Financial Markets

Special Report

Highlights Actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds have been hemorrhaging assets under management (AUM), with the lost AUM flowing directly to ETFs and index mutual funds. Chatter about the adverse consequences of too much passive investing is intensifying, and BCA clients are increasingly asking if a bubble is inflating in passive investing or ETFs more generally. We view passive investing as the surest cure for passive investing and do not worry that index tracking is undermining price discovery or distorting equity markets. Temporary distortions are manna from heaven for professional investors and we would like to have more of them. Active mutual fund management may not be all it’s cracked up to be, in any event. The Active Share metric, which measures the portion of a portfolio that differs from its benchmark, has been in steady decline for the last 30 years, indicating that active management practices have undergone a sea change. We have faith in ETFs’ underlying architecture and continue to recommend investing in them. They are an efficient, inexpensive and liquid way to gain market exposure and investors need not worry about getting stuck when the music stops. Feature Dear Client, The market impact of passive investing continues to be a hot topic among investors, sell-side researchers and the financial media. To contribute our view to the discussion, we are sending you a lightly edited update of a review of passive investing’s implications first published under our Global ETF Strategy banner in September 2017. We met with clients in China last week, and will be taking some time off this week, so we will not be publishing on April 29th. We will resume publication on Monday, May 6th. Best regards, Doug Peta   Over the last few years, we have received a thin but steady stream of questions from clients asking about a potential ETF bubble. We note that ETFs do not exhibit any of the characteristics delineated by economic historian Charles Kindleberger in Manias, Panics and Crashes. There is a difference between the increasingly widespread adoption of a useful innovation and a febrile spell of mass exuberance or suspension of disbelief. We have duly expressed the view in one-on-one communications with clients that ETFs shouldn’t inspire any particular worry. The related chatter about a passive investment bubble only seems to intensify, however, and we focus on it in this Special Report. We ultimately fail to see the justification for the most extreme warnings about the dangers of passive investing. Perhaps the emergence and bursting of two bubbles in rapid succession has sparked a mini-bubble in searching for bubbles among academics, investors and reporters. We do not think that the popularity of ETFs is distorting pricing mechanisms, though we would welcome a good distortion to break up the logjam of full-but-not-extreme valuations that portend tepid intermediate- and long-term balanced portfolio returns. The Active Management Exodus The causes and consequences may be a matter of debate, but the facts are clear: actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds have been losing ground to index mutual funds for two-and-a-half decades (Chart 1). Before ETFs began to boom ahead of the crisis, active equity mutual funds still managed to attract annual net inflows despite their share losses, but they have now suffered net outflows in every one of the last 12 years. Index ETF and index mutual fund inflows have amounted to nearly 90% of the active mutual funds’ outflows, with index ETFs drawing more than twice the AUM as their mutual fund counterparts (Chart 2). Chart 2Mirror Image Given the near symmetry of active mutual fund outflows and index fund inflows, it appears that an extended active-to-passive migration is well under way. The move is rational, and has helped investors at the expense of asset managers, as index funds cost considerably less than actively managed funds. (In 2017, the asset-weighted average expense ratio for actively managed and index equity mutual funds was 0.78% and 0.09%, respectively.) If mutual fund managers tend to be wealthier than their clients, the fee savings give the economy a modest boost by shifting wealth to households with a higher marginal propensity to consume. The Spoilsport Chorus What’s not to like about lower fees for the same, or better, returns?1 Plenty, as it turns out. The myriad objections to passive investing’s increasing sway boil down to three major arguments: passive investing undermines price discovery; passive investing undermines capital allocation; and passive investing is potentially anti-competitive. Price insensitivity carries the seeds of its own demise. An index-tracking investor is a price-insensitive investor, and a surfeit of passive investment could undermine equity markets’ price-discovery function. Index-trackers are free riders, living off of the active investors whose trading decisions set prices. Just as a parasite cannot live without a host, naive passive investors need price-setters to keep them safe. The passive investing naysayers’ heads are filled with images of lemmings rushing over the edge of a cliff after active investors are routed, but we are not so sure. It’s important to remember that the price an investor pays for a security2 is the major determinant of his/her long-run return, and a price-insensitive investor is all but certain to underperform a price-aware investor over time, perhaps by a material margin. Thus the cure for passive investment is passive investment; the fewer active investors participating in the markets, the greater the prospective returns accruing to active investment. Greater prospective returns will draw an increasing proportion of assets until active management is no longer likely to outperform. Then the pendulum will swing back to index investing – lather, rinse, repeat – but skilled security analysts will have a field day while their talents are underappreciated. Passive investing’s impact on markets’ capital allocation function is indirect at best. Only primary market transactions channel capital to, or from, ideas and enterprises. Secondary market transactions merely involve exchanges of capital between incumbents and new owners, and index tracking is a secondary-market function. The sell-siders that found passive investing wanting in comparison with central planning would seem to have been trying too hard to be provocative.3 The late John Bogle may have been a bit of a scold, but we’d take him over Karl Marx any day. The notion that high concentrations of ownership among passive holders could be anti-competitive strikes us as especially strained. An article published in The Atlantic a year and a half ago bore the provocative headline, “Are Index Funds Evil?” and sub-header, “A growing chorus of experts argue that they’re strangling the economy – and must be stopped.4” The article highlighted a working paper from a team of newly-minted PhDs that argued that high common ownership in the airline industry has been associated with decreased route competition and increased fares. If the same entities hold significant stakes in all of the companies in a particular industry, those entities may have an incentive to collude to restrain competition within the industry and thereby increase the size of the pie for the industry as a whole. This may be so at the airline-industry level, but as passive owners of the entire market, Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street own considerable stakes in every other industry as well, so increasing the profitability of a single portfolio segment at the expense of other portfolio segments would seem to be self-defeating, not to mention personally risky, given stiff antitrust penalties. What Makes A Bubble? Bubbles differ in their specifics, but they share several common empirical characteristics. Kindleberger homes in on the easy availability of credit and its role in enabling the euphoria that fuels temporarily self-reinforcing, albeit ultimately unsustainable, price gains. The gains generated by the headlong pursuit of short-term capital gains are the key to keeping the bubble going, but the upward price movement is halted in its tracks when credit availability slows, and prices plunge like Wile E. Coyote once it’s cut off. Neither ingredient has been a part of the ETF boom. Index ETFs are the opposite of a get-rich-quick scheme; they’re what investors buy when they decide to stop chasing after buried treasure. The easy and inexpensive availability of credit has surely contributed to elevated equity multiples (Chart 3) and narrow bond spreads (Chart 4). The instruments ETFs hold are somewhat pricey and will be vulnerable when the next recession comes, but they are not discounting euphoric expectations that cannot realistically be met. ETF sponsors do not rely on debt; launching an ETF is such a capital-light process that the field is full to bursting with several funds that amount to unfinished experiments. Without the burden of servicing debt, sponsors are free to throw their ideas up against a wall and see what sticks. Chart 3Equity Multiples Are Elevated... Chart 4... And Spreads Are Tight ETFs are not being bought on margin in any significant degree; they are not the apple of frenzied gain-chasers’ eyes. Aside from leveraged ETFs that provide a designated multiple of daily returns, pooled investment vehicles that amalgamate the performance of several securities are the antithesis of an ideal speculative instrument. Index ETFs allow an investor to obtain benchmark returns at low cost and with a minimum of fuss, and are a sane alternative to speculation. As Benjamin Graham put it, the dumb money ceases to be dumb when it acknowledges its limitations, and index investing is an explicit acknowledgement of one’s limitations. ETF Flows Are Not Coming Out Of Thin Air To the notion that “so much money is flowing into ETFs that it’s distorting prices across the board,” we say not necessarily. If the money to buy ETFs were materializing out of thin air (as it is in Tokyo and Zurich thanks to the efforts of the BoJ and the SNB), one could argue that ETF inflows are inflating multiples and narrowing spreads. But the money to purchase U.S.-listed ETFs comes almost entirely from sales of actively managed mutual funds. ETF purchases are a reallocation of existing investment capital, not new marginal investment with the potential to move markets. Just How Active Are The “Active” Outflows? Chart 5Indexing Hasn't Hijacked Equity Correlations On the subject of changes at the margin, if the capital to purchase index ETFs comes from mutual funds that are active in name only, they simply shift cash from one passive pocket to another, and don’t amount to any change at all. The professor-investors who created the Active Share metric to measure how much a portfolio deviates from its benchmark5 describe a mutual fund industry that has steadily migrated away from stock picking. By their reckoning, the share of mutual fund assets managed by closet indexers rose from 1% in 1980 to nearly 33% in 2009.6 Using the Active Share calculator at https://activeshare.info/, we find that one-third of AUM in actively-managed U.S. equity mutual funds with AUM of at least $1 billion are held by closet-indexing mutual funds (funds with Active Share of 60% or less). Our large-fund sample suggests that two-thirds of active fund AUM is truly active. The loss of even that amount of actively managed assets does not appear to have been enough to hijack internal market dynamics. If everyone became an index tracker, and all trades were trades of the entire market, correlations at the stock and sector level would go to 1. Despite ETFs’ growing muscle, and their capture of share from stock-picking funds, correlations have not consistently risen over the 2015-17 period that has witnessed a stampede from active to indexed equity funds (Chart 5). Investment Implications We do not believe that the steadily expanding investment in passive vehicles poses a threat to markets or investors. Passive vehicles offer investors the most cost-effective way to obtain market exposure and the actively managed funds they’re exchanging for index trackers have become increasingly less active as benchmark indexes have become more prominent. If the passive trend continues, and a rising share of capital is invested without regard for distinctions between companies, the ex-ante returns to active strategies will increase and investors will return to them in droves. In the meantime, if passive investing’s share reaches the tipping point, wherever it may be, fundamentally-focused investors will feast on excess returns. Active investors will clean up if passive investing ever crosses the tipping point. We do not worry that passive investing will weigh on the economy by hindering the efficient allocation of capital to the ideas with the most merit. Index tracking is confined to the secondary markets and will not consign the U.S. economy to a Soviet fate. We view the suggestion that index tracking may lead to collusion among operating companies as unfounded conjecture. Investors need not worry that ETFs are in a bubble, or that investing in passive strategies will be a drag on economic output.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 In a typical year, a majority of mutual funds underperform their benchmarks. 2 Price is defined as starting real yield for bonds, and cyclically-adjusted P/E for equities. 3 “The Silent Road to Serfdom: Why Passive Investing Is Worse Than Marxism,” August 23, 2016, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC. 4    Partnoy, Frank, “Are Index Funds Evil?” The Atlantic, September 2017. 5 Cremers, K.J. Martijn and Petajisto, Antti. “How Active Is Your Fund Manager? A New Measure That Predicts Performance,” Review of Financial Studies, September 2009. 6 Petajisto, Antti. “Active Share and Mutual Fund Performance,” Financial Analysts Journal, July/August 2013.

Highlights Solid credit growth numbers from China last week suggest an emerging window for pro-cylical currency trades. However, since 2009, these currency pairs have tended to work in real time rather than with a lag. Continued muted currency action over the next few weeks will be cause for concern. Our favorite currency pairs to play U.S. dollar downside for now are the SEK, NOK and GBP. With the Aussie dollar close to the epicenter of Chinese stimulus, data down under is increasingly stabilizing. Place a limit buy on AUD/USD at 0.70. Improving global growth will eventually put downward pressure on the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar. Meanwhile, the risk-reward profile for safe-haven currencies has been greatly augmented in this low-volatility environment. Rising net short positioning on the yen and swiss franc is making them attractive from a contrarian standpoint. Feature The unambiguous message from incoming data is that we are entering a reflationary window. Our report last week highlighted the fact that the Chinese economy is in a bottoming process.1 Since then, data out of China has come out much stronger than expected. Export growth in March surged from -21% to 14%, new yuan-denominated loans came in at 1.7 trillion RMB versus 886 billion RMB the previous month, and industrial production in March grew at 8.5% on an annual basis – the strongest print since July 2014. Retail sales were also stronger and house prices are re-inflating, suggesting construction activity will pick up steam. Historically, March data is a cleaner print compared to prior months since it evades nuances from the Chinese lunar new year. As such, these numbers are consistent with a re-acceleration in domestic demand in the Chinese economy in the coming months. As we embrace confirmation that the Chinese economy has bottomed, it will be important to monitor if this cycle plays out like those in the past. Since 2009, the evolution of the Chinese credit cycle has been an important driver of pro-cyclical currency trades. However, in recent years there appears to have been diminishing returns to these trades. Continued lack of more pronounced strength in the Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian dollar exchange rates in light of solid hard data out of China will be genuine reason for concern. Our general assessment is that while the credit impulse in China has clearly bottomed, the magnitude of the rise is unlikely to be what we saw in 2015-2016. Given this backdrop, not all pro-cyclical currency pairs are going to benefit equally. We are long the SEK, NOK, and GBP and recommend adding AUD to the list of pro-cyclical favorites. Paradoxically, the risk-reward profile for safe-haven currencies has also been greatly augmented in this low-volatility environment, but it is still too early to begin putting on currency hedges. Pro-Cyclical Trades Need Broad Dollar Weakness Chart I-1 highlights the fact that pro-cyclical currencies have had diverging performances over the evolution of the business cycle since 2009. The aftermath of the global financial crisis was most bullish for commodity currencies, with the AUD, CAD, NOK, and NZD rising around 20%-30% versus the U.S. dollar. The DXY index was roughly flat during this period, but the broad trade-weighted dollar did weaken. The biggest driver back then was rising commodity prices, driven by Chinese demand and a revaluation of these currency pairs from deeply oversold levels. The weakest currencies were the euro and yen. Chart I-2New Lows In Currency Volatility The second phase of the business cycle upswing occurred from July 2012 to February 2014, using the global Purchasing Managers’ Index from J.P. Morgan. During this phase, the best-performing currency pairs were the euro and swiss franc, and the worst was the Japanese yen. Commodity currencies fared poorly back then. The driver then was monetary policy, with European Central Bank Governor Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” put and the launch of “Abenomics.” Notably, the 4% weakness in the DXY did not help pro-cyclical currencies much, given commodity prices had peaked. From February 2016 to December 2017, the upswing was driven again by Chinese stimulus. Commodity prices rallied and the dollar did weaken significantly, which helped pro-cyclical currencies. However, the returns were modest compared to 2009-2010 episode. The yen was flat during the period. Finally, NOK, SEK and NZD have been winners throughout all three business cycle upswings. This time around, more evidence will need to emerge that the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar has peaked for pro-cyclical currencies to outperform. For now, the calm in developed currency markets seems very eerie, given the flow of incoming economic data. We have highlighted in recent bulletins that most currency pairs have been narrowly trading towards the apex of very tight wedge formations, which has severely dampened volatility (Chart I-2). In the post-Bretton Woods world, it has been very rare for periods of extended currency stability to persist. We eventually expect the U.S. dollar to weaken, but we will need to closely monitor the forces that have so far been keeping a bid under it.  Liquidity, Global Growth And The Dollar Most measures of relative trends still favor the dollar. The April Markit manufacturing PMI releases this week showed that while both Japan and the euro area remain in contraction territory, the U.S. reading of 52.4 puts it solidly above the rest of the world. It is true that the momentum of this leadership has been rolling over recently, but historically such growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world have generated anywhere from 10%-15% rallies in the greenback over a period of six months (Chart I-3). So far, the DXY dollar index is up 1% for the year. Repatriation flows have had a non-neglible influence on the broad trade-weighted dollar. Meanwhile, even though the Federal Reserve has paused hiking interest rates, relative policy trends still favor the greenback. The interest rate gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world pins the broad trade-weighted dollar index at 128, or 7% above current levels (Chart I-4). And even today, unless the Fed moves toward outright rate cuts, the dovish shift by other central banks around the world remains an immediate tailwind for the U.S. dollar. It will be important for yield curves to steepen globally as confirmation that other central banks are getting ahead of the curve, which should be a headwind for the dollar. Chart I-3U.S. Growth Leadership ##br##Is Rolling Over Chart I-4Interest Rate Differentials Still Favor The Dollar Internationally, dollar liquidity will need to increase significantly for the greenback to meaningfully weaken. The Fed’s tapering of asset purchases has been a net drain on dollar liquidity, despite a widening U.S. current account deficit. This is expected to end by September, but has already triggered a severe contraction in the U.S. monetary base. Our preferred measure of international liquidity is foreign central bank reserves deposited at the Fed, and this is still contracting at its worst pace in over 40 years (Chart I-5). At a minimum, an end to the balance sheet runoff will steer growth in the U.S. monetary base from deeply negative to zero. A rising external profit environment will be needed for an increase in foreign central bank reserves. Finally, data from the U.S. Treasury International Capital (TIC) system show that on a rolling 12-month basis, the U.S. continues to repatriate back a net of about $400 billion in assets, or close to 2% of GDP. Repatriation flows have had a non-neglible influence on the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-6). Unless these flows roll over and begin to weaken, it will make it very difficult for the greenback to depreciate. Chart I-5International Dollar Liquidity Remains Tight Chart I-6Repatriation Flows Still Favor The Dollar Chart I-7Watch The Gold-To-Bond Ratio The bottom line is that pro-cyclical currencies will need broad dollar weakness to outperform. Our favorite indicator for gauging ultimate downside in the dollar is the gold-to-bond ratio (Chart I-7). Any sign that the balance of forces are moving away from the U.S. dollar will favor a breakout in the gold-to-bond ratio. For now, our favorite currency pairs to play U.S. dollar downside are the SEK, NOK, and GBP. What About Safe Havens? During bull markets, countries that have negative interest rates are subject to powerful outflows from carry trades. The impact of these outflows are difficult to measure, but it is fair to assume that periods of low hedging costs (which tend to correspond to periods of lower volatility) can be powerful catalysts. As markets get volatile and these trades get unwound, unhedged trades become victim to short-covering flows. With many yield curves around the world flattening, the danger is that the frequency of this short-covering implicitly rises, since long bond returns are falling short of spot rates. One winner as volatility starts to rise is the yen (Chart I-8). Investors should consider initiating small short USD/JPY and USD/CHF positions in the coming weeks as a portfolio hedge. Back in late 2016, global growth was soft, the yen was very cheap and everyone was short the currency on the back of a dovish shift by the Bank of Japan. Having recently introduced yield curve control (YCC), the market was grappling with the dovish implications for the currency, arguably the most significant change in monetary policy by any central bank at the time in several years. Given that backdrop, the yen strengthened by circa 10% from December 2016 to mid-2017, even as equity markets remained resilient. When the equity market drawdown finally arrived in early 2018, it carried the final legs of the yen rally. Dollar weakness was a significant reason for yen strength given global growth was accelerating, a negative for the counter-cyclical dollar. But with a net international investment position of almost 60% of GDP, and yearly income receipts of almost 4% of GDP, any volatility in markets could lead to powerful repatriation flows back to Japan. Chart I-9The Consumption Tax Hike Will Hurt Japanese Growth We expect the BoJ to remain on hold at next week’s policy meeting, but the incentive for the central bank to act preemptively this time around is getting stronger. The starting point is that the consumption tax hike, scheduled for October this year, will be disastrous for the economy. Since the late 1990s, every time the consumption tax has been hiked, the economy has slumped by an average of over 1.3% in subsequent quarters. For an economy with a potential growth rate of just 0.5-1%, this is a highly unpalatable outcome (Chart I-9). More importantly, similar to past episodes, the consumption tax is being hiked at a time when the economy is slowing. This week’s data show that exports continued to contract for the month of March. Machine tool orders, a good proxy for Japanese machinery sales, are still falling by almost 30% year-on-year. The Japanese PMI remains below the 50 boom/bust line, even though it has ticked marginally higher in April. Both household and business confidence are falling. The Economy Watcher’s Survey is currently at 44.8, well below the 50 boom/bust line and the lowest reading since 2016. In its April regional outlook, the BoJ downgraded most of the prefectures in Japan, with only Hokkaido receiving an upgrade in the aftermath of the earthquake. As domestic deflationary pressures intensify, this should nudge the BoJ towards more stimulus. This also raises the probability that the government defers the consumption tax hike. However, the yen could benefit from any short-covering rallies in the interim. We expect the BoJ to remain on hold at next week’s policy meeting, but the incentive for the central bank to act preemptively this time around is getting stronger. Bottom Line: The risk-reward profile for safe-haven currencies has been greatly augmented in this low-volatility environment. The rise in net short positioning on the yen and Swiss franc is becoming attractive from a contrarian standpoint. Investors should consider initiating short USD/JPY and short USD/CHF positions in the coming weeks as a hedge. Place A Limit-Buy On AUD/USD At 0.70 Data out of Australia are showing tentative signs of a bottom. This week’s important jobs report showed that the economy added 25,700 jobs, more than double the consensus forecast. Importantly, this was driven by full-time jobs, with a net gain of 48,300. And despite the participation rate ticking higher, unemployment stayed near a six-year low at 5%. Admittedly, the most recent Reserve Bank of Australia minutes showed there was discussion about rate cuts, but this could change if the economy begins to benefit from an acceleration in Chinese growth. Outright short AUD bets are at risk from either upside surprises in global growth or simply the forces of mean reversion. For more than two decades, the Australian dollar has tended to be mostly driven by external conditions, especially the commodity cycle. But for the first time in several years, domestic factors have joined in to exert powerful downward pressure on the currency. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) succeeded in its mission to deflate the overvalued housing market, and with house prices deflating by over 5% year-on-year, Australia may already be far along its adjustment path, especially vis-à-vis its antipodean counterpart (Chart I-10). In terms of currency performance, a lot of the bad news already appears priced in to the Australian dollar, which is down 12% from its 2018 peak and 35% from its 2011 peak. This suggests outright short AUD bets are at risk from either upside surprises in global growth or simply the forces of mean reversion (Chart I-11). We are already long the Aussie dollar versus the kiwi and suggest placing a limit-buy on AUD/USD at 0.7. Chart I-10The Aussie Housing Market Has Already Adjusted Chart I-11Chinese Growth Will Benefit The Aussie Dollar Chart I-12LNG Exports Will Benefit The Aussie Dollar Finally, the AUD/USD cross will benefit from rising terms-of-trade. Iron ore prices are already surging, reflecting supply-related issues but also rising demand in China. Meanwhile, Beijing’s clear environmental push has lifted the share of liquefied natural gas in Australia’s export mix (Chart I-12). Given that eliminating pollution is a strategic goal in China, this will be a multi-year tailwind. As the market becomes more liberalized and long-term contracts are revised to reflect higher spot prices, the Aussie dollar will get a boost.   Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Reading The Tea Leaves From China,” dated April 12, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. suggest a slower pace of growth: The preliminary U. of Mich. consumer sentiment index fell to 96.9 in April. The NY empire state manufacturing index surprised to the upside, coming in at 10.1 in April. Industrial production contracted by 0.1% month-on-month in March. Trade balance came in at a lower-than-expected deficit of $49.4B in February. Retail sales increased by 1.6% month-on-month in March. Preliminary April Markit composite PMI fell to 52.8; manufacturing component and services component fell to 52.4 and 52.9, respectively. DXY index edged up by 0.35% this week. The Fed’s Beige Book was released on Wednesday, summarizing that economic activity expanded at a slight-to-moderate pace in March and early April, with some states showing more signs of relative strength. The Book suggests that going forward, a similarly muted pace of growth should be anticipated for the coming months. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Tug OF War, With Gold As Umpire - March 29, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area remain soft: Industrial production came in at -0.3% year-on-year in February, outperforming expectations. April ZEW economic sentiment index improved to 4.5 in euro area. The German ZEW current conditions component fell to 5.5, while sentiment improved to 3.1 nonetheless. The current account balance fell to €26.8B, while trade balance increased to €19.5B in February. March headline inflation and core inflation were unchanged at 1.4% and 0.8% year-on-year, respectively. The euro area April composite PMI fell to 51.3; the services component fell to 52.5; the manufacturing component increased to 47.5. German composite PMI increased to 52.1; manufacturing and services components increased to 44.5 and 55.6, respectively. French composite PMI increased to 50; manufacturing component fell to 49.6; services component increased to 50.5. EUR/USD fell by 0.34% this week. As the Chinese economy bottoms, this should benefit European exports and the euro. Report Links: Reading The Tea Leaves From China - April 12, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 A Contrarian Bet On The Euro - March 1, 2019 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been neutral: The adjusted trade balance decreased, coming in at a ¥177.8 billion deficit in March. Exports contracted by 2.4% year-on-year, while imports grew by 1.1% year-on-year. Industrial production fell by 1.1% year-on-year in February. The preliminary Nikkei manufacturing PMI improved to 49.5 in April. USD/JPY has been trading flat this week. During the most recent IMF meeting, global finance chiefs have warned that global growth uncertainties remain at a high level. With currency volatility at record lows, any flight to safety could support safe-haven currencies like the yen. Report Links: Tug OF War, With Gold As Umpire - March 29, 2019 A Trader’s Guide To The Yen - March 15, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been mostly positive: Rightmove house price index slightly improved to -0.1% year-on-year in April.  On the labor market front, 179K jobs were created in February; ILO unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.9%; average weekly earnings came in line at 3.5% year-on-year.  On the inflation front, headline inflation and core inflation were unchanged at 1.9% and 1.8% year-on-year, respectively, underperforming expectations. Retail sales came in at 6.7% year-on-year in March, surprising to the upside. GBP/USD fell by 0.5% this week. With Brexit being kicked down the road, the volatility of sterling has dropped, and attention is moving towards U.K. fundamentals. Economic surprises in the U.K. relative to both the U.S. and euro area are soaring. This will put a bid under sterling. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 A Trader’s Guide To The Yen - March 15, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The labor market in Australia remains robust: Westpac leading index increased by 0.19% month-on-month in March. 25.7K jobs were created in total in March, with 48.3K new full-time jobs and a loss of 22.6K part-time jobs. The participation rate increased to 65.7% in March, slightly higher than expected which nudged the unemployment rate to 5%, in line with expectations. AUD/USD appreciated by 0.7% this week, now approaching 0.72. The RBA published its meeting minutes on Tuesday. The minutes stated that the Australian dollar is still near its recent lower end. However, the strength in commodity prices and improving trade terms are supporting the currency. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1   Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2   Recent data in New Zealand are slowing: Q1 inflation fell to 1.5% year-on-year, underperforming expectations. NZD/USD fell by 0.8% this week. The relative underperformance of New Zealand growth could further weaken the Kiwi on a cyclical basis. Our long AUD/NZD position is now 1.6% in the money. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mostly positive: The Teranet/National Bank HPI fell to 1.5% year-on-year in March. Existing home sales in March grew by 0.9% month-on-month, higher than the previous reading of -9.1% while still lower than the expected 2%. Trade balance came in at a smaller deficit of 2.9 billion CAD. Headline inflation and core inflation climbed to 1.9% and 1.6% year-on-year respectively. The ADP number of new jobs created fell to 13.2K in March. Retail sales increased by 0.8% month-on-month in February, outperforming expectations. USD/CAD fell by 0.3% this week. The spring 2019 BoC Business Outlook Survey was released on Monday. It’s worth mentioning that the Business Outlook Survey Indicator fell from a strongly positive level in the winter survey to slightly negative, implying the softening in recent business sentiment. Report Links: A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been positive: Producer and import prices came in at -0.2% year-on-year in March, higher than the previous reading of -0.7%. Trade balance increased to a surplus of 3.2 billion CHF in March. Exports increased to 21 billion CHF, and imports increased to 17.9 billion CHF. Swiss watch exports increased by 4.4% year-on-year in March. USD/CHF rose by 1% this week. The global growth stabilization and improving sentiment in the euro area are offsetting the attractiveness of the safe-haven franc. We are long EUR/CHF for a 1% profit. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There is little data from Norway this week: Trade balance in March fell to 13.9 billion NOK. USD/NOK fell after the spike overnight, returning flat this week. The Norwegian krone is still trading at around one sigma band below its fair value, while the economic activity is improving with rising oil prices. Our long NOK/SEK position is now at a 3.6% profit. Report Links: A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: The unemployment rate increased to 6.7% in March. USD/SEK appreciated by 0.2% this week. Like the Norwegian krone, the Swedish krona is undervalued, trading at a large discount to its fair value. We remain overweight the SEK, which will benefit from a bottoming in global growth. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Global Liquidity Trends Support The Dollar, But... - January 25, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The political economy of oil will become even more complicated, following remarks by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov over the weekend, which suggested policymakers there are considering another market-share war to crash prices to limit the growth of U.S. shales. The logic appears to be that by abandoning OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal and pushing Brent prices below $40/bbl once again for a year or so, Russia will severely reduce investment flow to the U.S. shale-oil patch, allowing it to retake global market share ceded mostly to Texas oil producers.1 The threat of a market-share war was proffered on top of stepped-up rhetoric by senior government officials – ranging from Igor Sechin, head of state-owned Rosneft Oil, to Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) – indicating Russia will be pushing for higher production by OPEC 2.0 in 2H19 at the coalition’s upcoming June meeting. We agree with this assessment: The market will require OPEC 2.0 to lift production in 2H19, given our assessment of supply-demand balances. In our estimation, OPEC 2.0’s position has been strengthened considerably by policy-induced disruptions to the oil market.2 As such, we believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint, particularly since Russia has benefited greatly from higher prices (see below). Our balances and price forecasts this month are largely unchanged (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year. For 2020, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl. WTI will trade $7 and $5/bbl lower (Chart 2). The balance of price risk has shifted slightly to the left side of the distribution, driven by policy risk and potential miscalculation by the dramatis personae on the international stage, chiefly leaders in the U.S., Russia and China. Chart of the WeekMarkets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Chart 2...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts Highlights Energy: Overweight. Tensions in Libya could keep ~ 300k b/d of supply from reaching global markets via its Zawiya port near Tripoli. We closed our long June 2019 $70/bbl vs. short $75/bbl call spread last Thursday with a gain of 87.7%.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s latest credit data confirms our view the country’s credit cycle bottomed earlier this year: March Total Social Financing (TSF) increased CNY 2.8 trillion month-on-month vs. consensus expectation of CNY 1.7 trillion. This will support base metals in the coming months. We continue to expect Chinese authorities to expand credit in 2H19.Our long copper trade is up 0.7% since inception on March 7, 2019. We are closing out our tactical iron-ore trade – long 65% Fe vs. short 62% Fe at tonight’s close; it was up 22.9% at Monday’s close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell 4% from its February high on easing inflation concerns and as fears of an equity correction subsided. March U.S. PCE ex-food and -energy dropped to 1.79% yoy from 1.95% in February, while global equities rose 14% YTD. Our long gold recommendation is down 2.4% since last week, but is still up 3.6% since inception on May 4, 2017. Agriculture: Underweight. U.S. corn and wheat farmers are behind schedule in their spring planting, according to USDA data. The top four American corn-producing states had not started planting by last week, while spring and winter wheat producing states are 11% and 3% behind schedule, mostly due to weather conditions. While delays in planting are always cause for concern, we are still early in the planting season, which gives farmers time to catch up. Feature Policy uncertainty vis-à-vis global oil supply was elevated by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov’s comments indicating policymakers are considering reviving an oil market-share war directed at U.S. shale-oil producers. Siluanov said prices could fall to $40/bbl or less, in the event. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now His remarks come on the back of statements from Russian government and oil company officials lobbying for higher output. These comments suggest there is a heavyweight Russian contingent fully supporting these demands for OPEC 2.0 to increase production in 2H19 when it meets in June. Otherwise, the threat implies, Russia will seriously consider leaving OPEC 2.0, and will launch its own market-share war against U.S. shale-oil production, led by the fast-growing Permian Basin in Texas. Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now – nicely above $70/bbl in the Brent market. He also wants to maintain cooperation with OPEC 2.0, particularly its other putative leader, KSA. We continue to believe, however, KSA and Russia become less comfortable with Brent prices moving sharply above $80/bbl.4 Nonetheless, the threat posed by the U.S. shales is non-trivial: In our latest balances estimates, we raised our 2H19 U.S. output estimates to 12.53mm b/d, and slightly decreased our 2020 estimates to 13.35mm b/d”, led by a 1.17mm b/d and 0.84mm b/d increase in shale output this year and next (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales However, Russia – and OPEC 2.0 generally – may be overestimating the rate of growth from U.S. shales going forward: In future research, we will be exploring the extent to which capital markets will restrain growth in the U.S. shales, as investors continue to demand higher returns. The days of growing shale production at any cost may be coming to an end. Russia’s Threat Is A Feint We believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint: A market-share war would damage the Rodina’s economy more than the balance sheets of U.S. shale producers, particularly those that hedge the first year or two of their production. The threat needs to be understood in the context of the deterioration of Russia’s position in Venezuela; the increasing tempo of U.S. military operations in its near abroad; and rapidly evolving global oil and gas trade flows, all of which are working against Russian interests and investments.5 The threat appears to be a not-too-subtle reminder of the havoc Russia still can create globally, should it choose to do so, as Vladimir Rouvinski noted recently re Russia’s Venezuela policy.6 Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. Russia’s GDP elasticity to oil prices is more than twice that of KSA’s, which we demonstrated last week.7 This means, from an economic standpoint, it benefits more from higher prices than the Kingdom, based on our modeling. Russia’s oil is exported to refiners and trading companies who pay whatever price is clearing the market, versus KSA, which relies more on direct investments in end-use markets to serve captive demand, and whose GDP has a higher sensitivity to EM economic growth. Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. The coalition’s production-cutting deal this year has reduced global supplies by 1.0mm b/d since the beginning of the year, lifting price from below $50/bbl to more than $70/bbl, in line with our forecast. These production cuts have been supported by strong global demand this year this, which, we expect, will persist in 2020. Of course, Russia could abandon the production-cutting deal with KSA, in the hope of severely reducing investment in U.S. shale-oil production. However, it also would accelerate the loss of foreign direct investment (FDI) in its own hydrocarbons sector, along with those of other OPEC 2.0 member states (Chart 4). Bottom Line: A Russian market-share war aimed at U.S. shale producers would run the very real risk of tanking Russia’s GDP and those of the rest of OPEC 2.0’s member states, as these economies lack the resilience and diversification of the U.S.’s GDP, particularly Texas’s. Even if its fiscal balances are in better shape now, Russia’s economy remains highly sensitive to Brent crude oil prices – moreso than KSA’s, and far moreso the U.S.’s (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Chart 5Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices BCA’s Balances Mostly Unchanged Our updated balances reflect the lower Venezuelan and Iranian output reported by OPEC’s survey of secondary sources (Table 1). As we have noted previously, we believe OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is sufficient to cover the loss of Venezuelan output, and the limited losses on Iranian exports imposed by U.S. sanctions (Chart 6). Beyond that, however, the market will be severely stretched if an unplanned outage removes significant production from global supply. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC and Russia to lift supply in 2H19, following the successful draining of global inventories (Chart 7). We expect OPEC ex-Iran, Libya and Venezuela, led by KSA, will lift 2H19 supply by ~ 400k b/d vs. 1H19 levels, while we expect Russia’s output to rise 200k b/d. Chart 7Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 We continue to expect oil demand to be supported by the renewed easing of monetary policy globally, which will redound to the benefit of EM demand, which also will benefit from the bottoming of China’s credit cycle. Indeed, the EIA added 130k b/d to its estimate of non-OECD demand for this year, on the back of stronger expected growth. We expect demand growth of 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, with EM growth accounting for 1.1mm b/d of growth this year and 1.3mm b/d next year. In levels, global demand will average 101.8mm b/d and 103.4mm b/d in 2019 and 2020. Waivers On U.S. Iran Sanctions Will Be Extended We continue to expect waivers on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil imports will be extended on May 2, owing to the still-tight supply conditions globally with Venezuela output collapsing and ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian oil already forced off the market. This has, as we’ve noted in our discussions of the New Political Economy of oil, strengthened OPEC 2.0’s hand. This will become apparent when the coalition meets in June to consider whether to increase production in 2H19, in line with our expectation. KSA, Russia and OPEC 2.0 member states will have sufficient data on hand to determine whether and by how much to lift output, in a manner that supports their GDPs. Indeed, on Wednesday, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said, “We should do what is more expedient for us.”9 KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not. We also expect U.S. President Donald Trump to try to jawbone OPEC 2.0 into increasing production again, as he did in 2H18. However, we expect those demands to fall on deaf ears, unless fundamental supply dislocations warrant such action. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0’s strategy is working – it will have maximum flexibility re how it handles its production in 2H19, following the U.S. decision on waivers to its Iran oil-export sanctions on May 2. As we noted last month, KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/Non-OPEC oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It agreed in November to remove 1.2mm b/d off the market, in order to balance global supply and demand and reduce inventories.  Please see “Russia, OPEC may ditch oil deal to fight for market share: Russian minister,” published April 13, 2019, for a re-cap of Siluanov’s remarks. 2      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019; and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’s Price Fulcrum,” published March 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “Oil steadies as market focuses on supply risks,” published April 15 2019 by reuters.com 4      Please see “Putin Says No Imminent Decision on Oil Output Cuts,” published April 10, 2019, by The Moscow Times. 5      Please see for example, “Pentagon developing military options to deter Russian, Chinese influence in Venezuela,” published by cnn.com April 15, 2019; “Destroyer USS Ross Enters Black Sea, Fourth U.S. Warship Since 2019,” published by news.usni.org April 15, 2019; and “U.S. LNG exports pick up, with Europe a major buyer,” published by reuters.com March 7, 2019. 6      Please see “Russian-Venezuelan Relations at a Crossroads” by Vladimir Rouvinski, published by the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute in its February Latin American digest. 7      Please see “Sussing Out OPEC 2.0’s Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy April 11, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8      We discuss the impact of higher oil prices on Russia’s economy in last week’s report, which is cited in footnote 6 above.  Russia’s GDP in 2017 was ~ U.S. $1.6 trillion, according to the World Bank, while the GDP of Texas was ~ $1.7 trillion, American Enterprise Institute. 9      Please see “Russia’s Novak: early to speak about options for oil output deal,” published reuters.com April 17, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 ​​​​​​​ Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights In China, “helicopter” money and the socialist put are positive for growth in the medium term but will prove harmful for the economy over the long run. In the socialist put scenario, a buy-and-hold strategy is inappropriate for Chinese stocks. The enormous amount of money supply in China is “the sword of Damocles” on the yuan’s exchange rate. A new equity trade: Short Chinese banks / long U.S. banks. Take profits on our short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders equity position. Feature Last week’s China credit and money data affirmed that Chinese banks have engaged in another round of massive credit and money injection into the economy. In the first quarter alone, aggregate credit rose by RMB 8.5 trillion (US$1.3 trillion). Aggregate credit growth accelerated to 11.6%, well above first-quarter nominal GDP growth of 8% (Chart I-1). This is in spite of numerous pledges by many of China’s top policymakers that they have no plans to resort to “floodgate irrigation” style stimulus, and that credit/money growth will be kept on par with nominal GDP growth. Our credit and fiscal spending impulse has spiked up, pointing to a potential improvement in economic data in the months ahead (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: No Deleveraging At All What’s more, there is anecdotal evidence of a revival of housing demand in March, and that property developers have once again commenced bidding up land prices in certain parts of the country. Chart I-2China: Leading Economic Indicators   Regarding investment strategy, two weeks ago we put a stop-buy limit on the MSCI EM stock index at 1125. If this index breaks above this level we will turn tactically positive on EM risk assets. There is anecdotal evidence of a revival of housing demand in March, and that property developers have once again commenced bidding up land prices in certain parts of the country. Below are the pros and cons of upgrading the EM outlook at the current juncture. Pros The credit impulse in China leads both the mainland’s business cycle and the global manufacturing cycle by an average of nine months. Given its bottom was in December 2018, the trough in the mainland business and global industrial cycles should have been around August 2019 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Global Manufacturing PMI Has Not Led Global Stocks Our assessment has been that the bottom in EM equities that occurred in late December 2018 was too early. Our basis has been that the Chinese and global manufacturing cycles were not likely to bottom before August 2019, according to their previous relationship with China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse. Consequently, we have been expecting China-related plays in financial markets to experience a setback before a more sustainable buying opportunity emerged. However, as China’s credit recovery is now gaining momentum and infrastructure spending financed by local government special bonds is accelerating, the window of downside risk for share prices is narrowing. There have been no recent major stimulus measures directed at China’s property market, but it appears banks have substantially boosted mortgage loan origination and their financing of property developers by loosening lending standards. Easy financing for both homebuyers and property developers makes a revival in real estate more likely. The property market and construction activity are critical to the mainland’s business cycle. If green shoots in the property market multiply, the odds of an overall growth recovery will rise substantially. Finally, if the EM equity index breaks above our stop-buy limit, it would clear an important technical resistance level, confirming the sustainability of this rally (Chart I-4). Cons EM corporate profit growth is contracting in U.S. dollar terms, and the pace of contraction will deepen into the end of this year. This assessment is based on the previous decline in China’s credit impulse. The latter suggests a bottom in EM EPS in December 2019 (Chart I-5). It is still unclear whether EM share prices can ignore this profit contraction and advance through the entire year without major bumps. Chart I-4EM Stocks Are Facing Technical Resistance Chart I-5EM Profits Will Continue Contracting   As of March, Chinese domestic smartphone sales (Chart I-6), as well as Korean, Japanese, Singaporean and Taiwanese exports to the mainland, are all still shrinking at double-digit rates from a year ago (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: Consumer Spending In March Was Still Weak Chart I-7Exports To China Contracted At A Double-Digit Rate In March   Our indicators for marginal propensity to consume for Chinese households and companies remain in a downtrend as of March (Chart I-8). An upturn in these indicators is needed to validate that the fiscal and credit stimulus is accompanied by a greater multiplier effect. Chart I-8China: Marginal Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Enterprises Chart I-9Low Vol Precedes A ##br##Regime Shift Finally, financial markets’ aggregate volatility is extremely low (Chart I-9). This is especially true for the currency markets (Chart I-10, top panel). Typically, this is a sign of both complacency and a forthcoming major regime shift in financial markets. Chart I-10The Dollar Is Poised To Break Out Or Break Down We would be much more comfortable upgrading the EM outlook if the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar broke down, corroborating the improvement in global/EM growth. So far, the greenback has been moving sideways along its 200-day moving average (Chart I-10, bottom panel). If the dollar breaks out, it would confirm the negative outlook for EM. Investors should closely watch foreign exchange markets and adjust their investment strategy accordingly. “Helicopter” Money Forever = A Socialist Put China’s forthcoming recovery is good news for financial markets. Nonetheless, the long-term outlook for the Chinese economy is deteriorating because the credit and money, as well as property bubbles, will keep expanding. First, China holds the world record with respect to corporate sector leverage (Chart I-11). Second, households in China are more leveraged than those in the U.S. (Chart I-12). Given that borrowing costs for households are higher in China than in the U.S., interest payments take up a larger share of Chinese households’ disposable income. Chart I-11Corporate Sector Leverage: China Holds The World Record Chart I-12Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than Americans   Third, contrary to popular belief, banks do not channel savings/deposits into credit. They create deposits/money supply when they lend to or buy assets from non-banks. Money supply is the sum of deposits and cash in circulation. Financial markets’ aggregate volatility is extremely low. This is especially true for the currency markets. In a nutshell, credit and money excesses in China are not natural outcomes of the nation’s high savings rate but are the result of reckless credit origination by China’s commercial banks. We have elaborated on this point in a series of reports we have written on credit, money and savings.1 When commercial banks originate a loan, they create new money and new purchasing power “out of thin air.” Nobody needs to save for a bank to make a loan or buy assets. Consequently, new purchasing power for goods and services boosts demand in the real economy and inflates asset prices. Chinese banks have literally been dropping “helicopter” money over the past 10 years. Since January 2009 – the onset of the country’s massive credit binge – banks have created 165 trillion yuan ($25 trillion) of new broad money, based on our measure of M3 broad money. This is triple of the $8.3 trillion broad money supply created in the U.S., the euro area and Japan combined during the same period (Chart I-13, top panel). Chart I-13Helicopter Money In China China’s broad (M3) money supply now stands at 220 trillion yuan, equivalent to $32.5 trillion. What’s astonishing is that Chinese broad money is larger than the sum of broad money in both the U.S. and the euro area (i.e. all outstanding U.S. dollars and euros in the world combined) (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Yet China’s nominal GDP is only 38% of U.S. and euro area’s GDP combined. Credit and money excesses in China are not natural outcomes of the nation’s high savings rate but are the result of reckless credit origination by China’s commercial banks. In a market-based economy, the constraints on banks doing “helicopter” money are bank shareholders, regulators and central banks. Bank shareholders are the primary and largest losers from credit booms because they are highly exposed to non-performing loans. That is why they should be the first to cut credit flows to the economy when they sense non-payments on loans could rise. In China, neither bank shareholders nor bank regulators or the People’s Bank of China have prevented banks from expanding credit/money. Moreover, the authorities have not forced banks to acknowledge non-performing loans. This scenario – whereby banks expand credit without taking responsibility for collecting the loans – only occurs in a socialist system. This is the ultimate socialist put. China’s Potential Growth Roadmaps We have been arguing for several years that China is facing a historic choice between: (1) Moving toward a more market-based economic system that entails making creditors and borrowers take responsibility for their lending/borrowing and investment decisions. If lenders and borrowers are made explicitly accountable for their business/financial decisions, then credit flows will decelerate considerably, bankruptcies will mushroom and a period of deleveraging will be inevitable. However, the quality of capital allocation will improve, enhancing the country’s productivity and potential growth in the long run (Chart I-14). This is a scenario of medium-term pain, long-term gain. The recent ramp-up in credit growth does not suggest the authorities are willing to embrace this option. Chart I-15China: Structural Growth Tailwinds Have Dissipated (2) “Helicopter money” and a socialist put scenario entails lower potential GDP growth and rising inflation. If China continues opting to keep the socialist put in place, its potential growth rate – which is equivalent to the sum of growth rates in productivity and the labor force – will drop significantly. In the long run, this socialist put discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, reducing productivity growth. In fact, the industrialization ratio is 85% – not 60% as many contend(Chart I-15, top panel). Further, China’s labor force growth has stalled and will be mildly negative in the years to come (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Together, these circumstances point to a slower potential growth rate. Meanwhile, recurring stimulus via “helicopter” money will create mini-cycles around a falling potential growth rate (Chart I-16). Below we discuss the investment strategy this scenario entails. Implications Of The Socialist Put For The Currency… Slowing productivity and rampant money/purchasing power creation ultimately lead to rising inflation. Higher inflation and low interest rates - required to sustain an ever-rising debt burden - are a recipe for currency depreciation. Chinese households and businesses are eager to diversify their copious and mushrooming renminbi deposits into foreign currencies and assets. The PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion are equal to only 10% of the amount of yuan deposits and cash in circulation. Foreign exchange reserves’ coverage of local currency money supply is much higher in many other EM countries, including Brazil and Russia (Chart I-17). Chart I-17China's FX Reserves Cover Less Local Currency Deposits Than Peers The enormous amount of money supply/deposits in China is “the sword of Damocles” on the yuan’s exchange rate in the long run. It is therefore inconceivable that China can fully open its capital account in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, capital account restrictions will be further tightened. Plus, the current account will become much more regulated so that there is no leakage of capital via trade transactions – such as over-invoicing of imports or under-invoicing of exports. The inability to repatriate capital when needed and structural RMB depreciation are the key risks to long-term investors in China’s onshore capital markets. …And Chinese Stocks In the socialist put scenario, a buy-and-hold strategy is inappropriate for Chinese stocks: Investors should attempt to play the resultant mini-cycles (Chart I-16). In reality, however, economic and especially financial market mini-cycles are not symmetric, and investors can make money only if they time them properly. In fact, this decade Chinese share prices – both in absolute terms and relative to global stocks – have experience wild swings (Chart I-18). Chart I-18Chinese Stocks Are Following Mini-Cycles Concerning the current outlook for Chinese investable stocks, our take is as follows: On absolute performance, we will turn positive on Chinese share prices if our stop-buy on EM equities is triggered, as per our discussion above. As for their relative performance within EM and global equity portfolios, simply because the stimulus originates in China does not warrant an overweight position in Chinese stocks. The primary losers from credit bubbles are banks and other financial companies. The basis is that they will carry the burden of potential rising non-performing loans unless the government bails them out by purchasing bad assets at par. The latter has not been the case so far this decade. Hence, an underweight position in Chinese banks/financials is currently warranted. Furthermore, the large debtors in the non-financial corporate sector should also be underweighted. When a company increases its debt but its new investments produce little net new cash flow, its equity value declines. It is difficult to find so many high-return investment projects, especially in a slowing economy. Therefore, another round of considerable capital misallocation is currently underway, and shareholders of the companies that are undertaking these investments will end up losing. In a socialist system, shareholders typically do not make money. They lose money. This is the rationale to underweight Chinese stocks within both EM and global equity portfolios. Yet, there is a caveat: This framework may not be pertinent to the two largest companies in the Chinese investable equity index Ali-Baba and Tencent - each of which accounts for 13% of the index. These two companies score well on the above issues but face different non-macro hazards including regulatory, business model and other risks. Weighing the pros and cons, we recommend maintaining a market weight allocation in Chinese equities within an EM equity portfolio. This is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team, which differs from the recommendations of other BCA services that are currently advocating an overweight position in Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio. A New Trade: Short Chinese Bank / Long U.S. Bank Stocks Chinese banks’ equity value will erode as they once again expand their balance sheets aggressively, as per our discussion above. Chinese banks’ EPS have been and will continue to be diluted by the need to raise more capital. U.S. banks are better capitalized, and their asset quality is much better. Since the 2007-08 credit crisis, they have been much more prudent in expanding their balance sheets. U.S. bank stocks have underperformed the S&P 500 index since August 2018 because of falling U.S. interest rate expectations. The odds are high that U.S. bond yields are bottoming and will rise considerably – because the drag from China’s slowdown on the global economy is diminishing. This will help U.S. bank stocks. Although Chinese bank stocks optically appear undervalued, they are “cheap” for a reason. The fact that they have been “cheap” since 2011 and have failed to re-rate confirms that they suffer from chronic problems that have not been addressed yet (Chart I-19). Finally, their relative performance is facing a major resistance level, and will likely relapse (Chart I-20). Chart I-19Chinese Banks Are Cheap##br## For A Reason Chart I-20A New Trade: Short Chinese Banks / Long U.S. Banks   Take Profits On Short Chinese Property Developers / Long U.S. Homebuilders Position “Helicopter” money might be temporary positive for mainland property developers. In the meantime, share prices of U.S. homebuilders will be hurt due to rising U.S. bond yields. We are closing this position to protect profits. This recommendation has produced a 90% gain since its initiation on March 6, 2012. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016 and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Dear Client, This Special Report is the full transcript and slides of a keynote presentation I recently gave to the Sovereign Investor Institute in London titled: 'The Biggest Risks To The Global Economy Are…' The short presentation pulls together several concepts and observations which identify the ‘weak links’ in the global economy. Therefore, the presentation should serve as a useful summary of the global economy’s current vulnerabilities. The report then explains how each of the risks translates into a European investment context. I hope you find it insightful. Best regards, Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist Feature Full Transcript And Slides Good morning Thank you for inviting me to give today’s keynote presentation under the title: ‘The Biggest Risks To The Global Economy Are…’ (Slide 1). I will not discuss all the risks out there, but the four risks that I will present are the ones that I think are the most significant. And the biggest of these four risks I will leave to the end. So let’s begin. Risk 1 is China’s Credit Cycle (Slide 2). You can see this very clearly in this slide (Slide 3) which shows the short-term accelerations and decelerations in credit within the world’s three largest economies – Europe, the United States, and China. In essence, it is showing how much new credit was created in the last six months compared with the preceding six months. Was it more credit creation or was it less, and how much more or less? Everything is in dollars to allow a fair comparison. Now look at the red line. The red line is China. Just ten years ago, China’s credit cycle was irrelevant. It simply didn’t matter. But after the GFC, China’s short-term credit expansions and contractions suddenly became as large as those in Europe and the U.S. More recently, China’s cycle is dwarfing the others, so now it is the European and the U.S. credit cycles that are irrelevant! This means that whenever China’s short-term credit cycle turns down, as it did in late 2015, early 2017, and 2018, the global economy feels a chill. The point is that this short-term cycle is a near-perfect oscillator. Down-oscillations will occur every eighteen months or so, and any of them has the potential to turn nasty. Though we are currently in an up-oscillation, the next down-oscillation is due later this year. And I predict that it will pose a big risk to the global economy. Risk 2 is Trade Imbalances (Slide 4). This slide (Slide 5) has a mischievous title ‘Where President Trump Is Right About Europe’. The red line shows where the president is absolutely right: Europe is running a massive – a record-high – trade surplus with the United States. It is an undeniable fact. But the president is wrong about the underlying cause. The underlying cause is not unfair trade practices or tariffs, the underlying cause is the other line, the blue line, which shows the divergent monetary policies of the ECB and the Fed. The trade imbalance and monetary policy divergence are moving together tick for tick, and the transmission mechanism is of course the exchange rate. The divergent monetary policies have depressed the euro, and a depressed euro obviously makes German cars cheaper for American consumers. That is the reason that the president is seeing so many BMWs driving down Fifth Avenue! My point is that these record-high imbalances are being used to justify economic nationalism – retaliatory tariffs, restricted trade, and potentially all-out trade wars. Alternatively, this chart suggests that the imbalances would correct with large-scale movements of exchange rates. But to me, either of these options poses a big risk to the global economy. Risk 3 Is Technological Disruption (Slide 6). To understand why, I want to introduce you to a concept known as Moravec’s Paradox (Slide 7). A professor of robotics, Hans Moravec, noticed something odd. He realized that things that we find very hard are actually very easy for AI. Things like complex mathematics, speaking multiple languages, or advance pattern recognition. Typically, as few people have these skills, they are well-paid skills. Whereas things that we find very easy are incredibly difficult for AI. Things like human movement and recognizing, and responding to, emotional signals. Typically, as everybody has these skills, they are low-paid skills.  Moravec’s Paradox means that the current wave of technological progress is much more disruptive than previous waves. The steam engine destroyed low-paid jobs, forcing workers up the income ladder. But the current wave of technology, led by AI, is destroying well-paid jobs forcing workers down the income ladder. You can see it in the data. While job creation in most major economies is on the face of it very strong, just look at what type of jobs are being created (Slide 8). Food delivery, bar work, care work and social work. Now you’ll agree that this is not highly paid work with career prospects!  In essence, the current wave of technology is revealing a huge misallocation of capital. You might have invested huge amounts of time and money in say, becoming a linguist. Only to find that AI can translate languages much better than you – and your employment opportunities are limited to lower-income work. Well that misallocation of capital is very disruptive.  In my opinion, it’s one of the main reasons why even though economies are growing and unemployment is very low, people don’t feel good. Making them susceptible to simplistic fixes such as ‘take back control’ and economic nationalism. My point is that the current wave of AI-led job disruption has much further to run, and the populist backlash will remain a big risk to the global economy. But now I want to turn to what I believe is the biggest risk of all. Risk 4 Is Higher Bond Yields (Slide 9). Most people believe that economic downturns cause financial market downturns. But the truth is the complete opposite: the causality almost always runs the other way! In the vast majority of cases, it is financial market imbalances and mispricing that cause economic downturns and crises. Take the last three economic downturns – in 2001, in 2008 and in 2011. They all had their roots in financial mispricing – the dot com bubble, the U.S. mortgage market, and euro area sovereign debt. Likewise for the Great Depression in the 30s, Japan’s recession in the early 90s. I could go on. You get the point… What is the financial vulnerability today that could cause an economic downturn? (Slide 10) The answer is that the very rich valuation of equities and other risk-assets is highly sensitive to bond yields. Which means that substantially higher bond yields pose a very big risk to the global economy. You see, at very low bond yields, the bond price can no longer go up much but it can go down massively (Slide 11). The latest advances in financial theory now conclusively show that this unattractive ‘negative’ asymmetry is what defines ‘risk’ for investors. The crucial point is that at low bond yields, bonds become as risky, or more risky, than equities (Slide 12). And this necessarily means that equities no longer need to deliver a superior return, a risk-premium, over the low bond yield (Slide 13). As bond yields decline this means equity valuations get an exponential boost because both components of the equity’s required return – the risk-free component and the risk-premium component – are collapsing simultaneously (Slide 14). But if bond yields rise substantially, the process would go into vicious reverse and equity valuations would fall off a cliff. Other risk-assets too, and bear in mind that if we include real estate – as we should – global risk-assets are worth $400 trillion, five times the size of the global economy!   Our research shows that the point of vulnerability is if the global 10-year bond yield approaches 2 percent, which is about 50 basis points above where it stands right now. And that, to me, is by far the biggest risk to the global economy. So to summarise, the biggest risks to the global economy are: China’s credit cycle; trade imbalances and technological disruption and their associated populist backlash; and the biggest risk is higher bond yields (Slide 15). In the near future I think alarm bells should start to ring if China’s credit cycle has tipped into a down-oscillation and/or the global 10-year bond yield is 50 bps higher. Don’t worry, the alarm bells are not ringing right now but they might be later this year. Finally, given the title you gave me, this presentation has necessarily focussed on the key risks. But I don’t want you to get too negative. I also have another presentation called ‘The Biggest Positives For The Global Economy Are…’ And for balance, I hope you invite me to present that next time! Thank you. How Do The Risks Translate Into A European Investment Context? Risk 1: China’s Credit Cycle, is highly relevant to European investors, for two reasons. First, the European economy is very open, meaning that exports make a substantial contribution to GDP growth. This is especially true in Europe’s engine economy, Germany, but it is also important for other major economies like Sweden. And it is evidenced in large trade surpluses as, for example, illustrated in Slide 5. Therefore, whenever China’s credit cycle enters a down-oscillation, as it did last year, Germany cannot escape the nasty chill coming through its all-important net export channel. Second, the European equity market is over-exposed to global growth sensitive sectors and companies – specifically, Industrials, Materials, and Financials. These sectors tend to have a very high operational gearing to global growth. Meaning that a small change in global growth has a disproportionate effect on these companies’ profits and share price performance. The upshot is that in a credit cycle up-oscillation, Europe’s global-growth sensitive stock markets and sectors benefit from a sharp burst of outperformance. The opposite applies in a credit cycle down-oscillation. It follows that if China’s credit cycle is due to tip into a down-oscillation later this year, it would be time to close our successful relative overweighting to European equities and to the global growth sensitive cyclical sectors. Risk 2: Trade Imbalances, is also highly relevant to European investors, for the obvious reason that European economies – especially Germany – are running huge trade surpluses. This puts these economies squarely in the cross-hairs of a retaliatory salvo involving tariffs, trade barriers, or worse, an all-out trade war. Clearly, Europe’s ‘exporting champions’ are the most vulnerable to this risk. The issue is important for the exchange rate too. We showed conclusively that Europe’s trade imbalance is the consequence of the depressed euro. It follows that another way to correct this imbalance is via a stronger euro. In this sense, the fundamentals imply euro upside from here. Risk 3: Technological Disruption, manifests through disruption in the jobs market, the lack of feel good, and the ensuing backlash leading to populism and nationalism. This is particularly relevant to Europe because its collection of nations, each with its own political processes, provides more scope for a political tail-event. A lull in the major political-event cycle is a good thing for Europe. In this regard, the upcoming EU parliamentary elections is not a big risk given the EU parliament’s inability, by itself, to drive policy. The risk increases approaching a meaningful political event, and this includes the date of Brexit. Therefore, this risk is likely to rise somewhat towards the end of the year. Risk 4: Higher Bond Yields, is clearly very relevant to Europe because many of the core euro area bond yields are at their lower bound. This means that the negative asymmetry of returns has its maximum impact on, for example, German bunds. It follows that German bunds are a sell in the near-term. Nevertheless, the upside to yields is ultimately limited given the aforementioned vulnerability of risk-asset valuations to higher bond yields. Therefore, the better long-term strategy is to short German bunds relative to U.S. T-bonds. Finally, a 50 basis points rise in 10-year yields from current levels would be a trigger to flip to underweight European equities.  Fractal Trading System* Crude oil is at a technical reversal level. The best way to play this is on a hedged basis versus metals: short WTI, long LMEX. Set the profit target at 5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report long AUD/CNY achieved its profit target at which it was closed. This leaves five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights BCA’s China Investment Strategy team recommended that investors upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight (both investable and domestic) in a Special Alert last week. Investors had a legitimate macro fundamental basis to go overweight Chinese stocks as of February 15, but we hesitated to shift our stance due to several still-present risks and out of concern that the sheer magnitude of the spike in credit could cause a regulatory response that would constrain credit growth in future months. The March credit data has confirmed that Chinese policymakers have chosen to prioritize growth for now, but we are unconvinced that a shift back to controlling leverage is out of the question over the coming year. Investors should continue to monitor this and several other risks noted below. Despite having already rallied significantly this year, Chinese investable and domestic stocks have the potential to earn double-digit relative returns (12-15%) in an optimistic scenario in US$ terms versus global stocks over the coming year. Conservatively, we expect high single-digit relative returns (6-8%). Feature BCA’s China Investment Strategy team recommended that investors upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight (both investable and domestic) in a Special Alert last week.1 In this week’s report we address several issues concerning the outlook for the economy and for Chinese stocks in a Q&A format where we answer the questions of a hypothetical, representative investor. In particular, we will discuss how much relative equity upside investors can expect over the coming year, whether the recent pace of credit growth significantly increases the chance of another credit overshoot, and when investors should expect to see a pickup in actual economic activity. Q: First, a question about timing. Why did it take so long to recommend upgrading Chinese stocks? Haven’t Chinese equities been forecasting an economic recovery for several months? A: Prior to the release of the January total social financing data on February 15, investors had no legitimate macro fundamental basis to go overweight Chinese stocks and were instead responding to a relatively less important factor for the economy – the Sino/U.S. trade war. We placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in late-February, and waited for confirmation that the spike in credit was not a one-off surge to be reversed by policymakers dead set against “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. As investors are surely aware, no two economic or financial market cycles are exactly alike. This is particularly true in the case of China; its economy experienced a major structural shift a decade ago, and economic and financial market oscillations since then have been highly disparate. As part of our ongoing search to identify tools that reliably predict the Chinese economy, we presented detailed evidence in a November 2017 Special Report2 that suggested monetary conditions, money, and credit growth have been among the most reliable predictors of Chinese “investment-relevant economic activity” (Chart 1). Chinese activity, in turn, has reliably led investable equity earnings growth, and we have therefore followed this framework closely when judging the economic outlook and the attendant implications for investment strategy. Chart 1Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Reliably Lead Chinese Economic Activity Given that financial markets typically lead turning points in economic activity, many market participants have incorrectly suggested that the bottom in Chinese stocks in late-October reflected prescient expectations of a durable re-acceleration in Chinese credit growth. Rather, a detailed examination of the events of the past year highlights that the opposite is true: global investors, the most influential “buyer” of Chinese investable stocks, materially lagged or ignored important developments in leading economic indicators and focused instead on a relatively less important factor for the economy – the Sino/U.S. trade war. Two important pieces of evidence support this point: We prominently discussed the risk that a trade war would pose to China’s economy in the first-half of 2018,3 but we underscored numerous times that this risk was on top of an ongoing and much more concerning slowdown in leading indicators for China’s industrial sector. By June of last year our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index had been in a downtrend for 16 months straight (Chart 2), and yet investors only sold Chinese investable stocks once President Trump began imposing tariffs against Chinese exports to the U.S. We placed Chinese stocks on downgrade watch at the end of March 2018,4 well in advance of the selloff versus global stocks, and deftly triggered the downgrade on June 20.5 Relative to the global benchmark, November 2018 represented the largest month of relative performance for Chinese investable stocks. At that time, there was zero credible evidence to suggest that a credit upturn was underway; in fact, money and credit growth weakened on a sequential basis for most of Q4. It is true that monetary policy eased significantly following the imposition of U.S. tariffs in June, but given the extent of the decline in interbank rates, this would have led to a bottom in relative performance in July or August if investors were willing to assume that China’s monetary transmission mechanism would work without impairment. November 2nd marks the clear inflection point for Chinese investable stocks and our BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator (Chart 3), and in our view this proves beyond a doubt that investors have been solely focused on trade: on that day, news broke that President Trump wanted to make a deal with Xi Jinping at the G20 meeting in Argentina later that month, and had instructed aides to begin “drafting terms”.6 Chart 2Until Tariffs Arrived, Investors Completely Ignored The Decline In Leading Indicators Chart 3It Was News Of A Trade Deal That Caused A Bottom In China-Related Assets   Besides recommending a tactical overweight stance on December 5,7 we generally failed to forecast and position for a meaningful détante in the trade war, and we acknowledge that this contributed to a period of missed potential outperformance. But our research suggests that a trade deal would have been irrelevant had the drivers of China’s relevant economic activity continued to deteriorate, and investors had no concrete signs to suggest otherwise prior to the release of the January total social financing data on February 15 (Chart 4). We conservatively forecast high single-digit relative returns versus global stocks, on the order of 6-8%. There is even more upside potential in an optimistic scenario. Chart 4Before February 15, There was No Basis To Confidently Project An Upturn In Credit Starting on February 15, investors did have a legitimate macro fundamental basis to go overweight Chinese stocks. We responded to the January data by placing Chinese stocks on upgrade watch,8 but we hesitated to move to an outright cyclical overweight at that time due to several still-present risks (discussed below) and out of concern that the sheer magnitude of the spike in credit could cause a regulatory response, discreet or otherwise, that would constrain credit growth in future months. The public spat between Premier Li Keqiang and the PBOC over whether the January credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus and the disappointing February credit data were both emblematic of these concerns, but ultimately the March credit data has confirmed that a significant credit expansion is underway. This has indeed raised the odds of a major credit overshoot, although we reiterate below why policymakers are likely to remain reluctant to allow one to occur. Q: Chinese investable stocks have already rallied 22% year-to-date in US$ terms; domestic stocks are up 37%. How much further upside can investors realistically expect? A: In an optimistic scenario, Chinese investable and domestic stocks have the potential to earn double-digit relative returns (12-15%) in US$ terms versus global stocks over the coming year. Conservatively, we expect high single-digit relative returns (6-8%). Chart 5 presents our earnings recession model for the MSCI China index. The recent improvement in credit, forward earnings momentum, and the new export orders component of the official manufacturing PMI have already caused the model probability to peak. The dotted line shows that the odds of a contraction in earnings over the coming year are set to fall very sharply if credit even just continues on a moderate expansion path, and assuming that the current values of the remaining model predictors stay constant. Chart 6 shows that while there has been an earnings “response” to the ongoing economic slowdown in China, the response has so far been less intense than what might be expected. While this raises a near-term risk for Chinese stocks if Q1 & Q2 earnings disappoint (see below), it also implies that the level of 12-month trailing earnings may not trend lower over the coming year. Chart 5The Odds Of An Earnings Decline Over The Next Year Have Peaked And Will Fall Further Chart 6The 'Response' Of Earnings To A Slowing Economy Has Been Less Intense Than Expected   If Chinese earnings are largely stable over the next year, we think it is reasonable to expect that investable Chinese stock prices will re-approach or fully return to their early-2018 high. We noted in our March 27 Weekly Report that China’s potential to command a higher multiple than global stocks is probably capped barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth,9 but Chart 7 highlights that Chinese stocks were still cheaper than their global counterparts at their peak early last year. Chart 7Even At Their 2018 High, Chinese Stocks Were Cheaper Than Global Stocks It is true that the multiple expansion that occurred for Chinese stocks in 2016 and 2017 was quite large, but in our view this was due to the index addition and growth of technology companies with potential structural growth stories (such as the “BAT” stocks) rather than due to a significant decline in the risk premium assigned to Chinese stocks. These firms are still present in the investable index, and we have no reason to believe that investors over the coming year will perceive their structural earnings potential to be any different than was the case early last year, which suggests that a forward P/E ratio of 14 to 14½ is again achievable. Domestic equities do not directly benefit from the “BAT effect”, but their realized earnings growth has been somewhat superior than the investable index over the past few years. In effect, we have no strong reasons to argue against a return of both domestic and investable forward multiples back to levels seen in early-2018. Chart 8 highlights that a return to these levels would imply a relative price return of about 12% for investable stocks and 14-15% for domestic stocks, in US$ terms. Several risks (highlighted below) underscore the possibility that Chinese stocks will trend higher but not fully return to their early-2018 levels over the coming year. Given this, we conservatively forecast high single-digit relative returns versus global stocks, on the order of 6-8%. As a final point, for investors focused on A-shares, we should note that our domestic equity call is based on the MSCI China A Onshore index, not the CSI 300 or the FTSE/Xinhua A50 index. While the former very closely tracks the latter two, Chart 9 highlights that the CSI 300 and the A50 have rebounded closer to their early-2018 highs than the MSCI China A Onshore index, suggesting that there is somewhat less upside potential for the former than the latter. Chart 8There Is Meaningful Further Upside Potential For Chinese Stocks Vs. Global Chart 9A-Shares: Favor MSCI Indexes Over The CSI300 And The A50   Q: What specific trades would you recommend as a result of your change in stance towards Chinese stocks? A: We are making five changes to our trade book, four of which are directly linked to our upgrade recommendation. In addition, we are closing another trade related to iron ore, given that prices have risen to a multi-year high. We are opening the following new trades in response to our recommendation to upgrade Chinese stocks: Open long MSCI China Index / short MSCI All Country World Index (US$) Open long MSCI China A Onshore Index / short MSCI All Country World Index (US$) Open long MSCI China Growth Index / short MSCI All Country World Index (US$) Regarding the latter trade, we noted in a previous report that value stocks have been responsible for more of the rally in China’s investable market versus the global average than their growth peers, and Chart 10 highlights that a long China growth / short broad market trade is strongly correlated with China’s relative performance trend versus global stocks. This means that a long MSCI China Growth Index / short MSCI All Country World Index trade represents a higher octane version of our long MSCI China Index position, which we offer as a riskier trade for investors seeking maximum upside potential in response to a cyclical recovery in China’s economy. Chart 10China Growth: A High Octane Version Of The MSCI China Index In addition to these new trades, we are closing the following two existing positions in our trade book: Long MSCI China Low-Beta Sectors / short MSCI China trade, initiated on June 27, 2018 and closed at a modest loss of 0.7% Long September 2019 iron ore futures / short September 2019 steel rebar futures trade initiated on October 17, 2018 and closed at a substantial gain of 22% We initiated our low-beta sectors position soon after we downgraded Chinese stocks in June of last year, which acted as a defensive trade for investors to play while waiting out a selloff in Chinese relative performance. The profit from the trade peaked at approximately 11% in early-October, but has since given back most of its gains. Lastly, we are closing our iron ore / steel rebar pair trade to lock in a healthy profit from the position. An improvement in Chinese economic growth would typically be bullish for iron ore prices, but they have recently surged to a multi-year high in response to supply restrictions. This implies that stronger demand over the coming 6-12 months may not necessarily be positive for prices if it is accompanied by easier supply-side conditions. Q: What are the risks facing Chinese relative equity performance over the coming year? A: A collapse in the trade talks or an underwhelming deal, a lagged and series decline in earnings per share, a sharp slowdown in credit growth after a trade deal is signed, and a meaningful lag between the upturn in credit and an improvement in Chinese “hard data”. There are four non-trivial risks to a bullish relative stance towards Chinese stocks over the coming year. In general, these scenarios pose a risk to the magnitude of an uptrend in Chinese relative performance, but in some cases could prevent Chinese relative performance from trending higher over the coming year (and thus bear monitoring). There are still four non-trivial risks to a bullish relative stance towards Chinese stocks over the coming year. The trade deal between the U.S. and China falls through or substantially underwhelms. Despite signs continuing to point to the likelihood of a deal, a meaningful breakdown in trade talks or an underwhelming deal clearly have the potential to derail an uptrend in Chinese relative performance given that global investors have (incorrectly) treated the conflict as the primary risk factor facing the Chinese economy. A full resumption of the trade war would definitely cause Chinese stocks to actively underperform until evidence presented itself that the inevitable policy response is stabilizing economic activity. An underwhelming deal would probably weigh on the magnitude of China’s outperformance, but would probably not constitute a threat on its own to an uptrend in relative performance unless the “deal” did not result in a significant removal of tariffs (which, to us, is the point of China participating in the negotiations in the first place). Chinese earnings per share decline significantly from current levels. We noted in Chart 6 on page 6 that the earnings “response” to the ongoing economic slowdown in China has been less intense than we expected. Our earnings recession model suggests that the odds of a contraction in earnings over the coming 12 months has fallen meaningfully, but that does not rule out further near-term weakness stemming from the slowdown in activity that has already occurred. Chart 11Any Further Weakness In EPS Growth Should Be Temporary We noted earlier that Chinese economic and financial market oscillations have been highly disparate since 2010 (when the economy experienced a clear structural shift), and as such we are unable to confidently predict the magnitude of a decline in EPS in response to a given amount of weakness in China’s old economy. For now, the meaningful uptick in net earnings revisions as well as the stabilization in forward EPS momentum (Chart 11) suggests that any further weakness in EPS growth will be temporary, but a larger or more prolonged decline should be acknowledged as a serious risk to our stance. Chinese credit growth slows meaningfully after a U.S./China trade deal is signed. To the extent that Chinese policymakers are still serious about preventing significant further leveraging, it is possible that the recent pace of credit growth will slow following the signing of a trade deal. This could occur because of a shift to tighter monetary policy, or due to the use of informal “administrative controls” to limit the pace of further lending. Chart 12 highlights that the pace of credit growth in the first quarter, if sustained, would actually imply a credit overshoot; our recommendation to upgrade Chinese stocks was based on the assumption of a moderate credit expansion, and thus we would not be surprised (or worried) if the pace of credit growth slows somewhat. However, a more meaningful slowdown, particularly if coupled with signals from policymakers that a much slower pace of growth is desired, could pose a risk to our stance. A recovery in China’s “hard data”, i.e. its coincident activity measures, meaningfully lags the pickup in credit growth. The March credit data has made us sufficiently confident that a rebound in Chinese investment-relevant economic activity is forthcoming, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the data will bottom and whether further near-term weakness is likely. On the latter point, we noted in our April 3 Weekly Report that coincident economic activity sharply converged in January and February with our leading indicator for China’s economy (shown in Chart 1 on page 2), as most if not all of the previously beneficial tariff front-running effect washed out of the data.10 This implies that future changes in activity measures are now more likely to reflect actual changes in underlying economic circumstances, but a lagged response may still occur and could weigh on investor sentiment towards Chinese stocks over the coming few months. Q: What is your best estimate as to when investors can expect to see a pickup in China’s “hard” economic data? A: China’s activity data is likely to bottom between now and the middle of the year, implying that activity will pickup in 2H2019. Chart 13 presents an average correlation profile of our BCA Li Keqiang leading indicator and its main credit component (adjusted total social financing, “TSF”, as a share of GDP) with four activity measures: 1) the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index, 2) nominal manufacturing output, 3) nominal total import growth in US$, and 4) nominal total import growth in RMB. Values to the left of the zero line show that the leading indicator / TSF as a share of GDP tend to lead the four activity measures, with the x-axis values showing by how many months. Chart 12Q1 Credit Growth, If Sustained, Would Lead To An Overshoot Chart 13Our Indicators Tend To Lead Actual Economic Activity By 4-6 Months China’s activity data is likely to bottom between now and the middle of the year. The chart suggests that our predictors tend to lead actual economic activity by 4-6 months on average, depending on the predictor and the activity measure in question. Our LKI leading indicator technically bottomed in June of last year, although the rise has since been narrowly-based and it has retreated since October. TSF as a share of GDP clearly bottomed in December, which implies that China’s activity data is likely to bottom between now and the middle of the year. This is consistent with our view that the global economy will improve in the second half of the year, as well as our recommendation to overweight Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis. The risk, as noted above, is that investors react negatively to any further weakness in China’s measures of economic activity before they durably bottom. Q: Final question – In your list of potential risks facing Chinese relative equity performance, you cited the issue of whether policymakers are serious about preventing significant further leveraging. It seems as if they are stepping away from that. Will they, and is this fundamentally justified? A: For now, Chinese policymakers have chosen to prioritize growth, out of fear that the economy will decelerate significantly and possibly spiral out of control. But we are unconvinced that a shift back to controlling leverage is out of the question over the coming year. Policymakers have good economic reasons to try and shift China’s economy away from extremely high rates of investment towards more consumption, and they are likely to see the act of restraining credit growth as furthering this goal. Arguably, this is one of the most important questions facing global investors over both cyclical and secular time horizons, and it is likely to feature prominently in our research over the coming year. The question of the sustainable growth rate of China’s debt is a controversial one, even among BCA strategists. While it is by no means a conclusive answer, we tackled the question in our October 31 Weekly Report,11 and came down on the side that China’s policymakers have good economic reasons to try and shift China’s economy away from extremely high rates of investment towards more consumption. To the extent that attempts to restrain credit growth further this goal, our sense is that it is more wisdom than folly. We noted three key points in our October report: First, while there is a strong empirical cross-country relationship between average rates of investment over the past half-century and the level of real per capita GDP today, that relationship also shows that China’s current rate of investment is nearly off the scale and thus probably cannot be sustained. Second, in 2014, based on the definition of the data from the Penn World Table (GDP share of gross capital formation at current purchasing power parity), China had maintained its investment share above 30% for 12 years. At first blush, there appears to be some precedent suggesting that China’s outsized investment run can go on for longer: among the 80 countries with data available since 1950, 14 of them have experienced a longer continuous run of investment as a share of GDP. However, Chart 14 shows that most of these concurrent experiences occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when global exports as a share of GDP were rising from a very low base. This implies that historical examples of outsized investment runs have largely reflected export-driven catch-up stories, which bodes poorly for China’s ability to continue to invest at its recent massive scale given that global exports to GDP appear to have peaked. Chart 14High And Sustained Rates Of Investment Have Been Driven By Exports Third, the historical relationship between investment and real per capita GDP captures the potential gains of profitable and rational investment (the accumulation of a “useful” stock of capital). But an unfortunate reality facing savers is that while one can certainly choose to save or invest, one cannot necessarily choose the accompanying rate of return. If China invests heavily at very low or negative rates of return, the idea that continued heavy investment will lead China out of the middle-income trap is very likely wrong. On the third point, there is good evidence to suggest that the marginal gains from investment in China have been falling. The private sector debt-to-GDP ratio features prominently in the case against profitable investment in China: despite a massive rise in investment and debt from 2002-2007, the ratio barely rose, because this debt was used to accumulate capital that verifiably delivered nominal GDP growth (Chart 15). Yet following 2010 the ratio rose sharply, implying that the returns from the investment that has taken place over the past decade have been (at least so far) considerably lower than those of the prior decade. Also, we noted in our August 29 Special Report that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have accounted for a sizeable portion of the private sector leveraging that occurred after 2010,12 and that the marginal net return on borrowed funds for SOEs has become negative (Chart 16). A gap between the cost/return on borrowed funds strongly implies that the investment channeled through SOEs over the past several years does not represent, on balance, the accumulation of useful capital. Chart 15A Rise In Debt-To-GDP Inherently Implies That Investment Is Increasingly Unproductive Chart 16Strong Evidence Against Productive SOE Investment We believe that Chinese policymakers now understand the risks posed with extremely high and prolonged rates of investment. Whereas most modern central banks characterize their monetary policy decisions within the context of a trade-off between growth and inflation, Chinese policymakers now appear to face a trade-off between growth and leveraging. For now, they have chosen growth, out of fear that the economy will decelerate significantly and possibly spiral out of control. But we are unconvinced that a shift back to controlling leverage is out of the question over the coming year, particularly after a trade deal has been signed with the U.S. As noted above, this is a non-trivial risk to our recommendation to overweight Chinese stocks over the coming year, and thus bears monitoring To be continued!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Alert, “Upgade Chinese Stocks To Overweight”, dated April 12, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “The Question That Won’t Go Away”, dated April 18, 2018, “China: A Low-Conviction Overweight”, dated May 2, 2018, “The Three Pillars Of China’s Economy”, dated May 16, 2018, and “A Shaky Ladder”, dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight”, dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral”, dated June 20, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see “Trump Said To Ask Cabinet To Draft Possible Trade Deal With Xi”, Bloomberg News, November 2, 2018. 7 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative”, dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Ready, Aim, But Don’t Fire (Yet)”, dated March 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro and Market Review”, dated April 3, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is China Making A Policy Mistake?”, dated October 31, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging”, dated August 29, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights So what? Egyptian assets will benefit from improving fundamentals. Why?   March credit data confirm China’s stimulus, supporting the commodity/EM complex. Oil price risks are also to the upside. In Egypt, investors will welcome constitutional changes that reinforce the regime and overall stability. Egypt is beginning to reap the rewards of painful IMF reforms enacted in late 2016. A large, under-invested labor market is a key structural risk that will weigh on Egypt’s long-term investment potential. We recommend an overweight stance in Egyptian sovereign (USD) bonds relative to EM. Feature Egypt is the world’s most populous Arab country and a geopolitical fulcrum at the critical juncture between Africa, Europe, and Asia. Its stability is particularly important at a time of rapid geopolitical change. The U.S. is deleveraging from the Middle East and regional powers are scrambling to fill the void. Popular discontent is toppling rigid authoritarian leaders, most recently in Algeria and Sudan. Displaced peoples have spilled into Europe in the recent past and could do so again if more regimes fail (Chart 1). In this week’s Special Report we take a close look at Egypt and show how its continued stabilization is a rare positive trend for the region and one that presents an investment opportunity in its own right. China’s March Credit data confirm that stimulus is surprising to the upside this year. Before proceeding, however, we make note of some key developments on the global front, especially our oil view: China’s Stimulus: China’s March credit data confirm that stimulus is surprising to the upside this year (Chart 2). The data will help galvanize expectations of firming global growth, supporting commodity prices and EM risk assets. We are long Chinese equities, Indonesian and Thai equities, and EM energy producer equities relative to the EM benchmark.    Chart 1Asylum Seekers May Rise Amid Mideast Instability Chart 2Chinese Credit Supports Economic Outlook Iranian Sanctions: The Trump administration is increasing the pressure on Iran again and threatening to enforce sanctions strictly on oil exports. Exports have recovered somewhat since Trump issued waivers for key importers last fall and this means that 1.3mm bpd are still at risk if enforcement intensifies (Chart 3). Libyan War: Libyan National Army leader, General Khalifa Haftar, has made a move for Tripoli after sweeping across the country’s south, jeopardizing the roughly 300,000 barrels per day exported from Zawiya, west of Tripoli. Egypt is one of Haftar’s geopolitical backers, along with the UAE, so Egypt’s improving domestic situation, discussed below, is a factor supporting Haftar’s ability to extend his control across western Libya, which poses a risk of unplanned oil outages this year. The combination of these factors will put upward pressure on oil prices in an environment where supplies are already limited. As a result, Bob Ryan, the head of BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy, believes that OPEC 2.0 will eventually follow Russia’s preferred path at this juncture and increase production. Russia and Saudi Arabia are comfortable with Brent crude above $70 per barrel, but will get nervous once prices rise above $80 and threaten to kill demand in emerging markets. An alteration of slated production cuts has not yet been agreed and prices remain well supported in the meantime, with Brent on track to average $75 per barrel in 2019 and $80 in 2020.1  We do not expect President Trump to impose “maximum pressure” on Iran in this context. We have long assumed the worst of Venezuelan production, i.e. that it will at least be cut in half to 500,000 bpd by end of year, and possibly fall to zero. Libyan outages could theoretically rise to the full 900,000 bpd, though the likely cap is 300,000 bpd. The removal of 1.3mm bpd of Iranian barrels would bring the combined production losses close to OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity of around 2.1mm bpd. Moreover, the Iranians have the ability to retaliate, which jeopardizes other output across the Middle East. The United States has a valuable tool in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.2 But President Trump would still be taking an enormous risk with the economy in advance of an election year to enforce the maximum sanctions on Iran. So we maintain that he will largely keep the waivers in place on May 2. The real danger, from our point of view, comes if Trump is re-elected, as then he will be less constrained both politically (no chance of reelection) and economically (U.S. production going up) in pursuing his hawkish foreign policy against Iran. But that is a story for 2021. With that, we turn to Egypt.  A Dream Deferred Earlier this year, the Egyptian parliament voted in favor of a series of proposed constitutional amendments that will further consolidate President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s power. Among the changes are the extension of the president’s term, allowing him in principle to rule for another 15 years. The proposed amendments will also expand the role of the military, enshrining a political role for it, thus solidifying its already preeminent position in Egyptian politics.3 These proposed changes bring the de facto Egyptian political environment close to its pre-2011 state – that is, the state of affairs before an estimated two million Egyptians rose in protest at Tahrir Square and removed President Hosni Mubarak from power, setting in motion a tumultuous decade. Sisi supporters argue that these changes will guarantee much needed stability and policy continuity to the Egyptian economy, allowing it to regain its footing. With GDP growth expected to near 6% by the middle of next year – the strongest since the 2011 revolution – it is no surprise that the aspirations of Egypt’s revolutionaries have become a dream deferred. Chart 4Improving Fundamentals Bode Well For Egyptian Equities Instead, policymakers and ordinary citizens alike have focused on making ends meet – both in terms of the fiscal purse and the household bank account. Policy continuity is what is required for Egypt at this point in time: It is finally beginning to reap the rewards of the painful reforms enacted in late 2016 as part of the IMF program. Sisi’s own position is reinforced by the fact that he oversaw this process and has come out on the other side. While the proposed constitutional amendments will pass, and will be characterized as a step back into authoritarian rule, the stability will be favorable for investors, as it will support a more predictable near-term trajectory for the Egyptian economy. Egyptian assets have already started to reflect this reality, signaling that Egypt is transitioning into a new era that portends a more attractive investment climate. As such, Egyptian equities have picked up and have outperformed the broader EM index since December (Chart 4). Bottom Line: “Stability” is the catch-phrase of the Sisi regime. Constitutional amendments allowing the Egyptian president and military to amass far-reaching powers are likely to pass. While they mark a return to Egypt’s traditional authoritarian system, this will be welcomed by foreign investors who were otherwise hesitant to re-enter the Egyptian market during the turbulent aftermath of 2011 Egypt’s 2016-2019 Policy Mantra: No Pain, No Gain Since the 2011 revolution, the Egyptian economy has been defined by years of turmoil. The popular uprising and ensuing loss of security drove away tourists and foreign investors – key sources of hard currency – causing the central bank to chew through its foreign exchange reserves as it scrambled to stabilize confidence and the currency. High rates of poverty, unemployment, and inequality amid a growing public sector wage bill, over reliance on food imports and an overvalued currency were a recipe for an economic disaster. Public debt ballooned while the black market for foreign exchange thrived. Thus, the structural reforms (Box 1) that accompanied the November 2016 $12bn IMF loan – while painful – were necessary to transition the economy onto a more sustainable trajectory.   Box 1 Structural Reforms Implemented Since 2016 The reforms that accompanied the IMF program are designed to improve fiscal consolidation, liberalize the foreign exchange market, and create a more business friendly investment climate. They include the following measures: The floating of the currency in November 2016 which resulted in the Egyptian pound losing half its value relative to the dollar. Given that Egyptians rely on imports for a large chunk of their consumption, the impact on household budgets and consumer prices have been massive (Chart 5). However, the inflation rate has since slowed to 14.4%, with the Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) targeting single-digit inflation by the end of next year. Similarly, it has stabilized the EGP/USD.4 Reductions to fuel subsidies have weighed on consumer expenditures. The target is full-cost recovery by the end of 2018-19 for almost all fuel products (except LPG and fuel oil used in bakeries and electricity generation). The introduction of a value-added tax (VAT) of 13% in 2016, which subsequently rose to 14%. The VAT will help generate revenue, by replacing the distortionary sales tax and broadening the tax base. Basic goods and services are exempt from the VAT in order to shield the poor from rising living costs. A reduction in utility subsidies to reduce state spending and instead channel funds to more productive uses. Authorities target the full elimination of electricity subsidies by 2020-21. Similarly, water and sewage subsidies have been cut. As of December 2018, Egypt ended a discounted customs exchange rate for non-essential imports. The monthly fixed customs exchange rate was introduced in 2017, following the 2016 currency devaluation, offering a favorable exchange rate to importers. In the second half of last year, the customs exchange rate was set at 16 EGP/USD while the market rate was EGP/USD 17.82-17.96. The non-essential imports include tobacco products, alcohol, pet food, and cosmetics. Other goods that will also be subject to the market rate include mobile phones, computers, furniture, shoes, cars, and motorbikes. The elimination of the repatriation mechanism for new inflows. The repatriation mechanism guaranteed the availability of foreign exchange for capital repatriation to portfolio investors that chose to sell foreign exchange to the central bank. Its elimination means that cash inflows and outflows by foreign portfolio investors will now impact the supply and demand of foreign currencies in the market. A new investment law was enacted in July 2017, which aims to promote domestic foreign investments by offering incentives and reducing bureaucracy. A new bankruptcy law was enacted in January 2018. Egypt ranks 101 out of 168 in the “Resolving Insolvency Index” of the Doing Business report. The law simplifies post-bankruptcy procedures and aims to reduce the need for companies to resort to courts in the case of bankruptcy. It also removes investment risk by abolishing imprisonment in bankruptcy cases. Chart 5FX Reform Was Inflationary     To mitigate the impact of these changes, especially on the lower and lower-middle income brackets, social programs have been expanded and improved, including: Takaful and Karama: An expansion of the cash transfer program, which now targets more than 10 million people, or ~10% of the population. Forsa: A program that helps create job opportunities for underprivileged youth by focusing on employment training. Mastoura: A program that lifts living standards and provides economic empowerment for Egyptian women by supplying microloans to fund projects. Sakan Karim: A program that aims to improve housing conditions of the poor by promoting access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Together, the structural reforms and targeted social programs will support the Egyptian economy by strengthening the business climate, attracting investment, and increasing employment. Since the beginning of the program, the country’s fiscal arithmetic has improved, inflation has been contained, and foreign exchange is no longer scarce. As a result, investor confidence has picked up. With the final $2bn tranche of the loan expected to be dispersed in the middle of 2019, the onus now lies on Egyptian policymakers to keep up the momentum. Bottom Line: With the IMF program now winding down, the continuity of reform implementation is squarely on the back of policymakers. With further structural policies in the pipeline, we expect policymakers to build on the macroeconomic gains of the past few years. Reaping The Rewards The most evident improvement following the reforms is seen in the fiscal purse. For the first time in over a decade, the primary balance is in surplus (Chart 6). The improvement reflects lower government spending commitments on the back of fiscal consolidation (Chart 7). Nevertheless, revenues remain weak, despite the implementation of the VAT, implying a need to improve tax collection and boost aggregate demand to raise taxable revenues. Chart 6Improving In Fiscal Arithmetic... Chart 7...On Back Of Fiscal Consolidation As policymakers continue reforming budgetary allocations, we expect the primary surplus to remain intact. This will alleviate some of the pressure on the overall budget, which, while still in deficit, has improved substantially. With the final $2bn tranche of the loan expected to be dispersed in the middle of 2019, the onus now lies on Egyptian policymakers to keep up the momentum. Nevertheless, the stock of public debt – whilst declining – remains elevated and will continue weighing on the overall budget (Chart 8). This is especially problematic for fiscal arithmetic since domestic interest rates are in the double digits and interest payments will tie down roughly half of government revenues. A combination of improving potential GDP, falling domestic interest rates, and continued prudence on debt is needed to stabilize Egypt’s debt dynamics. In fact, with the decline in both headline and core inflation, the Central Bank of Egypt has already embarked on a monetary easing cycle, cutting rates by 300 basis points since the beginning of last year (Chart 9). Although interest rates remain extremely high, lower borrowing costs will not only improve debt dynamics on the margin, but also encourage private sector credit, thus raising aggregate output and revitalizing domestic investment. Chart 8Debt Remains A Burden Chart 9Continued Easing Will Boost Outlook While inflation may accelerate in the coming months – on the back of a seasonal uptick in food prices during the month of Ramadan and the further removal of subsidies – we expect further cuts by the CBE in 2H2019 and 2020. Falling real wages due to fiscal consolidation also point to lower inflationary pressures (Chart 10). Unless Egypt manages to stabilize its debt dynamics, it will once again be forced to resort to debt monetization, which bodes ill for the currency as well as for inflation. The evidence to date points to an improvement (Chart 11). Chart 10Inflationary Pressures Are Contained Along with the improvement in the fiscal account, Egypt’s external deficit has also narrowed on the back of the improvement in the macroeconomic climate (Chart 12). The contraction in the current account deficit has been bolstered by an expansion in exports, which grew more than 10% in 2018. Chart 11Authorities Resisting Urge To Monetize Debt Chart 12External Deficit Contracting Chart 13Natural Gas Exports Will be Supportive   Notably, the energy trade balance has benefitted from an increase in Egypt’s natural gas potential (Chart 13). The giant Zohr field – the largest gas discovery ever made in the Mediterranean – came on stream in December 2017, and will support Egypt’s self-sufficiency in gas after falling domestic production forced Egypt to cut most LNG exports in 2014. The location of the gas field also presents opportunities for Egypt to become a natural gas export hub in the region. The Zohr field is close to other major fields in Israel and Cyprus, which means economies of scale can be utilized in developing regional export infrastructure. Egypt’s LNG export plants in Damietta and Idku have a capacity of 19 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year, which have been mostly idle in recent years. Already, an agreement between Egypt and Cyprus this past December committed to the construction of a pipeline connecting the Aphrodite gas field to Egypt’s LNG facilities. Similarly, a rebound in revenues from tourism to near-pre-crisis levels has helped improve the external account (Chart 14). Going forward, we expect the decline in terrorism to support the rebound of foreign inflows from tourism (Chart 15). This will be a non-negligible source of cash as tourism now accounts for roughly half of all service receipts, up from less than a quarter just three years ago. However, given that the security situation is unpredictable, this sector remains vulnerable to downside risks. Chart 14Rebound In Tourism... Another supportive source of inflows has been remittances from Egyptians living abroad. These continue to grow at a double-digit rate (Chart 16). Chart 16Recovery In Remittance Inflows Chart 17Foreign Investment Will Be Supported...   However, the financial account has taken a hit recently as inflows from portfolio investments have come down quite sharply on the back of investor aversion to emerging markets last year (Chart 17). Given the Fed’s pause, China’s stimulus, and other factors, we expect a pickup in portfolio investment. What’s more, Egyptian authorities have been working on improving the business environment, reflected in Egypt’s rising rank in the ease of doing business and global competitiveness surveys (Chart 18). This should improve foreign direct investment, which remains relatively weak so far. Chart 19Build Up In Central Bank Reserves Of course, despite these improvements, Egypt still ranks relatively low on these measures. Thus continued efforts to improve the business environment will be necessary to make Egypt an attractive destination for businesses. Yet Egypt’s foreign reserves have picked up considerably, and more importantly its net reserves – which exclude the CBE’s foreign borrowings – have once again turned positive (Chart 19). Bottom Line: The rewards from Egypt’s structural reforms are evident in the improvements to its twin deficits. While continued policy prudence is necessary to maintain the momentum of these policies, we expect the EGP/USD to remain flattish for the remainder of the year. We expect continued policy easing as the CBE cuts rates at least one more time in the second half of the year on the back of slowing inflation. Ghosts Of Futures Past Political stability and an improvement in macroeconomic indicators will no doubt be supportive of the Egyptian economy and assets in the near term. However, several structural risks remain, and could derail its performance down the road. For one, Egypt remains heavily reliant on its external environment. This environment has been largely cooperative throughout Sisi’s term in office, but a global or EM downturn could cause investment to collapse. Meanwhile the cyclical rise in oil prices will weigh on the import bill and raise headline inflation. Improvements in the business environment should attract foreign directinvestment. Second, a rising dependency ratio will pose a burden on Egypt in the coming years (Chart 20). Furthermore, elevated female and youth unemployment keep the output gap wide. True, the current improvement in the overall labor market will help the country weather the demographic headwind. However, another chronic problem is the quality of the Egyptian labor market. The latest data from the World Bank shows that government spending on education is significantly lower than it is among EM peers (Chart 21). Similarly, health expenditure per capita has not picked up much in recent years and has actually fallen as a share of GDP. Chart 20Demographic Challenges Remain   This has manifested in relatively low labor productivity and highlights the need for investment in human capital to improve potential GDP and the necessity for funds to be channeled to these sectors. Fortunately, the reforms have freed up badly needed fiscal space for now. Another key concern is the bloated economic role of the state and military. This is a double whammy to the Egyptian economy as it reduces fiscal funds available for other uses, such as healthcare and education while constraining the private sector. The crowding out of the private sector is evident from the recipients of bank credit: loans to the government – beyond purchases of government securities – are growing at by nearly 50% y/y, while lending to other sectors is expanding at less than 15% y/y (Chart 22). Once again, however, there is evidence of improvement: bank investments in government securities have come down from their peak and now represent roughly a third of total bank assets (Chart 23). Accordingly, credit to the private sector has likely bottomed. Chart 22Private Sector Crowding Out Remains... Chart 23...But Signs Of Improvement One structural concern that is here to stay is the fact that the Egyptian military occupies an oversized share of the economy. Given that all companies of the Egyptian armed forces are exempt from taxes, they have an unfair advantage over the private sector. The military has an especially large presence in Egypt’s recent infrastructure mega-projects. These include $8.2 billion invested in an expansion of the Suez Canal as well as the construction of a new administrative capital, 45 km to the east of Cairo. The military budget is secret and connected industries are not subject to auditing. Preferential treatment in assigning government contracts and the ability to offer services at a cheaper rate have further expanded the military’s role in the economy. Bottom Line: Risks to our optimistic outlook on Egypt mostly come from any deterioration in the external environment. The Egyptian economy is also weakened by structural weaknesses such as a large, under-invested labor market. These structural risks are considerable and will weigh on the long term investment potential of Egypt. In the short term, however, Egypt appears to be a lucrative trade opportunity. Investment Implications Egyptian sovereign spreads will likely contract going forward on the back of an improvement in the economic outlook (Chart 24). Thus, we recommend an overweight stance in Egyptian sovereign bonds within the EM space. Chart 24Improved Fundamentals A Positive For Sovereign Bonds Chart 25Equities Still Attractive   In the equities space, Egypt’s valuations look attractive relative to their Emerging Market and Frontier Market peers (Chart 25), despite the recent rally in recognition of the stability we outline here.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Sussing Out OPEC 2.0’s Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions,” April 11, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2      The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in 1975, in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, to protect the U.S. from supply disruptions. Faced with a “severe energy supply interruption” the U.S. president can authorize a maximum drawdown of 30 million barrels within a 60-day period, beginning 13 days after the decision. Notably, the SPR was tapped for 21 million barrels in 1990-91, during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and for 30 million barrels in 2011, when Libyan production fell to zero amid the revolution. The current inventory is 649 million barrels of sweet and sour crude, which could last the U.S. 114 days of crude imports. As U.S. net oil imports decrease, the length of time that the SPR could substitute for net imports rises. 3      The Egyptian parliament voted in favor of the proposed changes on April 16. The changes will be put to a public referendum – as early as next week – before taking effect. The amendments seek to (1) extend presidential terms from four to six years, (2) permit President Sisi to run again after his current term ends in 2022 – as an exceptional case, (3) allow the president to select the heads of judicial bodies and to oversee a new council responsible for judicial affairs, and (4) enshrine in the constitution a political role for the army to preserve the constitution, democracy and – ironically – the civilian nature of the country. 4      The most recent appreciation this year raised fears that the CBE is once again intervening in the currency market through state-owned banks.  

Highlights Q1/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -17bps in the first quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The underperformance came from the government side of the portfolio (-40bps), where our below-benchmark duration stance was mainly implemented through underweight positions in long-ends of government bond yield curves. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations (+23bps) after our tactical upgrade to global corporates in January. Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: An improving global growth backdrop, and benign monetary policy backdrop, should help generate an outperformance of the model bond portfolio – mostly through credit, but also through moderate bear-steepening of government bond yield curves. Feature For fixed income markets, the start of 2019 has been categorized by three main trends: falling bond yields, narrowing credit spreads, and slower global growth. Central bankers have been forced to shift to a much more dovish stance on monetary policy, in response to heightened uncertainties over the global economy, helping trigger rallies in both government bonds and credit. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the surprisingly eventful first quarter of 2019. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and total return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Overweight Credit Pays Off, Below-Benchmark Duration Does Not Chart of the WeekDuration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2019 Overall Return Attribution   The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the first quarter was 3.1%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -17bps (Chart of the Week).1 The bulk of the underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio (-40bps) - a function of both our below-benchmark duration tilt and underweight stance on sovereign bonds (Table 1). Of course, the flipside of that government bond underweight is a spread product overweight. The tactical upgrade to global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) that we introduced back on January 15 helped boost the credit piece of the model bond portfolio, which outperformed the custom benchmark by +23bps. The tactical upgrade to global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) that we introduced back on January 15 helped boost the credit piece of the model bond portfolio, which outperformed the custom benchmark by +23bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+11bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+10bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+8bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade financials (+5bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (+4bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-17bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-12bps) Underweight France government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-8bps) Underweight Emerging Markets U.S. dollar denominated corporates (-7bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2019. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral). It was a great quarter for global fixed income, as all countries and spread products generated positive total returns. Generally, our allocations did reasonably well. There were more blue bars than red bars on the left side of Chart 4 (i.e. more overweights than underweights where returns were higher), and vice versa on the right side (more underweights than overweights where returns were lower). Some of the hit to performance from below-benchmark duration is already starting to be recouped in the first weeks of Q2 as markets become more comfortable with early signs of improving global growth. The negative overall Q1/2019 result is obviously not satisfactory, but we are still pleased with the positive returns generated from the spread product side after we did our January upgrade. More importantly, some of the hit to performance from below-benchmark duration is already starting to be recouped in the first weeks of Q2 as markets become more comfortable with early signs of improving global growth, pushing bond yields higher. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index in the first quarter of the year. The underperformance came from the government side of the portfolio, where our below-benchmark duration stance was mainly implemented through underweight positions on the long-ends of government bond yield curves. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations after our tactical upgrade to global corporates in January. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will benefit from two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) versus government bonds. In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we are maintaining our tactical overweight tilt, equal to seven percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on global growth, which appears to be bottoming out after the sharp slowdown seen in 2018, to the benefit of corporate bond performance. That faster growth backdrop will also benefit our below-benchmark duration stance through a rebound in government bond yields. This should happen only slowly, however, as global central bankers are likely to keep their newly-dovish policy bias in place for some time until there are more decisive signs of accelerating growth AND inflation. We are maintaining our significant below-benchmark duration tilt (one year short of the custom benchmark), but we recognize that the underperformance from duration seen in Q1 will only be clawed back slowly over the next 3-6 months (Chart 6). As for country allocation, we continue to favor regions where tighter monetary policy is least likely (overweight Japan, the U.K., and Australia, neutral core Europe and Canada). We are staying underweight the U.S., however, as the market’s expectations for the Fed is too dovish, with -25bps of rate cuts now discounted over the next twelve months. We expect to make some changes to those country allocations over the next few months, however - most notably a potential downgrade in core Europe, and upgrade in Peripheral Europe, if the euro area stabilizes on the back of firmer global growth. We expect to make some changes to those country allocations over the next few months, however - most notably a potential downgrade in core Europe, and upgrade in Peripheral Europe, if the euro area stabilizes on the back of firmer global growth. The overall yield from the model bond portfolio is modestly above that of the benchmark (+7bps). That is admittedly a fairly small amount of positive carry (Chart 7) given the overweight credit position. It is a consequence of our below-benchmark duration stance, which is focused on underweights in longer, higher-yielding ends of government bond yield curves (i.e. we have a bear-steepening bias in the U.S., core Europe and even the very long-end in Japan). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious   Even though we have decent-sized overall tilts on global duration and spread product allocation, our estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) remains low (Chart 8). This is a function of some of the offsetting country and sector tilts within the overall allocations (i.e. more Japan than Germany, more Spain than Italy, more U.S. corporates than EM corporates). We remain comfortable maintaining a tracking error target range of between 40-60bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling, as our internal weightings are helping keep overall portfolio volatility at a modest level. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.2 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. In Tables 3A & 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, are all driven by what we continue to believe will be the most important driver of market returns in 2019 – the path of U.S. monetary policy. Our Base Case: the Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar remains flat, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index hovers around 15, and there is a mild bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is the case of a pickup in U.S. and global growth that is strong enough to support higher commodity prices, but not intense enough to rapidly boost U.S. core inflation, allowing the Fed to keep rates unchanged. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed does a surprise +25bps rate hike in June or September, the U.S. dollar rises by +3%, oil prices increase +10%, the VIX index climbs to 25 and there is a sharp bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This would occur if the U.S. economy reaccelerates alongside improved global growth, U.S. core inflation and inflation expectations move higher, and market volatility increases from a surprisingly hawkish Fed. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed cuts the funds rate by -25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -3%, oil prices decline -15%, the VIX index increases to 35 and there is a sharp bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where U.S./global growth momentum fades once again, leaving the Fed little choice but to ease monetary policy as market volatility surges alongside elevated recession risks. The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the U.S. dollar and the VIX index) are all unchanged from our late portfolio review in early January (Chart 9). The U.S. Treasury yield changes, however, are more moderate than what we used three months ago (Chart 10). That reflects the Fed’s dovish turn since then, which limits the upside for yields from multiple Fed hikes in 2019. Chart 9Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis     The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index by +43bps in our Base Case scenario. This comes from the relative outperformance of credit versus government bonds in an environment of slowly rising bond yields (below-benchmark duration), and tighter credit spreads (overweighting U.S. corporates). In the Very Hawkish Fed scenario, our model portfolio is projected to outperform the benchmark by +29bps. This comes mostly from below-benchmark duration, with more muted credit performance as spreads widen and volatility increases due to the unexpected Fed rate hike. In the Very Dovish Fed scenario, the model bond portfolio is expected to lag the benchmark by -49bps. Performance would get hit from both credit and duration, as government bond yields fall and credit spreads widen sharply against a backdrop of even slower global growth. The overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and Very Hawkish Fed scenarios. While we do not place probabilities on our scenarios in this analysis, if we did, the Very Dovish Fed scenario would be far less likely than the Very Hawkish Fed scenario (by definition, the Base Case is our most likely outcome). Global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the rest of 2019. Thus, the overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and Very Hawkish Fed scenarios. Bottom Line: An improving global growth backdrop, and benign monetary policy backdrop, should help generate an outperformance of the model bond portfolio – mostly through credit, but also through moderate bear-steepening of government bond yield curves.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Portfolio rebalancing is the process of realigning portfolio weights back to their strategic allocations. Frequent rebalancing is essentially a counter-cyclical, or value, strategy. In effect, investors buy low and sell high. Infrequent rebalancing is a momentum-factor investing strategy. Maximizing risk-adjusted return is the reason investors should rebalance, not maximizing return per se. We find that calendar, deviation, or a combination of both methods of rebalancing, can all improve risk-adjusted return compared to a non-rebalanced portfolio. Feature What Do We Mean By Rebalancing? The first step of portfolio construction is strategic asset allocation. Simply put, it is determining a set of asset weights that best suits the investor’s return target, risk appetite, capabilities, and other considerations. Once a portfolio is constructed, divergent returns among asset classes cause the weights of the portfolio to shift. Portfolio rebalancing is therefore, the process of realigning portfolio weights back to their strategic allocations. Chart 1Rebalancing Can Imply Style Rebalancing is a means of reducing portfolio risk rather than increasing returns, and is necessary to maintain the desired risk exposure over time. Frequent rebalancing can be viewed as value investing: a style in which investors “buy low and sell high” (Chart 1). Given the mean-reverting nature of asset performance, buying the undervalued asset and selling the overvalued should imply that future returns would be higher than past returns. Through this process, investors are hoping to obtain a “rebalancing premium”. It is crucial to recognize that rebalancing works best at inflection points. Hence, that premium is gained when the rebalancing frequency is similar to the frequency of the mean-reversion feature of assets. Rebalancing also allows a portfolio to be consistent with the investor’s risk appetite in order to avoid a particular asset class dominating. However, this is easier said than done. An investor’s intuition usually acts in the opposite direction, pushing him or her to follow momentum rather than cut back the weight of a “winning” asset. The question that this Special Report aims to answer is not whether investors should rebalance or not, but rather what kind of rebalancing they should do. We discuss three different conventional rebalancing methods that investors can use, illustrating the risk-return characteristics of a simple two-asset-class (60% equity/40% bonds) portfolio since 1973. In doing so, we rebalance the portfolio back to its 60/40 strategic weights. Rebalancing is a means of reducing portfolio risk rather than increasing returns, and is necessary to maintain the desired risk exposure over time. It is important to note that rebalancing is no free lunch. Costs vary depending on the method used. Costs include trading and transaction costs, operational costs (trade lags, labor, and time to monitor the portfolio), and tax costs (capital gains on appreciated assets). In this paper, we do not consider the operational and tax costs (as they differ from investor to investor). Rather, we examine portfolio returns given: (1) zero trading costs, and (2) a variable cost of 10 bps dependent on trade size. Additionally, frequent rebalancing can introduce “negative convexity”, a return profile in which large divergences in asset performance exceed the rebalancing premiums investors obtain.1 Throughout our explanations, we show two tables for each method: Table A illustrates the returns given zero costs, while Table B illustrates the returns given the variable costs. It is key to note however that there is no one-size-fits-all rebalancing method. The important thing to realize is that rebalancing, done correctly, must find an optimal balance between cost minimization and managing portfolio risk. As a benchmark, we examine how an unbalanced portfolio, which we will refer to as a “drift portfolio”, comprised of 60% equities and 40% bonds in 1973, would have evolved over the past 46 years. Given that equities outperform bonds over the long run due to their riskier nature, the drift portfolio ends with an 86% allocation to equities, and a maximum allocation of 87% over the period (Chart 2). Chart 3Broken Equity/Bond Correlation   Before describing how each methodology performed, we need to highlight a key point in understanding the results that follow: the equity/bond correlation underwent a step-change around 1998. Between 1975 and 1998, the correlation between equities and bonds averaged about 0.4. However, declining inflation expectations led to a reversal of this relationship. Since 1998, the equity/bond correlation averaged -0.3 (Chart 3, top panel). It is key to note however that there is no one-size-fits-all rebalancing method. The important thing to realize is that rebalancing, done correctly, must find an optimal balance between cost minimization and managing portfolio risk. How does this affect the results? A positive correlation between equities and bonds means that asset-class returns moved together, reducing the advantages of rebalancing. Therefore, between the start of our sample period, 1973, and 1998, rebalanced portfolios only slightly outperformed a non-rebalanced portfolio. It is crucial to recognize that rebalancing portfolios should continue to be most advantageous during times when asset returns exhibit negative correlation. Portfolio Rebalancing can take place in different ways2 (Table 1). Table 1Conventional Methods Of Rebalancing Rebalancing Methodologies Time-Only Rebalancing The most common rebalancing methodology used by investors is on a simple calendar basis. A survey conducted by the Financial Planning Association showed that 48%, 36%, and 14% of financial planners rebalance quarterly, annually, and monthly respectively; 1% of respondents said they rebalanced based on a client’s request.3 This form of rebalancing involves bringing the asset-class weights back to the agreed-upon benchmark at the end of a specified period. Periods can range from daily (which is rare) to multiple years. Several academic papers and practitioners call for investors to rebalance at least annually. For the purpose of this report, we look at monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and bi-annual rebalancing.4 Rebalancing not only increases return at the margin, but also reduces portfolio risk and hence improves risk-adjusted returns. The risk-adjusted return increases as the rebalancing frequency decreases. Bi-annual rebalancing had a risk-adjusted return of 1.016 versus 0.895 for a non-rebalanced portfolio and 0.985 for a monthly-rebalanced portfolio over our entire sample period (Tables 2A and 2B). All calendar-rebalancing dates outperformed a non-rebalanced portfolio on a risk-adjusted basis due to lower volatility. The same results persist even when costs are factored in. Rebalancing too frequently not only increased costs, but also limited upside potential. That is noticeable from the number of rebalancing events for a monthly-rebalanced portfolio versus an annually or a bi-annually rebalanced portfolio. Unsurprisingly, we found that all rebalanced portfolios on average underperformed the drift portfolio during equity bull markets, and outperformed in the period leading up to recessions and equity corrections (Chart 4). Given that stocks peak on average six to 12 months before a recession, the higher weighting in bonds at the start of a correction explains the outperformance of a frequently rebalanced portfolio versus a drift portfolio during recessions and equity market corrections. To put this into context, the drift portfolio’s equity weight at the time of the S&P 500’s peak in the dot-com bubble was 84%, versus an average of 61% across the rebalanced portfolios. Similarly, at the peak before the latest market selloff starting on October 3, 2018, the drift portfolio had an 87% equity allocation versus a 61% average allocation for the frequently rebalanced portfolios. Chart 5 shows that rebalancing reduces downside risk relative to a drift portfolio during downturns and recessions. Chart 4Calendar Rebalancing: Relative Performance Chart 5Calendar Rebalancing: Lower Drawdown Threshold-Only Rebalancing Threshold rebalancing allows asset-class weights to be readjusted back to their target weights once they deviate away by a certain percentage. This can be set in terms of either a percentage-point or a percent deviation. Given that, in this paper, we illustrate our findings using just a two-asset class portfolio with relatively large weights in each asset, percentage-point deviations are more appropriate. However, percent deviations should be used when a certain asset class has only a small weight within a portfolio, for example, a 20% deviation away from the 5% target weight of an asset class. A key benefit of threshold-only rebalancing over calendar rebalancing in a multi-asset portfolio is lower transaction costs. Unlike calendar-only rebalancing where all asset classes are brought back to target weights, only the assets that have moved away from benchmark by the set deviation have to be bought and sold. For example, in a five-asset class portfolio, it could be the case that only the best and worst performers have hit their thresholds and have to be adjusted, whereas the other asset classes do not. Tables 3A and 3B show the risk-return characteristics of rebalanced portfolios based on 1, 5, 10, and 20 percentage-point deviations. Similarly to calendar rebalancing, the wider the threshold, the better the risk-adjusted return. The rebalanced portfolio with a 20-percentage point threshold outperforms all other deviations on both a return and risk-adjusted basis. All rebalanced portfolios led to better risk-adjusted returns than the drift portfolio, even after costs are factored in. Also similar to calendar rebalancing, threshold deviation rebalancing also outperforms during recessions and market corrections (Charts 6 & 7). Chart 6Threshold Rebalancing: Relative Performance Chart 7Threshold Rebalancing: Lower Drawdown The table also illustrates that picking the right threshold is crucial. A threshold set too wide will miss all turning-points and hence turn into a drift portfolio. Whereas, thresholds set too narrow will produce only a small improvement in return at the expense of more rebalancing events, and therefore higher costs. Time-And-Threshold Rebalancing A time-and-threshold rebalancing combines the merits of both strategies. The portfolio is rebalanced only when an asset class has deviated from its target allocation by a set threshold on the date of rebalancing. Assuming, for example, monthly rebalancing with a 10% deviation, a portfolio would be rebalanced on the next monthly date only if it had deviated by more than 10 percentage points. Otherwise, the portfolio would not be rebalanced. This implies that two decisions have to be made: a threshold band and a rebalancing frequency. We present the results of this method in a slightly different way. In this case, we show each metric (annualized return (Tables 4A & 5A), annualized volatility (Tables 4B & 5B) and risk-adjusted return (Tables 4C & 5C)) separately under assumptions of both zero costs and variable costs.   The highest risk-adjusted return of 1.023 was achieved with quarterly rebalancing and a 20 percentage point deviation. This resulted in only three rebalancing events throughout the 46-year period. However, this was not as good as simply relying on a 20 percentage point threshold deviation. Investors wanting to keep a tighter control over their portfolio could use a tighter band with a more frequent rebalancing. As noted earlier, rebalancing is a way to maximize risk-adjusted return rather than maximize return. To simply maximize return, annual rebalancing with a 10-percentage point threshold, which had an annualized return of 9.80%, would be the best combination. However, that came at the expense of high volatility and a higher average equity allocation. Having fewer rebalancing events does not necessarily mean lower costs. In fact, we noted that the fewer the rebalancing events, the higher the annualized cost per trade5 (Tables 6 and 7). Given that our variable cost was dependent on trade size, a rebalancing method that relied on wider bands would incur higher costs per trade relative to narrower bands. Table 6Time-And-Threshold Rebalancing: Rebalancing Events Table 7Time-And-Threshold Rebalancing: Cost Per Trade (Bps) Beyond The Conventional Methods New rebalancing strategies have evolved that rely on different metrics. These include timing rebalancing events using tracking error or risk deviation, absolute momentum, or analyzing the stage of the economic cycle. A recent paper published by Northern Trust discussed the merits of risk-based tracking-error rebalancing as a superior method to traditional strategies. The paper concluded that risk-based tracking had outperformed most other rebalancing strategies while requiring fewer rebalancing events. Within the core strategies mentioned, several adjustments could be made to obtain better results from rebalancing events. Some argue that rebalancing back to a tolerance band, rather than to the precise allocation target, could improve risk-adjusted returns. That band is usually set at half of the deviation threshold band, but can vary at the investor’s discretion. Given costs that vary based on trade size, it might be cheaper for an investor to use tolerance bands. However, relying on such a method can easily rack up costs if the investor is going against momentum prior to its end, since relying on tolerance bands would require more frequent rebalancing. Bottom Line Rebalancing is a means of maximizing risk-adjusted return, rather than increasing absolute return. Rebalancing is no free lunch. Investors must take various associated costs into account before considering how and when to rebalance. The added benefit of rebalancing might seem small in annualized returns. However, on average, rebalancing led to an annualized decrease in volatility in excess of 1% over the 46-year period. It might be best for investors to use a time-and-threshold rebalancing to find a balance between cost minimization and maximizing risk-adjusted returns. Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com   1 Nick Granger, Douglas Greenig, Campbell Harvey, Sandy Rattray, David Zou, "The Unexpected Costs of Rebalancing And How To Address Them," AHL Partners LLP, July 2014. 2 Colleen Janconetti, Francis Kinniry Jr., Yan Zilbering, "Best Practices For Portfolio Rebalancing," Vanguard, July 2010. 3 Financial Planning Association, Longboard, and Journal Of Financial Planning, “2017 Trends In Investing,” www.onefpa.org. 4 We assumed that monthly rebalancing occurs on the first trading day of every month, quarterly rebalancing occurs on the first trading day of January, April, July, afn_4nd October, semiannual rebalancing on the first trading day of January and July, and annual rebalancing on the first trading day of the year. 5 Calculated as the difference in annualized return between 10 bps cost assumptions and 0 cost assumption multiplied by the number of years within the sample period divided by the number of trades.  

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed is in no rush to tighten, and will remain on hold until inflation expectations or financial conditions give them a reason to resume hikes. Investors should take advantage by overweighting spread product while keeping portfolio duration low. Municipal Bonds: The best value in municipal bonds is found at the long-end of the Aaa-rated municipal bond curve. Lower-rated and shorter maturity munis are much less appealing. Investors should focus their municipal bond exposure on Aaa-rated debt with 20-year and 30-year maturities. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed has now announced almost all the details of its balance sheet normalization plan. The Fed’s asset holdings will stop falling at the end of September, and we project that it will start buying securities again in 2020. Feature The minutes from the March FOMC meeting, released last week, were about as bullish for risk assets as anyone could have hoped. Not only did we learn that the Fed’s consensus forecast calls for economic growth to trough in Q1: Underlying economic fundamentals continued to support sustained expansion, and most participants indicated that they did not expect the recent weakness in spending to persist beyond the first quarter.1 But we also learned that, despite its economic optimism, the FOMC sees no reason to telegraph another rate hike any time soon: Chart 1Stay Overweight Corporate Bonds [A] majority of participants expected that the evolution of the economic outlook and risks to the outlook would likely warrant leaving the target range unchanged for the remainder of the year. The overall message couldn’t be clearer. The Fed is inclined to let the economy run for a while before it steps in to spoil the party. This supportive policy backdrop, coupled with our positive view of global growth,2 argues for investors to be overweight risk assets. Fortunately, even those who have so far been reluctant to add credit risk probably still have time to get in on the action. High-yield excess returns have only just made up the ground they lost near the end of last year, and investment grade corporates have another 46 bps to go (Chart 1). Further, only spreads from the highest rated credit tiers have tightened back to the target levels we set in February.3 Baa and junk-rated spreads still have ample room to tighten (Charts 2A & 2B). Specifically, The average Aaa-rated spread is currently 59 bps, 19 bps below our target. The average Aa-rated spread is currently 57 bps, exactly equal to our target. The average A-rated spread is currently 85 bps, 2 bps below our target. The average Baa-rated spread is currently 140 bps, 9 bps above our target. The average Ba-rated spread is currently 205 bps, 27 bps above our target. The average B-rated spread is currently 348 bps, 72 bps above our target. The average Caa-rated spread is currently 714 bps, 145 bps above our target. Chart 2AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 2BHigh-Yield Spread Targets As a result, we recommend that investors avoid Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated credits, but overweight the remaining corporate credit tiers. Who’s Watching The Punch Bowl? Even though a hike is not imminent, at some point the Fed will lift rates again. For this reason, and because the market is currently priced for 20 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Investors should avoid Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated credits, but overweight the remaining corporate credit tiers. But how will the Fed decide when to take away the punch bowl? In a recent report we made the case that the two most important factors to monitor will be (i) inflation expectations and (ii) financial conditions.4 Last week’s FOMC minutes only strengthened our conviction in that view. The Fed On Inflation Expectations The March FOMC minutes showed that participants are concerned that inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. In the Fed’s thinking, it must ensure that policy is accommodative enough to re-anchor inflation expectations. Otherwise, a Japanese-style scenario of permanent deflation could unfold. From the minutes:     Several participants observed that limited inflationary pressures during a period of historically low unemployment could be a sign that low inflation expectations were exerting downward pressure on inflation relative to the Committee’s 2 percent inflation target; Consistent with these observations, several participants noted that various indicators of inflation expectations had remained at the lower end of their historical range… In light of these considerations, some participants noted that the appropriate response of the federal funds rate to signs of labor market tightening could be modest provided that signs of inflation pressures continued to be limited. These concerns about low inflation expectations are not unfounded. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with “well anchored” expectations (Chart 3). The University of Michigan Survey of household inflation expectations is also well below pre-crisis levels (Chart 3, bottom panel). We expect monthly core CPI will print above 1.8% more often than not going forward. Our sense is that expectations are depressed because many years of low inflation have convinced markets that the Fed cannot sustainably hit its 2% target. In fact, our Adaptive Expectations Model – a model driven purely by measures of actual inflation – does a good job explaining movements in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 4).5 At present, our model shows that the 10-year breakeven is close to fair value. Although we expect the fair value reading from our model to creep slowly higher over time. Chart 3First Battleground: Inflation Expectations Chart 4Adaptive Expectations Model The most important independent variable in our model is trailing 10-year core CPI inflation, which is currently running at an annualized 1.8% clip. This means that as long as monthly core CPI prints above 1.8% (annualized), it will send our model’s fair value reading higher over time. While core CPI has printed below that threshold in each of the past two months, we expect it will more often than not exceed it going forward. Notice that while year-over-year core CPI has rolled over, trimmed mean CPI has increased and median CPI just made a new cycle high (Chart 5). Meanwhile, small businesses continue to report an elevated rate of price increases and ISM prices paid surveys recently ticked up, after having fallen sharply earlier this year (Chart 6). Chart 5Encouraging Inflation Readings... Chart 6...Alongside Continued Price Pressures The Fed On Financial Conditions The Fed didn’t have much to say about financial conditions at the March 2019 meeting. In fact, looking through the minutes we could only locate the following relevant passage: A few participants observed that the appropriate path for policy, insofar as it implied lower interest rates for longer periods of time, could lead to greater financial stability risks. The lack of references to financial conditions shouldn’t be too surprising. Financial conditions aren’t nearly as accommodative as they were last autumn, and hence are currently much less of a policy concern (Chart 7): Chart 7Second Battleground: Financial Conditions The financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor is at 0.5. It was more than one standard deviation easier than average only a few months ago (Chart 7, top panel). The average junk index spread is still 46 bps above its 2018 low (Chart 7, panel 2). The GZ Excess Corporate Bond Risk Premium, an estimate of the excess spread in corporate bonds after accounting for expected default risk, still hasn’t recovered after widening sharply near the end of last year (Chart 7, panel 3).6 At 16.8, the S&P 500 Forward P/E ratio is almost back to its October level of 17 (Chart 7, bottom panel). Now consider that last year, when financial conditions were much more accommodative, the Fed was much more concerned. Fed Governor Lael Brainard and Chairman Jerome Powell both warned that signs of economic overheating could show up in financial markets before they show up in price inflation. Also, the minutes from the September 2018 FOMC meeting reveal that participants were willing to use the risk of “financial imbalances” as justification for tighter policy. A few participants expected that policy would need to become modestly restrictive for a time and a number judged that it would be necessary to temporarily raise the federal funds rate above their assessments of its longer-run level in order to reduce the risk of sustained overshooting of the Committee’s 2 percent inflation objective or the risk posed by significant financial imbalances.7 Bottom Line: The Fed is in no rush to tighten, and will remain on hold until inflation expectations or financial conditions give them a reason to resume hikes. Investors should take advantage by overweighting spread product while keeping portfolio duration low. Extend Maturity In Municipal Bonds Chart 8Municipal / Treasury Yield Ratios We continue to recommend that investors hold an overweight allocation to tax-exempt municipal bonds. Not only does the sector tend to outperform during the mid-to-late innings of the cycle,8 but value also remains attractive, with one key caveat: The best value in the municipal bond space is found at the long-end of the Aaa curve. The Value In Aaa Munis Chart 8 shows yield ratios for different maturities of Aaa-rated municipal debt relative to Treasuries. Notice that the 2-year and 5-year yield ratios, at 65% and 70% respectively, are close to one standard deviation below average pre-crisis levels. In fact, the all-time low for the 2-year Muni / Treasury yield ratio is 61%, only 4% below the current level. The all-time low for the 5-year yield ratio is 66%, also only 4% below the current level. The 10-year yield ratio looks almost as expensive as the 2-year and 5-year. At 76%, it is also close to one standard deviation below its average pre-crisis level. It is also only 6% above its all-time low. The real value in Aaa municipal bonds is found at the very long-end of the curve, in the 20-year and 30-year maturities where yield ratios, at 92% and 94% respectively, remain well above average pre-crisis levels (Chart 8, bottom two panels). While yield ratios out to the 10-year maturity point likely don’t have much room to compress, they could still look enticing depending on an investor’s tax situation. For example, a 76% 10-year Muni / Treasury yield ratio means that an investor facing an effective tax rate above 24% would still earn a positive after-tax yield pick-up in the municipal bond relative to the 10-year Treasury. The Value In Lower-Rated Munis Table 1Municipal Revenue Bonds / U.S. Credit Index Yield Ratios When we move outside the Aaa-rated municipal bond space we find that relative value starts to evaporate. Table 1 shows yield ratios between different municipal revenue bonds and the U.S. Credit index. We did our best to match the duration and credit rating of the different muni sectors as closely as possible. The table shows that the highest available Muni / Credit yield ratio is for 20-year A-rated munis, and even that yield ratio is only 73%. This means that an investor would need an effective tax rate above 27% to earn a positive after-tax yield pick-up relative to the U.S. Credit index. In other words, investors can add a fair amount of value by swapping Aaa-rated munis into their portfolios in place of Treasuries, especially at the long-end of the curve. There is much less incremental value to be gained from replacing corporate credit with lower-rated municipal debt. The Yield Ratio Curve Chart 9A Supportive Environment For Munis Our research shows that the yield ratio advantage at the long-end of the Aaa-rated muni curve tends to be greatest when the fundamental credit back-drop is supportive and municipal ratings upgrades are far outpacing downgrades (Chart 9). Conversely, when downgrades increase, yield ratios usually widen at the short-end of the curve relative to the long-end. At present, the muni ratings back-drop looks fairly supportive. While state & local government interest coverage dipped in Q4 (Chart 9, panel 2), it remains positive and should rebound as tax receipts move back to levels that are more consistent with the trend in nominal income growth (Chart 9, bottom panel). Periods of negative interest coverage tend to precede downgrade spikes. Under normal circumstances, a positive ratings outlook would suggest that yield ratios should fall more at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end, but there is very little chance that short-maturity yield ratios can compress further from current levels. Instead, it makes sense for investors to camp out at the long-end of the Aaa muni curve. Not only is the yield pick-up greater, but long-maturity yield ratios should better weather the storm when the cycle eventually turns. Bottom Line: The best value in municipal bonds is found at the long-end of the Aaa-rated municipal bond curve. Lower-rated and shorter maturity munis are much less appealing. Investors should focus their municipal bond exposure on Aaa-rated debt with 20-year and 30-year maturities. Fed Balance Sheet Normalization Almost Complete The Fed also presented a much more detailed plan for balance sheet normalization at the March FOMC meeting. To summarize the details: The Fed will continue to allow assets to passively run off its balance sheet until the end of September. Beginning in May, the Fed will reduce the monthly cap on Treasury redemptions from $30 billion to $15 billion. This means that if $16 billion of the Fed’s Treasury holdings mature in May, $15 billion will be allowed to run off and $1 billion will be reinvested. The current monthly cap of $20 billion for MBS remains unchanged. After September, the Fed will keep its overall assets constant but will continue to allow its MBS holdings to run down. It will reinvest the proceeds from MBS run-off into Treasuries. After September, even though the Fed will keep the asset side of its balance sheet constant, the supply of bank reserves will continue to shrink because the Fed’s other non-reserve liabilities – mostly currency in circulation – will continue to grow. Eventually, reserves will shrink to a level that the Fed deems optimal for the future implementation of monetary policy. It will then start to increase its asset holdings by purchasing Treasury securities. To implement this policy the Fed will likely announce a “minimum operating level” of desired reserve supply and then buy enough Treasuries to ensure that reserves stay above that level. The Fed has not announced which maturities it will target when it re-starts Treasury purchases. In our view, there are only two remaining questions when it comes to the Fed’s balance sheet policy. What Treasury maturities will it purchase going forward? And, when will it start buying Treasuries again? The Treasury’s cash holdings will continue to decline until the fall, putting upward pressure on the supply of bank reserves. On the first question, we will have to wait for an official announcement. Though in our view the Fed will choose a policy that reduces the risk that it will be perceived to be easing or tightening monetary policy through its purchases. This could be achieved by either concentrating its purchases in T-bills, or by targeting maturities in proportion to the Treasury department’s issuance schedule. The second question comes down to estimating the minimum reserve supply that will ensure banks are fully satiated, so that they don’t start competing for scarce reserve balances, driving up overnight rates in the process. While that equilibrium reserve number is unknown, the New York Fed’s most recent Survey of Primary Dealers shows that the 25th and 75th percentile of dealer estimates range from $1.1 trillion to $1.3 trillion. With those figures in mind, we can turn to the simplified Fed balance sheet shown in Table 2. The current balance sheet is shown along with what the balance sheet will look like when run off stops at the end of September. Table 2Simplified Fed Balance Sheet Projections To forecast the Fed’s balance sheet we assume that MBS runs off at a pace of $15 billion per month and that currency-in-circulation grows at an annual rate of 5%. We also estimate a range of possible values for the Treasury department’s General Account. This is the account where the Treasury keeps its cash holdings, which currently total $246 billion. Because the Treasury is currently engaged in extraordinary measures to prevent the U.S. from breaching the debt ceiling, this cash balance will almost certainly decline between now and when the debt ceiling is raised in the fall. After the debt ceiling is raised, the Treasury will probably start to re-build its cash balance. All else equal, a decline in the Treasury’s cash holdings puts upward pressure on the supply of bank reserves, while an increase in the Treasury’s cash holdings causes the supply of bank reserves to fall. According to Table 2, the supply of bank reserves will be between $1.42 trillion and $1.66 trillion by the end of September, still above most estimates of its equilibrium level. The table also shows that reserves will then shrink to between $1.35 trillion and $1.60 trillion by June 2020 and to between $1.31 trillion and $1.55 trillion by the end of 2020. Based on those figures and the dealer estimates, the Fed can probably keep its asset holdings constant through the end of 2020 without losing control of the policy rate or causing a disruption in money markets. However, we expect the Fed will err on the side of caution and start purchasing Treasuries again much earlier, possibly in the first half of 2020. The reason for the Fed to act quickly is that it faces asymmetric risks. The Fed risks losing control of the policy rate if it allows reserves to fall too far, but there is no real downside to keeping the balance sheet “too large”. In any event, the Fed has already demonstrated that it has the tools to conduct monetary policy with a large balance sheet. Bottom Line: The Fed has now announced almost all the details of its balance sheet normalization policy. The Fed’s asset holdings will stop falling at the end of September, and we project that it will start buying securities again in 2020. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20190320.pdf 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 We moved to overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) in in the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit”, dated January 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. The rationale for our spread targets is found in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19 , 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (GZ) Excess Bond Premium is a measure of the excess spread available in a sample of nonfinancial corporate bonds after removing a bottom-up estimate of expected default losses for each security. Default losses are estimated based on the Merton Default model using each firm’s market value of equity and face value of debt. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/files/…; 7  https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20180926.pdf 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification