarely produces bifurcated economic relations exhibited during the Cold War. Both empirical research and formal modeling shows that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime.13 This was certainly the case between the U.K. and Germany, whose trade steadily increased right up until the outbreak of World War One (Chart 6). Could this be written off due to the U.K.’s ideological commitment to laissez-faire economics? Or perhaps London feared a move against its lightly defended colonies in case it became protectionist? These are fair arguments. However, they do not explain why Russia and France both saw ever-rising total trade with the German Empire during the same period (Chart 7). Either all three states were led by incompetent policymakers who somehow did not see the war coming – unlikely given the empirical record – or they simply could not afford to lose out on the gains of trade with Germany to each other. Chart 6The Allies Traded With Germany… Chart 7… Right Up To WWI Chart 8Japan And U.S. Never Downshifted Trade A similar dynamic was afoot ahead of World War Two. Relations between the U.S. and Japan soured in the 1930s, with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In 1935, Japan withdrew from the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty – the bedrock of the Pacific balance of power – and began a massive naval buildup. In 1937, Japan invaded China. Despite a clear and present danger, the U.S. continued to trade with Japan right up until July 26, 1941, few days after Japan invaded southern Indochina (Chart 8). On December 7, Japan attacked the U.S. A skeptic may argue that precisely because policymakers sleepwalked into war in the First and Second World Wars, they will not (or should not) make the same mistake this time around. First, we do not make policy prescriptions and therefore care not what should happen. Second, we are highly skeptical of the view that policymakers in the early and mid-twentieth century were somehow defective (as opposed to today’s enlightened leaders). Our constraints-based framework urges us to seek systemic reasons for the behavior of leaders. Political science provides a clear theoretical explanation for why London and Washington continued to trade with the enemy despite the clarity of the threat. The answer lies in the systemic nature of the constraint: a multipolar world reduces the sensitivity of policymakers to relative gains by introducing a collective action problem thanks to changing alliances and the difficulty of disciplining allies’ behavior. In the case of U.S. and China, this is further accentuated by President Trump’s strategy of skirting multilateral diplomacy and intense focus on mercantilist measures of power (i.e. obsession with the trade deficit). An anti-China trade policy that was accompanied by a magnanimous approach to trade relations with allies could have produced a “coalition of the willing” against Beijing. But after two years of tariffs and threats against the EU, Japan, and Canada, the Trump administration has already signaled to the rest of the world that old alliances and coordination avenues are up for revision. There are two outcomes that we can see emerging over the course of the next decade. First, U.S. leadership will become aware of the systemic constraints under which they operate, and trade with China will continue – albeit with limitations and variations. However, such trade will not reduce the geopolitical tensions, nor will it prevent a military conflict. In facts, the probability of military conflict may increase even as trade between China and the U.S. remains steady. Second, U.S. leadership will fail to correctly assess that they operate in a multipolar world and will give up the highlighted trade gains from Diagram 2 to economic rivals such as Europe and Japan. Given our methodological adherence to constraint-based forecasting, we highly doubt that the latter scenario is likely. Bottom Line: The China-U.S. conflict is not a replay of the Cold War. Systemic pressures from global multipolarity will force the U.S. to continue to trade with China, with limitations on exchanges in emergent, dual-use technologies that China will nonetheless source from other technologically advanced countries. This will create a complicated but exciting world where geopolitics will cease to be seen as exogenous to investing. A risk to the sanguine conclusion is that the historical record is applicable to today, but that the hour is late, not early. It is already July 26, 1941 – when U.S. abrogated all trade with Japan – not 1930. As such, we do not have another decade of trade between U.S. and China remaining, we are at the end of the cycle. While this is a risk, it is unlikely. American policymakers would essentially have to be willing to risk a military conflict with China in order to take the trade war to the same level they did with Japan. It is an objective fact that China has meaningfully stepped up aggressive foreign policy in the region. But unlike Japan in 1941, China has not outright invaded any countries over the past decade. As such, the willingness of the public to support such a conflict is unclear, with only 21% of Americans considering China a top threat to the U.S. Investment Implications This analysis is not meant to be optimistic. First, the U.S. and China will continue to be rivals even if the economic relationship between them does not lead to global bifurcation. For one, China continues to be – much like Germany in the early twentieth century – concerned with access to external markets on which 19.5% of its economy still depend. China is therefore developing a modern navy and military not because it wants to dominate the rest of the world but because it wants to dominate its near abroad, much as the U.S. wanted to, beginning with the Monroe Doctrine. This will continue to lead to Chinese aggression in the South and East China Seas, raising the odds of a conflict with the U.S. Navy. Given that the Thucydides Trap narrative remains cogent, investors should look to overweight S&P 500 aerospace and defense stocks relative to global equity markets. An alternative way that one could play this thesis is by developing a basket of global defense stocks. Multipolarity may create constraints to trade protectionism, but it engenders geopolitical volatility and thus buoys defense spending. Second, we would not expect another uptick in globalization. Multipolarity may make it difficult for countries to completely close off trade with a rival, but globalization is built on more than just trade between rivals. Globalization requires a high level of coordination among great powers that is only possible under hegemonic conditions. Chart 9 shows that the hegemony of the British and later American empires created a powerful tailwind for trade over the past two hundred years. Chart 9The Apex Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Apex of Globalization has come and gone – it is all downhill from here. But this is not a binary view. Foreign trade will not go to zero. The U.S. and China will not completely seal each other’s sphere of influence behind a Silicon Curtain. Instead, we focus on five investment themes that flow from a world that is characterized by the three trends of multipolarity, Sino-U.S. geopolitical rivalry, and apex of globalization: Europe will profit: As the U.S. and China deepen their enmity, we expect some European companies to profit. There is some evidence that the investment community has already caught wind of this trend, with European equities modestly outperforming their U.S. counterparts whenever trade tensions flared up in 2019 (Chart 10). Given our thesis, however, it is unlikely that the U.S. would completely lose market share in China to Europe. As such, we specifically focus on tech, where we expect the U.S. and China to ramp up non-tariff barriers to trade regardless of systemic pressures to continue to trade. A strategic long in the secularly beleaguered European tech companies relative to their U.S. counterparts may therefore make sense (Chart 11). Chart 10Europe: A Trade War Safe Haven Chart 11Is Europe Really This Incompetent? USD bull market will end: A trade war is a very disruptive way to adjust one’s trade relationship. It opens one to retaliation and thus the kind of relative losses described in this analysis. As such, we expect that U.S. to eventually depreciate the USD, either by aggressively reversing 2018 tightening or by coercing its trade rivals to strengthen their currencies. Such a move will be yet another tailwind behind the diversification away from the USD as a reserve currency, a move that should benefit the euro. Bull market in capex: The re-wiring of global manufacturing chains will still take place. The bad news is that multinational corporations will have to dip into their profit margins to move their supply chains to adjust to the new geopolitical reality. The good news is that they will have to invest in manufacturing capex to accomplish the task. One way to articulate this theme is to buy an index of semiconductor capital companies (AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, MKSI, AEIS, BRIKS, and TER). Given the highly cyclical nature of capital companies, we would recommend an entry point once trade tensions subside and green shoots of global growth appear. “Non-aligned” markets will benefit: The last time the world was multipolar, great powers competed through imperialism. This time around, a same dynamic will develop as countries seek to replicate China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.” This is positive for frontier markets. A rush to provide them with exports and services will increase supply and thus lower costs, providing otherwise forgotten markets with a boon of investments. India, and Asia-ex-China more broadly, stand as intriguing alternatives to China, especially with the current administration aggressively reforming to take advantage of the rewiring of global manufacturing chains. Capital markets will remain globalized: With interest rates near zero in much of the developed world and the demographic burden putting an ever-greater pressure on pension plans to generate returns, the search for yield will continue to be a powerful drive that keeps capital markets globalized. Limitations are likely to grow, especially when it comes to cross-border private investments in dual-use technologies. But a completely bifurcation of capital markets is unlikely. The world we are describing is one where geopolitics will play an increasingly prominent role for global investors. It would be convenient if the world simply divided into two warring camps, leaving investors with neatly separated compartments that enabled them to go back to ignoring geopolitics. This is unlikely. Rather, the world will resemble the dynamic years at the end of the nineteenth century, a rough-and-tumble era that required a multi-disciplinary approach to investing.   Marko Papic, Consulting Editor, BCA Research Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Marko@clocktowergroup.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” September 25, 2012, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think,” October 4, 2013, “The Great Risk Rotation,” December 11, 2013, and “Strategic Outlook 2014 – Stay The Course: EM Risk – DM Reward,” January 23, 2014, “Underestimating Sino-American Tensions,” November 6, 2015, “The Geopolitics Of Trump,” December 2, 2016, “How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia,” March 1, 2017, and others available at gps.bcaresearch.com or upon request. 2 Please see German Historical Institute, “Bernhard von Bulow on Germany’s ‘Place in the Sun’” (1897), available at http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/ 3 See Graham Allison, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017). 4 The three cases are Spain taking over from Portugal in the sixteenth century, the U.S. taking over from the U.K. in the twentieth century, and Germany rising to regional hegemony in Europe in the twenty-first century. 5 Duncan Snidal, “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation,” The American Political Science Review, 85:3 (September 1991), pp. 701-726. 6 We do not review Snidal’s excellent game theory formal modeling in this paper as it is complex and detailed. However, we highly encourage the intrigued reader to pursue the study on their own. 7 See Charles P. Kindleberger, The World In Depression, 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 8 Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield, “Power Politics and International Trade,” The American Political Science Review, 87:2 (June 1993), pp. 408-420. 9 See Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (reprint, Ithaca: Cornell University Press), available at https://archive.org/details/cu31924031247830. 10 Quoted in Margaret MacMillan, The War That Ended Peace (Toronto: Allen Lane, 2014). 11 Peter Liberman, “Trading with the Enemy: Security and Relative Economic Gains,” international Security, 21:1 (Summer 1996), pp. 147-175. 12 Although France and Russia overcame even greater bitterness due to the ideological differences between a republic founded on a violent uprising against its aristocracy – France – and an aristocratic authoritarian regime – Russia. 13 See James Morrow, “When Do ‘Relative Gains’ Impede Trade?” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41:1 (February 1997), pp. 12-37; and Jack S. Levy and Katherine Barbieri, “Trading With the Enemy During Wartime,” Security Studies, 13:3 (December 2004), pp. 1-47.

Highlights MARKET FORECASTS Investment Strategy: Markets have entered a “show me” phase. Better economic data and meaningful progress on the trade negotiations will be necessary for stocks to move sustainably higher. We think both preconditions will be realized. Until then, risk assets could come under pressure. Global Asset Allocation: Investors should overweight stocks relative to bonds over a 12-month horizon, but maintain higher-than-normal cash positions in the near term as a hedge against downside risks. Equities: EM and European stocks will outperform once global growth bottoms out. Cyclical sectors, including financials, will also start to outperform defensives when the growth cycle turns. Bonds: Central banks will remain dovish, but yields will nevertheless rise modestly on the back of stronger global growth. Favor high-yield corporate credit over government bonds. Currencies: As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar should peak later this year. Commodities: Oil and industrial metals prices will move higher. Gold prices have entered a holding pattern, but should shine again late next year or in 2021 when inflation finally breaks out. Feature Dear Client, In lieu of this report, I hosted a webcast on Monday, October 7th at 10:00 AM EDT, where I discussed the major investment themes and views I see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist   I. Global Macro Outlook A Testing Phase For The Global Economy The global economy has reached a critical juncture. Growth has been slowing since early 2018, reaching what many would regard as “stall speed.” This is the point where economic weakness begins to feed on itself, potentially triggering a recession. Will the growth slowdown worsen? Our guess is that it won’t. Global financial conditions have eased significantly over the past four months, thanks in part to the dovish pivot by most central banks. Looser financial conditions usually bode well for global growth (Chart 1). Our global leading indicator has hooked up, mainly due to a marginal improvement in emerging markets’ data (Chart 2). Chart 1Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth Chart 2Global LEI Has Moved Off Its Lows     An important question is whether the weakness in the manufacturing sector will spread to the much larger services sector. There is some evidence that this is happening, with yesterday’s weaker-than-expected ISM non-manufacturing release being the latest example. Nevertheless, the deceleration in service sector activity has been limited so far (Chart 3). Even in Germany, with its large manufacturing base, the service sector PMI remains in expansionary territory. This is a key difference with the 2001/02 and 2008/09 periods, when service sector activity collapsed in lockstep with manufacturing activity. Chart 3AThe Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 3BThe Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (II) The Drive-By Slowdown If one were to ask most investors the reasons behind the manufacturing slowdown, they would probably cite the trade war or the Chinese deleveraging campaign. These are both valid reasons, but there is a less well-known culprit: autos. According to WardsAuto, global auto sales fell by over 5% in the first half of the year, by far the biggest decline since the Great Recession (Chart 4). Production dropped by even more. Chart 4Weakness In The Auto Sector Has Exacerbated The Manufacturing Downturn Chart 5U.S. Auto Demand Is Recovering   The weakness in the global auto sector reflects a variety of factors. New stringent emission requirements, expiring tax breaks, lagged effects from tighter auto loan lending standards, and trade tensions have all played a role. In addition, the decline in gasoline prices in 2015/16 probably brought forward some automobile purchases. This suggests that the 2015/16 global manufacturing downturn may have helped sow the seeds for the current one. The fact that automobile output is falling faster than sales is encouraging because it means that excess inventories are being worked off. U.S. auto loan lending standards have started to normalize, with banks reporting stronger demand for auto loans in the latest Senior Loan Officer Survey (Chart 5). In China, auto sales have troughed after having declined by as much as 14% earlier this year (Chart 6). The Chinese automobile ownership rate is a fifth of what it is in the U.S., a quarter of what it is in Japan, and a third of what it is in Korea (Chart 7). Given the low starting point, Chinese auto sales are likely to resume their secular uptrend. Chart 6Auto Sector In China Is Finding A Floor Chart 7China: Structural Outlook For Autos Is Bright   The Trade War: Tracking Towards A Détente? Chart 8A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Manufacturing cycles typically last about three years – 18 months of slowing growth followed by 18 months of rising growth (Chart 8). To the extent that the global manufacturing PMI peaked in the first half of 2018, we should be nearing the end of the current downturn. Of course, much depends on policy developments. As we go to press, high-level negotiations between the U.S. and China have resumed. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of these talks, it does appear that both sides have an incentive to de-escalate the trade conflict. President Trump gets much better marks from voters on his management of the economy than on anything else, including his handling of trade negotiations with China (Chart 9). A protracted trade war would hurt U.S. growth, while weakening the stock market. Both would undermine Trump’s re-election prospects. Chart 9Trump Gets Reasonably High Marks On His Handling Of The Economy, But Not Much Else Chart 10Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? China also wants to bolster growth. As difficult as it has been for the Chinese leadership to deal with Donald Trump, trying to secure a trade deal with him after he has been re-elected would be even more challenging. This would especially be the case if Trump thought that the Chinese had tried to sabotage his re-election bid. Even if Trump were to lose the election, it is not clear that China would end up with someone more pliant to deal with on trade matters. Does the Chinese government really want to negotiate over environmental standards and human rights with President Warren, who betting markets now think has a better chance of becoming the Democratic nominee than Joe Biden (Chart 10)? The Democrats’ initiative to impeach President Trump make a trade resolution somewhat more likely. First, it brings attention to Joe Biden’s (and his son’s) own dubious dealings in Ukraine, thus delivering a blow to China’s preferred U.S. presidential candidate. Second, it makes Trump more inclined to want to put the China spat behind him in order to focus his energies on domestic matters. More Chinese Stimulus? Strategically, China has a strong incentive to stimulate its economy in order to prop up growth and gain greater leverage in the trade negotiations. The Chinese credit impulse bottomed in late 2018. The impulse leads Chinese nominal manufacturing output and most other activity indicators by about nine months (Chart 11). So far, the magnitude of China’s credit/fiscal easing has come nowhere close to matching the stimulus that was unleashed on the economy both in 2015/16 and 2008/09. This is partly because the authorities are more worried about excessive debt levels today than they were back then, but it is also because the economy is in better shape. The shock from the trade war has not been nearly as bad as the Great Recession – recall that Chinese exports to the U.S. are only 2.7% of GDP in value-added terms. Unlike in 2015/16, when China lost over $1 trillion in external reserves, capital outflows have remained muted this time around (Chart 12). Chart 11Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chart 12China: No Major Capital Outflows Better-than-expected Chinese PMI data released earlier this week offers a glimmer of hope. Nevertheless, in light of the disappointing August activity numbers, China is likely to increase the pace of stimulus in the coming months. The authorities have already reduced bank reserve requirements. We expect them to cut policy rates further in the coming months. They will also front-load local government bond issuance, which should help boost infrastructure spending. European Growth Should Improve A pickup in global growth will help Europe later this year. Germany, with its trade-dependent economy, will benefit the most. Chart 13Spreads Have Come In Across Southern Europe Chart 14Faster Money Growth Bodes Well For GDP Growth In The Euro Area Falling sovereign spreads should also support Southern Europe (Chart 13). The Italian 10-year spread with German bunds has narrowed by almost a full percentage point since mid-August, taking the Italian 10-year yield down to 0.83%. Greek 10-year bonds are now yielding less than U.S. Treasurys (the Greek manufacturing PMI is currently the strongest in the world). With the ECB back in the market buying sovereign and corporate debt, borrowing rates should remain low. Euro area money growth, which leads GDP growth, has already picked up (Chart 14). Bank lending to the private sector should continue to accelerate. A modest serving of fiscal stimulus will also help. The European Commission estimates that the fiscal thrust in the euro area will increase by 0.5% of GDP in 2019 (Chart 15). Assuming, conservatively, a fiscal multiplier of one, this would boost euro area growth by half a percentage point. Owing to lags between changes in fiscal policy and their impact on the real economy, most of the gains to GDP growth will occur over the remainder of this year and in 2020. Chart 15Euro Area Fiscal Stimulus Will Also Boost Growth Chart 17Brexit Angst: A Case Of Bremorse Chart 16U.K.: Brexit Uncertainty Is Weighing On Growth In the U.K., Brexit uncertainty continues to weigh on growth. U.K. business investment has been especially hard hit (Chart 16). Prime Minister Boris Johnson remains insistent that he will take the U.K. out of the EU with or without a deal at the end of October. We would downplay his bluster. The Supreme Court has already denied his attempt to shutter parliament. The public is having second thoughts about the desirability of Brexit (Chart 17). While we do not have a strong view on the exact plot twists in the Brexit saga, we maintain that the odds of a no-deal Brexit are low. This is good news for U.K. growth and the pound. Japan: Own Goal Recent Japanese data releases have not been encouraging: Machine tool orders declined by 37% year-over-year in August. Exports contracted by over 8%, with imports recording a drop of 12%. The September PMI print exposed further deterioration in manufacturing, with the index falling to 48.9 from 49.3 in August. In addition, industrial production contracted by more than expected in August, falling by 1% month-over-month, and close to 5% year-over-year. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the U.S.-China trade negotiations, as well as Japan’s own tensions with neighboring South Korea, have also weighed on the Japanese economy. Japanese industrial activity will improve later this year as global growth rebounds. But the government has not helped growth prospects by raising the consumption tax on October 1st. While various offsets will blunt the full effect of the tax hike, it still amounts to unwarranted tightening in fiscal policy. Nominal GDP has barely increased since the early 1990s. What Japan needs are policies that boost nominal income. Such reflationary policies may be the only way to stabilize debt-to-GDP without pushing the economy back into a deflationary spiral.1  The U.S.: Hanging Tough Chart 18U.S. Has A Smaller Share Of Manufacturing Than Most Other Developed Economies The U.S. economy has fared relatively well during the latest global economic downturn, partly because manufacturing represents a smaller share of GDP than in most other economies (Chart 18). According to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model, real GDP is on track to rise at a trend-like pace of 1.8% in the third quarter (Chart 19). Personal consumption is set to increase by 2.5%, after having grown by 4.6% in the second quarter. Consumer spending should stay robust, supported by rising wage growth. The personal savings rate also remains elevated, which should help cushion households from any adverse shocks (Chart 20).   Chart 19U.S. Growth Has Softened, But Is Still Close To Trend Residential investment finally looks as though it is turning the corner. Housing starts, building permits, and home sales have all picked up. Given the tight relationship between mortgage rates and homebuilding, construction activity should accelerate over the next few quarters (Chart 21). Low inventory and vacancy rates, rising household formation, and reasonable affordability all bode well for the housing market (Chart 22). Chart 20The Savings Rate Has (A Lot Of) Room To Drop, Judging From The Historical Relationship With Wealth Chart 21U.S. Housing Will Rebound Chart 22U.S. Housing: On A Solid Foundation Chart 23U.S. Capex Plans Have Come Off Their Highs, But Are Nowhere Close to Recessionary Levels In contrast to residential investment, business capex continues to be weighed down by the manufacturing recession, a strong dollar, and trade policy uncertainty. Core durable goods orders declined in August. Capex intention surveys have also weakened, although they remain well above recessionary levels (Chart 23). The ISM manufacturing index hit its lowest level since July 2009 in September. The internals of the report were not quite as bad as the headline. The new orders-to-inventories component, which leads the ISM by two months, moved back into positive territory. The weak ISM print also stands in contrast to the more upbeat Markit U.S. manufacturing PMI, which rose to its highest level since April. Statistically, the Markit PMI does a better job of tracking official measures of U.S. manufacturing output, factory orders, and employment than the ISM. Taking everything together, the U.S. economy is likely to see modestly stronger growth later this year, as the global manufacturing recession comes to an end, while strong consumer spending and an improving housing market bolster domestic demand. II. Financial Markets Global Asset Allocation Markets have entered a “show me” phase. Better economic data and meaningful progress on the trade negotiations will be necessary for stocks to move sustainably higher. As such, investors should maintain larger-than-normal cash positions for the time being to guard against downside risks. Chart 24Stocks Will Outperform Bonds If Growth Recovers Fortunately, any pullback in risk asset prices is likely to be temporary. If trade tensions subside and global growth rebounds later this year, as we expect, stocks and spread product should handily outperform government bonds over a 12-month horizon (Chart 24). Admittedly, there are plenty of things that could upend this sanguine 12-month recommendation: Global growth could continue to deteriorate; the trade war could intensify; supply-side shocks could cause oil prices to spike up again; the U.K. could end up leaving the EU in a “hard Brexit” scenario; and last but not least, Elizabeth Warren or some other far-left candidate could end up becoming the next U.S. president. The key question for investors today is whether these risks have been fully discounted in financial markets. We think they have. Chart 25 shows our estimates for the global equity risk premium (ERP), calculated as the difference between the earnings yield and the real bond yield. Our calculations suggest that stocks still look quite cheap compared to bonds. Chart 25AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 25BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) One might protest that the ERP is high only because today’s ultra-low bond yields are reflecting very poor growth prospects. There is some truth to that claim, but not as much as one might think. While trend GDP growth has fallen in the U.S. over the past decade, bond yields have declined by even more. The gap between U.S. potential nominal GDP growth, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the 10-year Treasury yield is close to two percentage points, the highest since 1979 (Chart 26). Chart 26Bond Yields Have Fallen More Than Trend Nominal GDP Growth At the global level, trend GDP growth has barely changed since 1980, largely because faster-growing emerging markets now make up a larger share of the global economy (Chart 27). For large multinational companies, global growth, rather than domestic growth, is the more relevant measure of economic momentum. Gauging Future Equity Returns A high ERP simply says that equities are attractive relative to bonds. To gauge the prospective return to stocks in absolute terms, one should look at the absolute level of valuations. Chart 27The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM Chart 28S&P 500: All Of The Increase In Margins Has Occurred In The IT Sector As we argued in a recent report entitled “TINA To The Rescue?,”2 the earnings yield can be used as a proxy for the expected real total return on equities. Empirically, the evidence seems to bear this out: Since 1950, the earnings yield on U.S. equities has averaged 6.7%, compared to a real total return of 7.2%. Today, the trailing and forward PE ratio for U.S. stocks stand at 21.1 and 17.4, respectively. Using a simple average of the two as a guide for future returns, U.S. stocks should deliver a long-term real total return of 5.2%. While this is below its historic average, it is still a fairly decent return. One might complain that this calculation overstates prospective equity returns because the U.S. earnings yield is temporarily inflated by abnormally high profit margins. The problem with this argument is that virtually all of the increase in S&P 500 margins has occurred in just one sector: technology. Outside of the tech sector, S&P 500 margins are not far from their historic average (Chart 28). If high IT margins reflect structural changes in the global economy – such as the emergence of “winner take all” companies that benefit from powerful network effects and monopolistic pricing power – they could remain elevated for the foreseeable future.   Regional And Sector Equity Allocation The earnings yield is roughly two percentage points higher outside the U.S., suggesting that non-U.S. stocks will best their U.S. peers over the long haul. In the developed market space, Germany, Spain, and the U.K. appear especially cheap. In the EM realm, China, Korea, and Russia stand out as being very attractively priced (Chart 29). At the sector level, cyclical stocks look more appealing than defensives (Chart 30). Chart 29U.S. Stocks Appear Expensive Compared To Their Peers Chart 31Economic Growth Drives Stocks Over A 12-Month Horizon Chart 30Cyclical Stocks Are More Attractive Than Defensives Chart 32EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves Valuations are useful mainly as a guide to long-term returns. Over a horizon of say, 12 months, cyclical factors – i.e., what happens to growth, interest rates, and exchange rates – matter more (Chart 31). Fortunately, our cyclical views generally line up with our valuation assessment. Stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and rising commodity prices should benefit cyclical stocks relative to defensives. To the extent that EM and European stock markets have more of a cyclical sector skew than U.S. stocks, the former should end up outperforming (Chart 32). We would put financials on our list of sectors to upgrade by year end once global growth begins to reaccelerate. Falling bond yields have hurt bank profits (Chart 33). The drag on net interest margins should recede as yields start rising. European banks, which currently trade at only 7.6 times forward earnings, 0.6 times book value, and sport a hefty dividend yield of 6.3%, could fare particularly well (Chart 34). Chart 33AHigher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (I) Chart 33BHigher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (II) As Chart 35 illustrates, a bet on financials is similar to a bet on value stocks. Growth has trounced value over the past 12 years, but a bit of respite for value is in order over the next 12-to-18 months. Chart 34European Banks Are Attractive Chart 35Is Value Turning The Corner?   Fixed Income Chart 36AYields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (I) Dovish central banks and, for the time being, still-subdued inflation will help keep government bond yields in check over the next 12 months. Nevertheless, yields will still rise from currently depressed levels on the back of stronger global growth (Chart 36).     Chart 36BYields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (II) Bond yields tend to rise or fall depending on whether central banks adjust rates by more or less than is anticipated (Chart 37). Investors currently expect the Fed to cut rates by another 80 basis points over the next 12 months. While we think the Fed will bring down rates by 25 basis points on October 30th, we do not anticipate any further cuts beyond then. The cumulative 75 basis points in cuts during this easing cycle will be equivalent to the amount of easing delivered during the two mid-cycle slowdowns in the 1990s (1995/96 and 1998). All told, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is likely to move back into the low 2% range by the middle of 2020. Chart 37AStronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (I) Chart 36BStronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (II) Chart 38U.S. Government Bond Yields Are More Procyclical Than Yields Abroad Unlike U.S. equities, which tend to have a low beta compared to stocks abroad, U.S. bonds possess a high beta. This means that U.S. Treasury yields usually rise more than yields abroad when global bond yields, in aggregate, are increasing, and fall more than yields abroad when global bond yields are decreasing (Chart 38).  Moreover, U.S. Treasurys currently yield less than other bond markets once currency-hedging costs are taken into account (Table 1). If U.S. yields were to rise more than those abroad over the next 12-to-18 months, this would further detract from Treasury returns. As a result, investors should underweight Treasurys within a global government bond portfolio. Stronger global growth should keep corporate credit spreads at bay. Lending standards for U.S. commercial and industrial loans have moved back into easing territory, which is usually bullish for corporate credit (Chart 39). According to our U.S. bond strategists, high-yield corporate spreads, and to a lesser extent, Baa-rated investment-grade spreads, are still wider than is justified by the economic fundamentals (Chart 40).3 Better-rated investment-grade bonds, in contrast, offer less relative value. Table 1Bond Markets Across The Developed World Chart 39Easier Lending Standards Bode Well For Corporate Credit Chart 40U.S. Corporates: Focus On Baa And High-Yield Credit     Looking beyond the next 18 months, there is a high probability that inflation will start to move materially higher. The unemployment rate across the G7 has fallen to a multi-decade low (Chart 41). The share of developed economies that have reached full employment has hit a new cycle high (Chart 42). For all the talk about how the Phillips curve is dead, wage growth has remained tightly correlated with labor market slack (Chart 43). Chart 41Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower Chart 42Developed Markets: Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Chart 43The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well As wages continue to rise, prices will start to move up, potentially setting off a wage-price spiral. The Fed, and eventually other central banks, will have to start raising rates at that point. Once interest rates move into restrictive territory, equities will fall and credit spreads will widen. A global recession could ensue in 2022. Currencies And Commodities Chart 44The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 44). We do not have a strong near-term view on the direction of the dollar at the moment, but expect the greenback to begin to weaken by year end as global growth starts to rebound. EUR/USD should increase to around 1.13 by mid-2020. GBP/USD will rise to 1.29. USD/CNY will move back to 7. USD/JPY is likely to be flat, reflecting the yen’s defensive nature and the drag on Japanese growth from the consumption tax hike. The trade-weighted dollar will continue to depreciate until late-2021, after which time a more aggressive Fed and a slowdown in global growth will cause the dollar to rally anew. During the period in which the dollar is weakening, commodity prices will move higher (Chart 45). Chart 45Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities BCA’s commodity strategists are particularly bullish on oil over a 12-month horizon (Chart 46). They see Brent crude prices rising to $70/bbl by the end of this year and averaging $74/bbl in 2020 based on the expectation that stronger global growth and production discipline will drive down oil inventory levels. OPEC spare capacity – the difference between what the cartel is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is currently below its historic average (Chart 47). Crude oil reserves have also been trending lower within the OECD. Saudi Arabia’s own reserves have fallen by over 40% since peaking in 2015 (Chart 48). Chart 46Supply Deficit To Continue Chart 47Limited Availability Of Spare Capacity To Offset Outages Chart 48Key Strategic Petroleum Reserves Higher oil prices should benefit currencies such as the Canadian dollar, Norwegian krone, Russian ruble and Colombian peso. Finally, a few words on gold. We closed our long gold trade on August 29th for a 20-week gain of 20.5%. We still see gold as an excellent long-term hedge against higher inflation. In the near term, however, rising bond yields may take the wind out of gold’s sails, even if a weaker dollar does help bullion at the margin. We will reinitiate our long gold position towards the end of next year or in 2021 once inflation begins to break out.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Are High Debt Levels Deflationary Or Inflationary?” dated February 15, 2019. 2Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 3Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed,” dated September 17, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Analysis on Chile is available below. Highlights Major equity leadership rotations normally occur around bear markets or corrections. Hence, a major broad selloff will likely be a precondition for EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks to commence outperforming. The odds that EM equities will underperform the S&P 500 or DM share prices in an equity drawdown are 65-70%. A weaker dollar is essential to EM outperformance. We remain bullish on the dollar and are underweight/short EM. Feature The current decade has been characterized by the substantial outperformance of growth versus value stocks, the S&P 500 versus emerging and other international markets. BCA held its annual conference in New York last week. One of the key topics that investors wanted to get a handle on was the potential for a leadership rotation in global equity markets. The current decade has been characterized by the substantial outperformance of growth versus value stocks, the S&P 500 versus emerging and other international markets, FAANG share prices versus commodities and “old economy” stocks. Is this trend about to reverse? Opinions among our conference speakers certainly differed. Some still showed a penchant for growth stocks and U.S. equities, while others recommended global value and EM stocks. Our Themes For The Decade Our key long-term themes – laid out in our June 8, 2010 Special Report titled How To Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade1 – have shaped our investment strategy over the past decade have been: Commodities and materials and energy equity sectors as well as machinery stocks will be in a bear market because Chinese capital spending has peaked. Hence, investors should avoid EMs that are very sensitive to resource prices. Favoring EM/Chinese consumer plays, namely technology as well as healthcare stocks in general and healthcare equipment stocks in particular, is the way to play China/EM growth this decade. Given tech and healthcare account for a smaller weighting in EM stock indexes than in DM ones, we have been recommending that investors underweight EM against DM stocks. Needless to say, these themes have panned out extremely well, with EM, resources, commodities-related and machinery equity sectors underperforming massively (Chart I-1), and tech, consumer and healthcare stocks outperforming (Chart I-2). These themes have guided our strategy over the past nine years, leading us to be underweight EM equities in favor of the S&P 500, which is heavily dominated by tech, consumer and healthcare companies. Chart I-1China Capex Plays Have Underperformed This Decade Chart I-2Our Favorites For This Decade Have Outperformed Any investment trend has a beginning and an end. It is essential not to overstay in winning strategies. Critically, Chart I-3 shows that the magnitude of the rise in FAANG stocks over the past 10 years is comparable to bubbles of previous decades. This chart compares asset prices in real (inflation-adjusted) U.S. dollar terms. Chart I-3FAANG And Previous Bubbles In Perspective Only history will tell whether FAANGs are currently in a bubble or not. Presently, we do not have a high conviction view on this matter. However, even if they are not in a bubble, they are extremely overbought and expensive. Their failure to break above their 2018 highs is a negative technical signal. Altogether, this warrants a cautious stance on the absolute performance of FAANGs. Bottom Line: Regardless of the direction of FAANG stocks, odds are that EM share prices will relapse in absolute terms before a sustainable bottom emerges. For a detailed discussion on this, please refer to pages 6-9. In such a scenario, it is hard to envision FAANG stocks rallying. They may continue outperforming on a relative basis, but they will still deflate in absolute terms. Equity Rotations Occur Around Bear Markets The relative performance of global growth versus value stocks often experiences trend reversals during or after selloffs. With respect to equity leadership rotation, it is crucial to note that equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or corrections in global share prices. Chart I-4 illustrates EM relative stock prices versus DM along with the global equity index. Over the past 25 years, there have been several major leadership changes between EM and DM – and all of them coincided with, or were preceded by, either a bear market or a correction in global share prices. Similarly, the relative performance of global growth versus value stocks often experiences trend reversals during or after selloffs (Chart I-5). Chart I-4EM Versus DM: Equity Rotations Chart I-5Global Growth Versus Value: Leadership Rotations Finally, structural trend changes in the relative performance of the global tech sector, energy stocks and materials have also occurred during or after drawdowns in global share prices (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Global Technology, Energy And Materials: Leadership Rotations Bottom Line: Major equity leadership rotations normally occur around bear markets or corrections. Hence, a major selloff is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks begin to outperform. We will contemplate changing our relative equity strategy if a major broad selloff transpires. In such an equity drawdown, there is a 30-35% chance that EM may outperform the S&P 500, as it did during the carnage in global stocks in the fourth quarter of last year. In short, the probability that EM share prices underperform the S&P 500 and DM is 65-70%. A weaker dollar is essential for EM outperformance. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service remains bullish on the dollar and is underweight/short EM. A Breakdown In EM And Global Cyclicals? With China’s manufacturing PMI once again on the rise, it is critical to challenge our view on the Chinese business cycle as well as global manufacturing and trade. In our opinion, the latest rise in the mainland manufacturing PMI is an aberration rather than a new trend: Chinese share prices over the years have been coincident with or leading mainland manufacturing PMI. Stocks are currently pointing to a relapse in the latter (Chart I-7). The message from Chinese share prices is that the latest improvement in the nation’s manufacturing PMI should be faded. Chart I-7Chinese Share Prices And Manufacturing PMI The global manufacturing recession is still spreading. The global manufacturing recession is still spreading. This has yet to be discounted in global cyclical equity sectors. The latter have been moving sideways over the past year and a half, despite the contraction in global manufacturing activity (Chart I-8). Equity investors’ patience may be wearing thin as the expected global manufacturing recovery has so far failed to materialize. Chart I-8Global Cyclical Stocks And Manufacturing PMI Chart I-9EM EPS And Korean Exports: Moving In Tandem Korean exports in September contracted at a rate close to 10% year-on-year (Chart I-9, top panel). Interestingly, the level of EM corporate earnings per share (EPS) in U.S. dollar terms exhibits a similar pattern with Korean exports (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Both are at the same level they were in 2010. Hence, over this decade EM EPS and Korean exports in U.S. dollar terms have not expanded at all. U.S. high-beta stocks in aggregate as well as share prices of high-beta industrials and technology stocks are close to breaking below their technical support lines (Chart I-10). They could be canaries in a coal mine for the S&P 500. Chart I-10U.S. High-Beta Stocks Are Breaking Down Chart I-11A Bearish Signal For EM And Commodities Despite a very weak U.S. manufacturing PMI, the dollar remains well bid. This signifies that the global manufacturing recession emanates from the rest of the world – not the U.S. In fact, the U.S. manufacturing sector has been the last domino to fall. Persistent strength in the greenback is a symptom of weakening global growth. Our Risk-On / Safe-Haven Currency ratio2 – which is agnostic to dollar trends – is plunging, corroborating the downbeat outlook for global growth in general and commodities prices in particular (Chart I-11). Finally, overall EM and Asian high-yield corporate credit spreads are widening versus investment grade ones. This is a sign of rising risk aversion.  EM credit markets and local currency bonds have so far been reasonably resilient, despite the selloff in EM share prices and currencies (Chart I-12). The basis for such decoupling has been the indiscriminate search for yield rather than improving EM growth dynamics. Chart I-12EM Credit Markets Will Recouple To Downside With Stocks And Currencies Deteriorating growth will eventually cause a widening of EM credit spreads. Besides, persistent EM currency depreciation will likely lead to outflows from EM high-yield local bond markets. Bottom Line: EM equities, credit markets and high-yielding local currency bonds are at risk of a major selloff. Our list of country allocations across various EM asset classes as well as our trades can always be found at the end of our reports, please refer to pages 14-15. We continue to recommend shorting the following basket of EM currencies versus the dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Chile: Still Favor Bonds Over Stocks; Bet On Lower Inflation We have been betting on sluggish growth, lower interest rates and a weakening currency in Chile. These positions have panned out well as the economy has slowed considerably, local bond yields have plunged and the currency depreciated significantly (Chart II-1, top and middle panels). However, our overweight position in Chilean equities within a dedicated EM stock portfolio has performed poorly (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Is it time to reconsider our position? Chart II-1Our Strategy For Chile Having re-examined the cyclical dynamics of this economy and putting it in the context of the global backdrop, we reiterate our investment recommendations. We also see a new investment opportunity within the Chilean fixed-income markets – investors should consider betting on lower inflation expectations, i.e., going long domestic bonds and shorting inflation-linked bonds. We believe the bond market’s medium-to long-term inflation expectations are overstated and will drop in the coming months. The Chilean economy will likely weaken further and inflation is set to drop considerably beyond the near term. Even though the central bank has already cut rates by 100 basis points, it will take both more easing and time before the credit impulse turns positive and lifts domestic demand. The credit impulse for businesses points to a relapse in capital spending (Chart II-2). The adopted fiscal stimulus has been negligible at 0.21% of GDP for 2019 and 2020. While government spending growth is bottoming, overall fiscal expenditures account for 20% of GDP. In brief, they are too small to make a major difference for the economy. Chart II-2Chile: Falling Credit Impulse = Weak Capex With non-mining exports contracting and commodities prices plunging, the export sectors will continue to depress growth. Corporate profits are shrinking and this will dent capital spending and hiring. Critically, rising unit labor costs are depressing corporate profit margins (Chart II-3). The latter have spiked because the output slowdown has not yet been matched by layoffs or lower wage growth. In turn, forthcoming layoffs amid the already rising unemployment rate will certainly lead to considerable wage disinflation (Chart II-4). Chile has seen massive inflows of immigrants from Venezuela in recent years, which will prove to be a major disinflationary force for this economy in the medium-term. Finally, goods price inflation – which has stemmed from currency depreciation – could prevent consumer inflation from falling in the near term. Yet, this phenomena will not be sustainable beyond the near term. Chart II-3Shrinking Profits Will Lead Businesses To Reduce Unit Labor Costs Chart II-4Wage Growth Is Unsustainably High On the whole, the fixed-income market will look through currency depreciation-induced goods inflation and begin pricing in much lower inflation expectations. We recommend betting that 3-year inflation expectations will decline from 2.5% to 1.5% in the next 12 months (Chart II-5). We have been receiving 3-year swap rates since May 31st, 2018 and this position remains intact. The peso will continue to depreciate as copper prices fall further. Notably, the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs – computed by the OECD – suggests that the peso is still expensive (Chart II-6). The last datapoint is as of September 2019. This is probably due to depreciation in other Latin American currencies. Chart II-5Chile: Inflation Expectations To Plunge Chart II-6The CLP Is Not Cheap Finally, we are reluctant to downgrade the Chilean bourse within an EM equity portfolio. Policy easing and large underperformance as well as the positive structural outlook should produce a period of outperformance by this stock market amid the selloff in the overall EM equity universe. Local asset allocators should continue favoring bonds versus stocks. Bottom Line: As a new trade for fixed-income investors: We recommend going long 3-year domestic bonds and shorting 3-year inflation-linked bonds.   Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “How To Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade”, dated June 8, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2      Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns (including carry). Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Chinese economic activity is declining at a slower pace, but has not yet bottomed. The September PMIs surprised to the upside, suggesting that activity improved last month. Still, PMIs can provide false signals (as they did earlier this year). Consequently, investors should wait for clearer signs of a “hard data” improvement before concluding that China’s economy has bottomed. Investors should maintain a cyclically overweight stance towards Chinese stocks. Actual evidence of a “hard data” improvement could cause us to upgrade our tactical stance (from underweight); for now, the risks outweigh the potential gains over the very near-term. Feature Tables 1 and 2 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, Chinese economic activity appears to be declining at a slower pace, but it has not yet bottomed. China’s September manufacturing PMIs surprised to the upside, and this legitimately raises the odds that the next update of our China Activity Index will meaningfully improve. However, investors should remember that a similar rebound in the Caixin manufacturing PMI quickly reversed itself earlier this year without leading to a meaningful impact on actual activity. The bottom line is that investors should wait for clearer signs of improvement in the “hard” data before concluding that China’s economic cycle is beginning to turn higher. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary From an investment strategy perspective, we continue to recommend that investors maintain a cyclically overweight stance. Two possible scenarios underpin our cyclical view: either China’s existing reflationary effort soon succeeds at stabilizing economic activity, or policymakers will be forced to stimulate even further. In either case, we see good odds that Chinese relative performance (versus global stocks) will be higher in 12-months. Tactically, we remain cautious because of the still-elevated potential for a further escalation in the trade war, and the fact that Chinese activity has yet to decisively bottom. A significant re-acceleration in money & credit growth, actual evidence of a pickup in Chinese economic activity (i.e., a “hard data” improvement), or an agreement between the U.S. and China that removes most or all of the tariffs are likely to be catalysts to upgrade our tactical stance. For now, we continue to believe that the risks outweigh the potential gains over the very near-term. Chart 1Chinese Economic Activity Continues To Decline, At A Slower Pace In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: The Bloomberg Li Keqiang index ticked slightly higher in August, but remained in a clear downtrend. Chart 1 illustrates that our BCA China Activity Index, a broader coincident measure of China’s economy that incorporates elements of the Li Keqiang index, remains weak and continued to decline in August. In short, Chinese economic activity is declining at a slower pace, but it has yet to decisively bottom. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index rose fractionally in August, driven by the monetary conditions and money supply components (particularly M3). However, the credit components sequentially declined, weighing on the overall index. Abstracting from month-to-month changes in the indicator, Chart 2 highlights that there continues to be a large gap between the degree of monetary accommodation and the growth in credit and the supply of money. Investors should be especially watching for a decisive pickup in the latter, as it would be a clear sign that China’s reflationary efforts have succeeded in boosting the domestic economy. Chart 2The Gap Between Monetary Conditions and Money & Credit Remains Wide China’s housing data continued to slow in August, with the exception of floor space sold (which stopped contracting). House price appreciation is slowing, and our diffusion indexes point to an even slower pace of appreciation going forward. Following a very sharp slowdown in construction over the past few months, the modest re-acceleration in sales volume has effectively eliminated the previously enormous gap between the pace of floor space started and sold. We argued in several previous reports that this gap would likely close via slower housing starts, as strong construction must ultimately be validated by strong sales. The pickup in sales suggests that China’s housing market fundamentals may be in the very early stages of stabilization, but a sustained rise into high single-digit territory would be needed in order to confirm this view. China’s September manufacturing PMIs surprised to the upside, particularly the Caixin PMI (which is more focused on the private sector). The components of each PMI told conflicting stories; the Caixin PMI reported that total new orders outpaced new export business (implying stronger domestic demand), whereas the official PMI reported a much stronger improvement for new export orders versus the import and overall new orders components. It is possible that the improvement in the PMIs is signaling a meaningful rise in our China Activity Index for September, but investors should recognize that this is no guarantee of a sustainable bottom in economic activity. For example, a similar rebound in the Caixin manufacturing PMI quickly reversed itself earlier this year, and had no meaningful impact on actual activity (Chart 3). The bottom line is that investors should wait for clearer signs of improvement in the “hard” data before concluding that China’s economic cycle is beginning to turn higher. Chart 3An Improving PMI Is No Guarantee Of An Improving Economy In US$ terms, China’s equity markets (both investable and domestic) have been flat in absolute terms over the past month, but have underperformed global equities by 1-2%. Over the past week, investable stocks have been particularly impacted by the reported threat that the Trump administration is considering de-listing Chinese firms from U.S. stock exchanges. Administration officials have since denied the report, but even if it were to occur a shift in listing from the U.S. to Hong Kong is very unlikely to alter the earnings outlooks for these companies over a 6-12 month time horizon. A near-term selloff in response to a de-listing event is highly possible, but it would not likely affect our cyclical stance unless the administration moved towards (and succeeded at) completely prohibiting U.S. ownership of Chinese securities. Chinese financials, technology, and communication services companies have outperformed in both the investable and domestic markets over the past month, with energy, materials, and industrials also outperforming in the investable market. The outperformance of investable energy stocks is clearly linked to the mid-September attack on Aramco’s oil processing facilities, even though Brent oil prices have fallen back to the level that prevailed before the attack. We have maintained a long absolute position in Chinese energy stocks over the past year, with disappointing results (the position is down 28% since initiation on October 3, 2018). Still, we recommend that investors continue to favor Chinese energy stocks over the cyclical horizon on a value basis: the sector is cheap relative to global energy stocks and global oil production (Chart 4). In addition, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service is forecasting that Brent oil prices will trade at $74/barrel on average next year ($12/barrel higher than prices today), implying that a value catalyst looms over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 4Chinese Energy Stocks Have Rarely Been Cheaper Chart 5Is Stable Real Estate Performance Predicting A Stable Housing Market? The underperformance of the investable real estate sector that began this summer appears to have occurred in anticipation of the slowdown in house price appreciation and housing construction that we highlighted above. This is notable, as real estate relative performance appears to have stabilized since the beginning of September (Chart 5). The implication is that real estate stocks may now be forecasting a stabilization in China’s housing market, which would increase the odds that Chinese domestic demand will soon durably bottom. For now, it remains too early to confidently project that real estate stocks have halted their decline, but the relative performance trend bears monitoring over the coming weeks. Chinese interbank rates and government bond yields have largely been unchanged over the past month, with the exception of the highly volatile 7-day interbank repo rate (which rose). The relative year-to-date stability of Chinese government bond yields is in sharp contrast to the collapse in U.S. 10-year Treasury yields (Chart 6), and reflects (in part) the reluctance of Chinese authorities to ease materially further. There have been no major changes in the onshore Chinese corporate bond market over the past month, and overall onshore corporate spreads continue to trend sideways. While lower-quality spreads have risen modestly since early-June, bonds rated AA and AA- continue to outperform the aggregate onshore corporate bond market (Chart 7). Investors should stay long onshore corporate bonds, in hedged currency terms. Chart 6The Divergence In Bond Yields Reflects China's Policymaker Reluctance Chart 7Own Chinese Onshore Corporate Bonds In Hedged Terms The RMB has gained approximately 0.1% versus the U.S. dollar over the past month, and nearly 1.1% versus the euro. While the latter largely reflects weakness in the euro rather than significant RMB strength, it remains clear that China’s currency is being driven by developments related to the trade negotiations. Besides the negative impact that it would have on global risk assets, investors should expect significant further strength in USD-CNH if the negotiations that are scheduled to begin next weekend result in renewed escalation. Conversely, we would expect a major rally in the RMB in response to any agreement between the U.S. and China that removes most or all of the tariffs. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The global manufacturing cycle is likely to bottom soon, and consumption and services remain robust. The risk of recession over the next 12 months is low. This suggests that equities will continue to outperform bonds. But the risks to this optimistic scenario are rising. A denting of consumer confidence and worsening of geopolitical tensions could hurt risk assets. We hedge this by overweighting cash. China remains reluctant for now to use aggressive monetary easing. Until it does, the less cyclical U.S. equity market should outperform. We may shift into EM and European equities when China ramps up stimulus and the manufacturing cycle clearly bottoms. To hedge against this upside risk, we go tactically overweight Financials, and reiterate our overweight on Industrials and neutral on Australia. Bond yields should continue their rebound. We recommend an underweight on duration and favor TIPS. Credit should outperform on the cyclical horizon, but high corporate debt is a risk – we recommend a neutral position. Recommendations   Feature Overview Hedges All Around This is a particularly uncertain time for the global economy – and so a tricky one for asset allocators. Will manufacturing activity bottom soon, or will it drag down the services sector and consumption with it? Will bond yields continue their strong rebound? Is the Fed done cutting rates? Will China now ramp up monetary stimulus? Will Iran escalate a confrontation with Saudi Arabia? What will President Trump tweet about next? This is the sort of environment in which portfolio construction comes into its own. We have our view on all these questions, but our level of conviction is somewhat lower than usual. The way for investors to react is to plan asset allocation in such a way that a portfolio is robust in all the most probable scenarios. We expect the global manufacturing cycle to bottom soon. The Global Leading Economic Indicator is already picking up, and the Global PMI shows some signs of bottoming (Chart 1). The shortest-term lead indicator, the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index, has recently jumped in every region except Europe (Chart 2). (See also What Our Clients Are Asking on page 7 for some more esoteric indicators of cycle bottoms.) The bottoming-out is due to easier financial conditions over the past nine months, a stabilization in Chinese growth, and simply time – the down-leg in manufacturing cycles typically last 18 months, and this one peaked in H1 2018. Chart 1First Signs Of Bottoming Chart 2Surprisingly Strong Surprises     At the same time, government bond yields should have further to rise. The Fed may cut rates once more but, given the resilient U.S. economy, no more than that. This is less than the 59 basis points of cuts over the next 12 months priced in by the Fed Fund futures. The recent pick-up in economic surprises suggests that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield should return at least to where it was six months ago, 2.3-2.4% (Chart 3). This might be delayed, however, if there is an increase in political tensions, for example a break-up of the U.S./China trade talks (Chart 4). Chart 3Long-Term Rates To Rebound Further... Chart 4...But Geopolitical Tensions Remain A Risk This implies that equities are likely to continue to outperform bonds over the next few quarters, and so we remain overweight global equities and underweight global bonds on the 12-month investment horizon. However, the risks to this rosy scenario are rising. We remain concerned about the inverted yield curve, which has accurately forecast every recession since World War II, usually about 18 months in advance (Chart 5). The 3-month/10-year curve inverted in the middle of this year. We also worry that the weakness in the manufacturing sector may dent consumer confidence. There are some signs of this in Europe and Japan – but none significant yet in the U.S. (Chart 6). Accordingly last month, as a hedge against an economic downturn, we went overweight cash, which we see as a more attractive hedge, from a risk/reward point-of-view, than bonds. Chart 5Can We Ignore The Message From The Yield Curve? Chart 6Some Signs Of Weaker Consumer Confidence     We also remain overweight U.S. equities, which are lower-beta and have fewer structural headwinds than equities in other regions. However, we continue to look for an entry point into the more cyclical equity markets which would also be beneficiaries of bolder China stimulus. China’s monetary easing remains more tepid than in previous stimulus episodes. It has probably been enough to stabilize domestic activity (Chart 7) but not to trigger a rally in industrial commodity prices, EM assets, and euro area equities, as it did in 2016. A pick-up in global PMIs and signs of stronger Chinese credit growth would clearly help EM and Europe (Chart 8) but we need higher conviction that these things are indeed happening before making that move. In the meantime, we are hedging the upside risk by raising the global Financials sector tactically to overweight, since it would likely do well if euro area stocks started to outperform. Earlier this year, we raised the Industrials sector to overweight and Australian equities to neutral, also to hedge against the upside risk from more aggressive Chinese stimulus. Chart 7Chinese Stimulus Has Merely Stabilized Growth Chart 8Europe And EM Are The Most Cyclical Markets     Chart 9Oil Price Spikes Often Precede Recessions The biggest geopolitical risk to our sanguine scenario is the situation in the Middle East, after the attacks on Saudi oil refineries. Every recession in the past 50 years has been preceded by a 100% year-on-year spike in the crude oil price (though note that Brent would need to rise to over $100 a barrel by year-end, from $61 today, for that to eventuate (Chart 9)). A short-term oil shortage is not the problem since strategic reserves are ample. But the attack demonstrates the vulnerability of the Saudi installations. And a reprisal attack on Iran could lead it to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than 20% of global oil passes. We have an overweight on the Energy sector, partly as a hedge against these risks. BCA’s oil strategists expected Brent crude to rise to $70 this year, and average $74 in 2020, even before the recent attack. They argue that the risk premium in the oil price (the residual in Chart 10) is too low, given not only tensions with Iran, but also other potential supply disruptions in Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and elsewhere.   Chart 10Is The Oil Risk Premium Too Low?   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com     What Our Clients Are Asking Which Leading Indicators Should Investors Watch To Time The Rebound In Global Growth? Chart 11Positive Signals For Global Growth During 2019, the global growth decline was a key driver of the bond rally and the outperformance of defensive assets. Thus, timing when this decline will reverse will be crucial, since it would also result in a change of leadership from defensive to cyclical assets. But how can this be done? Below we list three of our favorite indicators that have provided reliable leading signals on the global economy in the past: Carry-trade performance: The performance of EM currencies with very high carry versus the yen tends to be a leading indicator for global growth (Chart 11, panel 1). In general, carry trades distribute liquidity from countries where funds are plentiful but rates of return are low (like Japan), to places with savings shortfalls and high risk, but where prospective returns are high. Positive performance of these currencies tends to signal a positive shift in global liquidity, which usually fuels global growth. Swedish inventory cycle: The Swedish new-orders-to-inventories ratio is a leading indicator of the global manufacturing cycle (panel 2). Why? Sweden is a small open economy that is very sensitive to global growth dynamics. Moreover, Swedish exports are weighted towards intermediate goods, which sit early in the global supply chain. This makes the Swedish inventory cycle a good early barometer of the health of the global manufacturing cycle. G3 monetary trends: G3 excess money supply – measured as the difference between money supply growth and loan growth – is a leading indicator of global industrial production (panel 3). As base money and deposits become more plentiful in the banking system relative to the pool of existing loans, the liquidity position of commercial banks improves. This provides banks with the necessary fuel to generate more loan growth, a development which eventually provides a boon to economic activity. Importantly, all these leading indicators are sending a positive signal on the global economy. This confirms our view that rates should go up as global growth strengthens. Therefore, investors should remain overweight equities and underweight bonds in their portfolios.   Is It Time To Buy Euro Area Banks? In a Special Report on euro area banks in December 2018, we noted that “Historically, when the relative P/B discount hits the lower band and the relative dividend yield hits the upper band, a rebound in relative return performance could be expected”.1 Our recommendation back then was that “long-term investors should avoid banks in the region, but investors with a more tactical mandate and much nimbler style could use the valuation indicators to ‘time’ their entry into and exit out of banks as a short-term trade.” Since then, banks have continued to underperform the overall market by over 10%, further pushing down relative valuation metrics. Currently, both relative P/B and relative dividend yield are at extreme levels that have historically heralded at least a short-term bounce. The euro area PMI is still below 50, but there are signs that the euro area economy could rebound later this year, which should be positive for banks’ relative earnings. Already, forward EPS growth has been stabilizing relative to the broad market (Chart 12, panel 4). In addition, two of the key concerns back in December 2018 were Italian government debt and the unwinding of QE. Now Italian debt is no longer in crisis and the ECB has relaunched QE. As such, investors with a tactical mandate and a nimble style should buy (overweight) banks in the euro area. Long-term investors should still avoid such a short-term trade because structural issues remain. Chart 12Tactically Upgrade Euro Area Banks   Is The Gold Rally Over? Spot gold prices have increased 17% year-to-date, on the back of global growth weakness, dovish central banks, and rising political tensions. Should investors now pare back their gold exposure? Common sense would suggest they should. However, these are not ordinary times. In the short term, gold prices might suffer from some profit-taking due to overbought technicals and excessively positive sentiment (Chart 13, panel 1). Moreover, gold prices have moved this year due to increased market expectations of central bank easing (panel 2). We expect that markets will be disappointed going forward by only limited rate cuts, which could put downward pressure on gold. On the other hand, with approximately 27%, or $14.9 trillion, of global debt with negative yields at the moment, investors will continue to shift to the next best asset – zero-yielding gold (panel 3). This is clear from the rise in holdings of gold over the past few years by both central banks and investors (panels 4 & 5). We expect this trend to persist as investors continue their search to avoid negative yields and focus on capital preservation. Geopolitical tensions have intensified since the beginning of the year: ongoing yet inconclusive trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, implementation of further tariffs, Brexit uncertainty, and the recent military attacks in the Middle East (panel 6). This environment should also continue to push gold prices higher. We continue to recommend gold as a hedge against inflation – which we see picking up over the next 12 months – as well as against any further deterioration in global growth and the geopolitical situation. Chart 13Gold: Sell Or Hold? Risks to the rosy scenario are rising. We remain concerned about the inverted yield curve, which has accurately forecast every recession since World War II. How Low Can Rates Go? The zero lower bound is a thing of the past. Last month, Denmark’s central bank cut rates to -0.75%, and 10-year government bonds in Switzerland hit a historic low for any major country, -1.12%. In the next recession, how much further could interest rates theoretically fall? For individuals, cash rates might be limited by the cost of storing paper currency, which has a zero yield (unless governments find a way to ban cash or charge an annual fee on it). A bank safety deposit box costs about $300 a year, and a professional-quality safe big enough to store $1 million (which would be a pile of $100 bills 31 x 55 cms, weighing 10 kg) costs $2,000 with installation costs. Amortize the latter over 10 years, and the cost of storing $1 million is about 0.2%-0.3% a year. Swiss franc bills – maximum denomination CHF1,000 – would cost less to store. But storage costs for physical gold are around 2% a year. Since rates have fallen below this, there must be other constraints. Individuals would find storing money in cash possibly dangerous and certainly very inconvenient (imagine having to transport the cash to a bank to pay a tax bill). And the cost for a rich individual or company of storing, say, $1 billion (weighing 10 tonnes) would be much higher. Given the history in even low-rate countries (Chart 14, panel 1), we suspect around -1% is the level at which cashholders would seek alternatives to bank deposits of government bills. Chart 14How Low Can They Go? Chart 15Yield Curves When Rates Are At Zero Or Below   At the long end, the yield curve does not typically invert much when short-term rates are zero or negative (Chart 15). The biggest 3-month/10-year inversion was in Switzerland earlier this year, -0.05%. This points then to the absolute lowest level for 10-year bonds anywhere, even in the middle of a nasty recession, at around -1.1%. That is a worry for asset allocators. It means that the maximum mathematical upside for Swiss government bonds from their current level (-0.8%) is 3% while it is 5% for German bonds (currently -0.5%). This is not much of a hedge. Only the U.S. looks better: if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 0%, the total return is 18%.   Global Economy Chart 16U.S. Growth Remains Solid Overview: Industrial-sector growth globally has been weak, with the manufacturing PMI in most countries falling below 50. But consumption and services almost everywhere have remained resilient, even in the manufacturing-heavy euro area. And there are tentative signs of a bottoming-out in manufacturing. However, a full-scale rebound will depend on further monetary stimulus in China, where the authorities still seem cautious about rolling out easing on the scale of what was done in 2016. U.S.: U.S. manufacturing has now followed the rest of the world into contraction, with the ISM manufacturing index slipping below 50 in August (Chart 16, panel 2). However, consumption and services are holding up well. Employment continues to expand (albeit at a slightly slower pace than last year, perhaps because of a lack of jobseekers), there is no sign of a rise in layoffs, and consumer confidence remains close to a historical high (though it slipped slightly in September). Housing has recovered after last year’s slowdown, and the recent congressional budgetary agreement means fiscal policy will be mildly expansionary over the coming 12 months. Only capex (panel 5) has slowed, as companies postpone investment decisions due to uncertainty surrounding the trade war. The consensus expects U.S. real GDP growth of 2.2% this year, above most estimates of trend growth. Euro Area: Given its higher concentration in manufacturing, European growth is weaker than in the U.S. The manufacturing PMI has been below 50 since February, and fell further to 45.6 in August. Industrial production is shrinking by 2% year-on-year. Italy has experienced two negative quarters of growth, and Germany may also enter a technical recession in Q3 (GDP shrank by 0.1% in Q2). However, there are some tentative signs that manufacturing is bottoming: the ZEW survey in September, for example, surprised on the upside. And, like the U.S., consumption remains strong. Even in manufacturing-heavy Germany, employment continues to grow, and retail sales in July were up 4.4% year-on-year. In the U.K., however, uncertainty surrounding Brexit has damaged business investment, though employment has been strong.2 Chart 17First Signs Of A Rebound In The Rest Of The World? Japan: Consumption has already slipped, even before the consumption tax hike scheduled in October. Retail sales in July fell 2% year-on-year, due to negative wage growth and consumer sentiment falling to a five-year low. Manufacturing continues to suffer from China’s slowdown and the strong yen (up 6% over the past 12 months), with exports falling 6% and industrial production down 2% year-on-year over the past three months. The effect of the consumption tax hike may be cushioned by government measures (lowering taxes on autos and making high-school education free, for example). And a pickup in Chinese growth would boost exports. But there are scant signs yet of a bottoming in activity. Emerging Markets: China’s growth appears to have stabilized, with both manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs above 50 (Chart 17, panel 3). But confidence remains fragile, with retail sales growth slowing to a 20-year low and car sales down 7% in August, despite the introduction of cars compliant with new emissions standards. The authorities have responded with further easing measures (including a further cut in the reserve requirement in September) but seem reluctant to launch a full-scale monetary stimulus, similar to what they did in 2016. Elsewhere in EM, growth has slowed in countries with structural issues (latest year-on-year real GDP growth in Argentina is -5.7%, in Turkey -1.5% and in Mexico -0.8%) but remains fairly resilient elsewhere (India 5%, Indonesia 5%, Poland 4.2%, Colombia 3.4%). Interest Rates: Central banks almost everywhere have turned dovish, with the Fed cutting rates for a second time, the ECB restarting asset purchases, and the Bank of Japan signaling it will ease in October. But further monetary accommodation will probably be less than the market expects. The Fed signaled that its cuts were just a mid-cycle correction and that further easing is unlikely. And the ECB and BoJ have little ammunition left. With signs of growth bottoming, and the market understanding that central banks’ dovish turn is reaching its end, long-term rates, which have already risen in the U.S. from 1.45% to 1.72% in September, are likely to move higher. Investors should also carefully watch U.S. inflation, which is showing signs of underlying strength, with core CPI inflation rising 2.4% year-on-year in August (and as much as 3.4% annualized over the past three months).   Global Equities Chart 18Has Earnings Growth Bottomed? Still Cautious, But Adding An Upside Hedge: Global equities registered a small loss of 8 basis points in Q3 (Chart 18) despite all the headline risks from geopolitics and weakening economic data. Overall, our defensive country allocation worked well in Q3, since DM equities outperformed EM by 4.5%, and the U.S. outperformed the euro area by 2.8%. Our sector positioning did not do as well since underweights in Utilities and Consumer Staples and overweights in Industrials, Energy and Health Care all went in the wrong direction, even though the underweight in Materials did help to offset the loss. During the quarter, however, both sector and country rotations were evident within the global equity universe, in line with the wild swings in bond yields. September saw some reversals in DM/EM, U.S./euro area and cyclical/defensives. Going forward, BCA’s House View remains that global economic growth will begin to recover over the coming months, albeit a little later than we previously expected. As such, our defensive country allocation remains appropriate. We did put euro area and EM equities on upgrade watch in April,3 but the delay in the global recovery also implies that it is still not the time to trigger this call. With our view that bond yields have hit bottom,4 we are making one adjustment in our global sector allocation by upgrading Financials to overweight from neutral. We are financing this by cutting in half the double overweight in Health Care to overweight (see next page for more details). This adjustment also acts as a hedge against two possible outcomes: 1) that the euro area outperforms the U.S., and 2) that Elizabeth Warren wins in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.5   Upgrade Global Financials To Overweight From Neutral Chart 19Upgrade Global Financials The relative performance of global Financials to the overall equity market has been hugely affected by the movements in global bond yields (Chart 19, panel 1). As bond yields made a sharp reversal in September, so did the relative performance of Financials, even though it is barely evident on the chart given how much Financials have underperformed the broad market over recent years. It’s not clear how sustainable the sharp reversal in bond yields will be, but BCA’s House View is that bond yields will move higher over the next 9-12 months. As such, we are upgrading Financials to overweight from neutral, for the following additional reasons: Valuations are extremely attractive as shown in panel 2. More importantly, the relative valuation is now at an extreme level that historically heralded a bounce in Financials’ relative performance. Loan quality has improved. The U.S. non-performing loan (NPL) ratio is nearing the lows reached before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Even in Spain and Italy, NPL ratios have fallen significantly, though they remain higher than they were prior to the GFC (panel 3). U.S. consumption has been strong, housing has rebounded, and demand for loans is getting stronger (panel 4), in line with data such as the Citi Economic Surprise Index, suggesting that economic data may have hit bottom. To finance this upgrade, we cut the double overweight of Health Care to overweight, as a hedge against Elizabeth Warren winning next year’s U.S. presidential election and tightening rules on drug pricing. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. Our below-benchmark duration call was severely challenged by the global bond markets in the first two months of the third quarter. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit 1.43% on September 3 in response to the weaker-than-expected ISM manufacturing index in the U.S., 57 bps lower than the level at the end of previous quarter, and just a touch higher than the historical low of 1.32% reached on July 6, 2016. The rebound in bond yields since September 5, however, was driven not only by the ebb and flow in the U.S./China trade policy dynamics, but also by the positive surprises in economic data releases, as shown in Chart 20. BCA’s Global Duration Indicator, constructed by our Global Fixed Income Strategy team using various leading economic indicators, is also pointing to higher yields globally going forward. Investors should maintain a slight underweight on duration over the next 9-12 months. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. Global inflation expectations have also rebounded after continuing their downtrend in the first two months of the quarter. This largely reflects the acceleration in August in realized inflation measures such as core CPI, core PCE, and average hourly earnings. In addition, historically, the change in the crude oil price tends to have a good correlation with inflation expectations. The oil price jumped initially by 20% following the attack on the Saudi Arabian oil production facilities. While it’s not clear how the geopolitical tensions will evolve in the Middle East, a conservative assumption of a flat oil price until the end of the year still points to much higher inflation expectations, supporting our preference for inflation-linked bonds over nominal bonds. We also favor linkers in Japan and Australia over their respective nominal bonds (Chart 21). Chart 20Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom Chart 21Favor Inflation Linkers We continue to look for an entry point into more cyclical markets which would benefit from a bolder Chinese stimulus. Corporate Bonds Since we turned cyclically overweight on credit within a fixed-income portfolio, investment-grade bonds and high-yield bonds have produced 220 and 73 basis points, respectively, of excess return over duration-matched government bonds. We remain bullish on the outlook for credit over the next 12 months, as we expect global growth to accelerate before the end of the year. Historically, improving global growth has resulted in sustained outperformance of credit over government bonds. Moreover, default rates should remain subdued over the next year given that lending standards continue to ease (Chart 22, panel 1). How long will we remain overweight credit? High levels of leverage, declining interest coverage ratios, and the high share of Baa-rated debt in the U.S. corporate debt market continue to make credit a risky proposition on a structural basis. However, with inflation expectations still very low, the Fed has a strong incentive to keep monetary policy easy. This dovish monetary policy should keep interest costs at bay, helping credit outperform over the next year. That said, we believe that there are some credit categories that are more attractive than others. Specifically, we recommend investors favor Baa-rated and high yield securities, given that there is still room for further credit compression in these credit buckets (panel 2 and panel 3). On the other hand, investors should stay away from the highest credit categories, as they no longer offer value (panel 4). Chart 22Baa-rated And High-Yield Credit Offer The Most Value   Commodities Chart 23No Supply Shock In The Oil Market Energy (Overweight): September’s drone attack on Saudi crude facilities sent oil prices soaring as much as 20% in the days following, before falling back to pre-attack levels. Initial estimates estimated the supply disruption at 5.7 million barrels a day – approximately 5.5% of global supply – making it the largest crude supply outage in history. However, assuming the Saudis can return 70% of the lost output back online as they claim, OPEC’s spare capacity, approximately 1.8 million barrels a day, should be able to balance the market and cover the remaining lost production.6,7 In the longer-term, a pick-up in global oil demand, as economic growth rebounds, plus supply tightness should keep oil price elevated, with Brent reaching $70 this year and averaging $74 in 2020 (Chart 23, panels 1 & 2). Industrial Metals (Neutral): A combination of half-hearted year-to-date stimulus by Chinese authorities and a stronger USD in the second and third quarters of 2019 have driven industrial metals spot prices lower. However, the Chinese government announced additional stimulus in September, with further bond issuance to finance infrastructure projects and an easing of monetary policy (panel 3). This should give some upside for industrial metal prices over the coming six-to-12 months. Precious Metals (Neutral): We remain positive on gold, despite its strong performance year-to-date, since we see it as a good hedge against recession, inflation, and geopolitical risks. We discuss gold in detail in the What Our Clients Are Asking section on page 9. Silver also looks attractive in the short term. The nature of the use of silver has changed over the past two decades, from being mostly a base metal for industrial fabrication to becoming more of a precious metal viewed as a safe haven. The correlation between gold and silver prices has increased since the Global Financial Crisis from an average of 0.5 pre-crisis to 0.8 post-crisis (panels 4 & 5). Global growth and political uncertainty should support silver prices in the coming months. Currencies U.S. Dollar: The trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 2.5% since we turned neutral in April. We expect that the steep drop in yields will continue to ease financial conditions and help global growth in the last quarter of the year. Given that the dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, an environment where global growth rallies have historically been negative for the greenback. Euro: Since we turned bullish in April, EUR/USD has depreciated by 2.7%. Overall, we continue to be positive on EUR/USD on a cyclical timeframe. After the ECB cut rates by 10 basis points and announced further rounds of quantitative easing, there is not much room left for the euro area to keep easing relative to the U.S. (Chart 24, panel 1). Moreover, improving expectations of profit growth in the euro area vis-à-vis the U.S. will drive money flows towards Europe, pushing EUR/USD up in the process (panel 2). Emerging Market Currencies: We remain bearish on emerging market currencies for the time being. That being said, they remain on upgrade watch for the end of the year. There are multiple signs that global growth is turning up, a consequence of the easy financial conditions caused by some of the lowest bond yields on record. Moreover, the marginal propensity to spend (proxied by M1 growth relative to M2 growth) in China, the main engine of EM growth, continues to point to further appreciation in emerging market currencies (panel 3). Chart 24Interest Rate And Profit Expectation Differentials Favor The Euro     Alternatives Chart 25Favor Hedge Funds Untill Global Growth Bottoms Return Enhancers: Over the past 12 months, we have recommended investors pare back on private equity and increase allocations to hedge funds – macro hedge funds in particular. This was due to our judgement that we are late in the economic cycle. While we expect growth to pick up over the coming months, this is not yet clear in the data (Chart 25, panel 1). This uncertain macro outlook will prove tough for private equity funds, especially given an environment of rising multiples and increasing competition for deals. We continue to see global macro hedge funds as the best hedge ahead of the next recession and would advise investors to allocate funds now, given the time it takes to move allocations in the illiquid space. Inflation Hedges: In the current environment, TIPS are likely a better inflation hedge than illiquid alternative assets. Our May 2019 Special Report 8 showed that TIPS produce a particularly attractive risk-adjusted return during times when inflation is rising, but still fairly low (below 2.3%). TIPS should do well, therefore, in the environment we expect over the next few months, where the Fed remains dovish, cutting rates perhaps once more, while condoning a moderate acceleration of inflation (panel 2). Volatility Dampeners: Structured products – mostly Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) – have had an excellent record of reducing portfolio volatility (panel 3). Despite that, we do not recommend more than a neutral allocation to MBS currently due to a less-than-attractive valuation picture. Despite Treasury yields falling by more than 100 basis points this year and refinancing activity picking up, nominal MBS spreads remained near their all-time lows. However, as Treasury yields bottom, we expect refinancing to slow, putting downward pressure on spreads. Risks To Our View The most likely upside risk comes from the Fed being too dovish and falling behind the curve. Underlying inflation pressures in the U.S. remain strong (with core CPI up 3.4% annualized over the past three months). After two rate cuts, the Fed Funds rate is now comfortably below the neutral rate: 0.1% in real terms compared to a Laubach-Williams r* of 0.8% (Chart 26). Tightness in the money markets have pushed the Fed to start expanding its balance sheet again. If manufacturing growth accelerates next year, and wages and profits begin to rise, a stock market melt-up, similar to that in 1999, would be possible. Eventually, though, the Fed would need to raise rates (perhaps sharply) to kill inflation, which could usher in the next recession. There are a broader range of possible downside risks. As argued throughout this Quarterly, there are various possible triggers of recession: failure of China to stimulate, and a loss of confidence by consumers, in particular. Some models of recession put the risk over the next 12 months as high as 30% (Chart 27). Structurally, the biggest risk is probably the high level of corporate debt in the U.S. (Chart 28). A breakdown in the junk bond market, as seen briefly last December, could lead to companies failing to refinance the large amount of debt maturing over the next 18 months. Geopolitical risks also remain elevated and are, by nature, hard to forecast. The outcome of Brexit remains highly uncertain – though we see low risk of a no-deal exit. We expect trade talks between the U.S. and China to drag on, without a comprehensive deal, while a clear breakdown would be negative. Impeachment of President Trump is probably not a significant market event, but might hurt market sentiment briefly (particularly if it makes the election of Elizabeth Warren more likely). The Iran/Saudi conflict could escalate. Risk premiums may need to rise to take into account these threats. Chart 26Is The Fed Turning Too Dovish? Chart 27What Risk Of Recession? Chart 28Is Corporate Debt The Biggest Risk?   Footnotes 1Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, titled "Euro Area Banks: Value Play Or Value Trap?" dated December 14, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise?”, dated 20 September 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly, titled "Quarterly - April 2019" dated April 1, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 4Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom," dated September 6, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Elizabeth Warren And The Markets," dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6Dmitry Zhdannikov and Alex Lawler “Exclusive: Saudi oil output to return faster than first thought - sources,” Reuters, dated Sepetmber 17, 2019. 7Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert titled, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raises Questions About U.S. Response,” dated September 16, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, titled “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation