Financial Markets

Special Report

Highlights Many on the left have embraced Modern Monetary Theory because it seemingly provides a politically expedient way to increase social welfare spending without raising taxes. Money-financed budget deficits can be justified when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, but can be extremely inflationary once full employment is reached. Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation and larger budget deficits. The path to high rates is lined with low rates, meaning that an extended period of accommodative monetary policy is usually necessary to stoke inflation. Investors should maintain a bullish bias towards global equities for now, but be prepared to turn bearish late next year as inflation begins to accelerate in the United States. An earlier turn to a more defensive posture on stocks may be necessary if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, emerges as the likely victor in the next presidential election. Feature Print Some Money And Feel The Bern You know that an economic theory has reached the big leagues of policy debate when the Fed Chair is asked about it during his congressional testimony. This is exactly what happened on February 26, 2019, when Senator David Perdue questioned Jay Powell about his views on Modern Monetary Theory, or simply MMT as it is often called. Rather ironically given its name, MMT plays down the influence of monetary policy over the economy. Its adherents argue that Congress, and not the Fed, should be responsible for maintaining full employment. MMT proponents abhor the idea of a “balanced budget.” They contend that worries about sovereign debt levels are overblown. The U.S. government can always print money to finance itself. Fiscal deficits matter, but only to the extent that excessive deficits can cause inflation. The theory’s backers are a bit cagey about exactly how much inflation they are willing to tolerate or what they would do if, as in the 1970s, inflation and unemployment both rose together. Whether one thinks MMT is crackpot economics is not the point. What matters is that its supporters are growing in number. They include Stephanie Kelton, Bernie Sanders’ former economic advisor, and one of the speakers at BCA’s forthcoming annual New York Investment Conference. In my personal opinion, Sanders stands a very good chance of winning the 2020 presidential election. This makes MMT about as market-relevant as anything out there. In the following Q&A, we discuss the details of MMT and what it means for investors: Q: How does Modern Monetary Theory differ from standard Keynesian economics? A: MMT is almost indistinguishable from Keynesian economics when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, an environment where even interest rates of zero are not enough to revive demand. What really separates the two schools of thought is that MMT proponents tend to see liquidity trap conditions as the normal state of affairs, whereas most Keynesians see them as the exception to the rule. Q: Who’s right? The Keynesians or the MMTers? A: That remains to be seen. Near-zero rates have been the norm for most of the last decade, and much longer in Japan. This is a key reason why MMT has grown in popularity. The future may be different, however. Output gaps are shrinking and some of the structural forces which have held down rates over the last decade may fade. For example, the ratio of workers-to-consumers has peaked around the world, which may result in a decline in global savings (Chart 1). This could push up interest rates. Chart 1The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Q: Does the tendency of MMT backers to see the world as chronically ensnarled in a liquidity trap explain why they seem to consistently argue for bigger budget deficits? A: It does. If an economy needs negative interest rates to reach full employment, but actual rates are constrained by the zero-lower bound, anything which incrementally adds to aggregate demand will not result in higher rates. This means that increased government spending will not crowd out private investment – indeed, quite to the contrary, bigger budget deficits will “crowd in” private spending by boosting employment. The standard MMT prescription is to run a budget deficit that is large enough, but no larger, to maintain full employment. In effect, this means taking any excess private-sector savings – that is, savings which cannot be transformed into private investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus – and having the government absorb them with its own dissavings. Q: So MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time? Good luck with that. A: Yes, that is a common problem with most left-wing theories: They assume that the government should not be trusted with anything unless it is run by fellow leftists, in which case it should be trusted with everything. To make the fiscal response timelier, MMT supporters have proposed creating a government job guarantee. The basic idea is that the government would hire more workers when the private sector is hunkering down, while shedding workers when the private sector is expanding. In theory, automatic fiscal stabilizers of this sort could help dampen the business cycle. The consensus among MMT backers in the U.S. is that a $15 wage would be high enough to offer a tolerable standard of living without enticing many people to opt for government work when suitable private-sector employment is available. MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time. Unfortunately, as is often the case with such ideas, the devil is in the details. For example, does the $15 wage include potentially generous government benefits? What will the government do if someone shows up for work but decides to just loaf around? What about low-skilled workers who would be more productive in the private sector but are instead diverted into government make-work projects? Inquiring minds want to know. Q: And the price tag could be huge! Wouldn’t an extended period of large budget deficits – even if justified by economic circumstances – cause debt levels to spiral out of control? A: A prolonged period of large budget deficits would most certainly lead to a significant increase in the government debt burden. However, if the interest rate on government borrowing is lower than the growth rate of the economy, as MMT supporters tend to assume, the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually stabilize.1 In such a setting, the government could just roll over the existing stock of debt indefinitely, while issuing enough new debt to cover interest payments. No additional taxes would be necessary. Chart 2 shows this point analytically. Right now, projected GDP growth is higher than 10-year government borrowing rates for most countries (Chart 3). That’s the good news. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that this will remain the case indefinitely. If interest rates ever rose above GDP growth for an extended period of time, debt dynamics would quickly become unsustainable. MMTers argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants because they see the currency as a public monopoly.  Q: Isn’t it crazy to assume that interest rates will always stay below GDP growth? A: Not according to MMTers. They argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants. This is because they see the currency as a public monopoly. As long as a government is able to issue its own currency, it can create money to pay for whatever it purchases, and by definition, money pays no interest. This means that the interest rate can always be held below the growth rate of the economy. The only reason policymakers may wish to raise interest rates is if inflation is getting out of hand. However, even then, most MMT adherents would prefer that the government tighten fiscal policy either by hiking taxes on the rich or cutting spending programs they don’t like (the military is usually high on their list). Raising rates is widely seen by MMT supporters as simply providing a handout to bondholders. Q: It sounds like MMT basically cuts the Fed and other central banks out of the loop. A: That’s right. MMTers contend that monetary policy has little impact on the economy. In fact, many MMT advocates believe that higher rates raise aggregate demand by putting more income into bondholders’ pockets. It’s a very odd argument. Yes, corporate investment tends to respond more to animal spirits than to changes in interest rates. However, there is little doubt that rates affect housing, the currency, and asset prices (and all three, in turn, affect animal spirits). It is almost as if the 1982 recession – an episode where the Volcker Fed took interest rates to 19% – never happened. Q: An odd argument, but perhaps not a surprising one? A: That’s where the “Magic Money Tree” moniker comes in. When an economy is suffering from high unemployment, there really is a free lunch: Putting more people to work can increase someone’s spending without decreasing someone else’s. However, when an economy is at full employment, scarcity becomes relevant again. If a government wants to spend more, it has to convince the private sector to spend less, which it normally does by raising interest rates. MMTers like to throw out the old chestnut about how budget deficits endow the private sector with financial assets such as cash or government bonds. But if additional government spending leads to higher inflation, an increase in the volume of financial assets will simply result in the erosion of the value of existing financial assets. There may be times when more government spending is beneficial even in a full-employment economy, such as funding for basic scientific research or public infrastructure. However, there may also be times when increased government spending is wasteful and comes at the expense of valuable private-sector investment. MMT does not distinguish between the two cases because its adherents seem to deny that any such trade-off exists. Q: It sounds like MMTers want to have their cake and eat it too. A: Exactly. The political appeal of MMT is that it seemingly promises European-style welfare spending without Europe’s level of taxes. Just print more money! Let us ignore the fact that the Fed actually pays interest on bank reserves. Under the current rules, increasing the monetary base would not be costless for the government if that money ended up back at the Fed in the form of excess reserves, as it surely would. The bigger problem is that a large increase in government spending, which is not matched by much higher taxes, will quickly cause the economy to overheat. At that point, policymakers would either need to rapidly tighten fiscal policy, aggressively hike interest rates, or face hyperinflation and a plunging currency. Q: That seems like an obvious point. Why don’t MMTers see it? A: It gets back to what we discussed at the outset – MMTers regard the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity globally, including in the United States, where the unemployment rate has fallen below official estimates of NAIRU (the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment). MMT supporters tend to be skeptical of these NAIRU estimates, believing them to be biased upwards. MMTers see the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity in the world. To be fair, the methodology used by the OECD and many other statistical agencies to calculate the full employment rate, which effectively just smooths out past values of the actual unemployment rate, has probably understated the degree of labor market slack in a few countries (Chart 4). Chart 4AThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (I) Chart 4BThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (II) That said, we doubt that NAIRU is overstated in the United States. Both the Fed and the OECD peg NAIRU at 4.3%, slightly below the CBO’s estimate of 4.6%. As it is, the current CBO estimate is nearly one percentage point below the post-1960 average (Chart 5). Back in the 1960s and 1970s, most economists thought NAIRU was lower than it actually turned out to be (Chart 6). This caused the Fed to keep rates below where they should have been. Chart 5U.S. NAIRU Is Estimated To Be The Lowest On Record Chart 6The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Q: Let’s bring this back to market strategy. What does the increasing popularity of MMT mean for investors? A: Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation. The idea that central banks should raise rates preemptively to avoid overheating is slowly giving way to the belief that they should wait to see the “whites of inflation’s eyes” before tightening monetary policy. Meanwhile, on the fiscal side, austerity is out, and big deficits are in. None of this should be all that surprising. Attitudes towards inflation move in generational cycles. The generation that grew up during the 1930s was highly sensitized towards deflation risk. As a result, policymakers focused on increasing employment, even at the expense of higher inflation. In contrast, the generation that came of age in the 1970s favored policies that clamped down on inflation. For today’s generation, the stagflation of the seventies is a distant memory. “Maximum employment” is the name of the game again. It often takes several years for an overheated economy to produce inflation. This is particularly true when the Phillips curve is quite flat, as appears to be the case today. To the extent that the Fed raises rates over the next 12 months, it will be in response to better-than-expected growth. The stock market should be able to do well in that environment. However, as we get into late-2020 or early-2021, inflation may begin to move materially higher, forcing the Fed to crank up the pace of rate hikes. At that point, equity prices will drop and a maximum short duration stance towards government bonds will be warranted. Q: Just in time for Bernie Sanders’ inauguration! You predicted Trump would win, but Crazy Bernie? Come on, seriously? A: My guess is that Trump was the only Republican candidate who could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, while Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who could have lost to Trump. Had it been Bernie versus Trump, Trump would have lost. Given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed.   This is not just idle speculation. During the tail end of the 2016 primary season, head-to-head polls showed Sanders leading Trump by about 10 points, compared to a 3-point lead for Clinton (Chart 7). The final results would have been more favorable for Trump, but given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed. A strong economy will help Trump this time around. However, demographic trends continue to move against Republicans. Trump also made a strategic mistake during his first two years in office by focusing on Republican pet issues like corporate tax cuts and gutting Obamacare, rather than securing funding for the border wall, which was his signature campaign promise. For its part, the Democrat establishment will try to stymie Sanders again, but having recently watered down the “superdelegate” rules, it will be in a much weaker position to do so than last time. Q: Yikes, President Bernie doesn’t sound good for stocks! A: In our client conversations on “tail risks” facing the markets, Bernie Sanders almost never comes up. Admittedly, a lot can change in the next 12 months, including the possibility that Joe Biden will enter the race. Biden is more moderate than Sanders and has broad-based appeal. This means that it is still too early to make any significant changes to portfolio strategy. However, if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, begins to do well in the polls, markets may start to get antsy later this year.     Peter Berezin Chief Global Investment Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com       1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Price differentials between global light-sweet crude oil benchmarks Brent and WTI will narrow over the next three years, as U.S. light-sweet crude oil exports expand and North Sea production growth remains challenged. U.S. product exports also will expand, as investments by Gulf Coast refiners allow them to take in more of the domestic light-sweet crude output. Growing volumes of WTI being exported to Europe are being priced relative to Brent. Over time, we expect the marginal light-sweet crude barrel for the global oil market – and the benchmark of refiners’ primary cost – will be directly linked to WTI – Houston pricing. Given this expectation of increased U.S. exports, we are initiating a long WTI vs. short Brent swap position at tonight’s close in 2020. The 2020 swap settled Tuesday at $6.6/bbl; we project it will average $3.25/bbl. In the heavy-sour markets, differentials – most prominently the Brent – Dubai spread – will remain tight, owing to OPEC 2.0 production cuts, lost Venezuelan and Iranian exports, due to U.S. sanctions, and ongoing difficulties getting Canadian heavy crude to refining markets. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 likely will decide to extend production cuts to year-end in June, as opposed to May, as was expected earlier.1 This will allow the Cartel to respond to whatever the U.S. decides on May 4 re extending waivers on Iranian export sanctions, and to export losses from U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang announced tax cuts amounting to almost $300 billion (~ 2 trillion RMB), as policymakers attempt to hit a GDP growth target of 6.0 to 6.5% this year. We are getting tactically long spot copper at tonight’s close, expecting this fiscal stimulus to boost prices over $3.00/lb in the next 3 – 6 months. Feature In a little more than two years from now, Exxon will add 1mm b/d of pipeline take-away capacity to the Permian Basin. The new pipe is in addition to the 2mm b/d of takeaway capacity currently being added to the basin, which is expected to be fully operational by the end of this year. Current production in the Permian is close to 4mm b/d, so the combined incremental new pipe will provide considerable room for production growth into the 2020s. Exxon’s pipeline expansion – undertaken with Plains All American and Lotus Midstream – was announced in January, just before the company proceeded with its final investment decision (FID) to expand the capacity of its Beaumont, TX, refinery by 250k b/d to 616k b/d. The new capacity is expected to come online in 2022, and will make Beaumont the largest refinery in the U.S. The refinery expansion will take in light-sweet crude from the Permian, where Exxon plans to triple production to 600k b/d by 2025.2 These announcements are not one-offs: Permian production, and shale-oil output generally, is booming. In the Permian, oil output rose just over 800k b/d last year, according to the U.S. EIA (Chart of the Week, panel 1). Overall U.S. shale output in the Big 5 basins – Anadarko, Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Permian – rose close to 1.5mm b/d in 2018.3 Output growth in the Permian will remain super-charged on the back of the pipeline buildout, and the capex being poured into it as the Majors and large E&P companies industrialize production there, not unlike a manufacturing process. We expect the Permian to lead the development of shale-oil production, driving total crude and liquids growth in the U.S., which last year grew by 2.2mm b/d to reach 19mm b/d by December (Chart of the Week, panel 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Physical Liquidity Continues To Fall Continued investments in state-of-the-art refinery expansions in the U.S. Gulf are expected to continue as well, given the production growth we expect for the Permian, and the pipeline expansions that will take that output to the Houston refining market. Chevron, for example, is expected to close on an acquisition from Brazilian state oil company Petrobras for the 110k b/d Pasadena Refining System, also in the Houston Ship Channel. The company will feed this unit with light-sweet crude from the Permian, which it told analysts this week it expects to grow to 600k b/d by end-2020 and 900k b/d by 2023.4 At present, the U.S. Gulf Coast refining infrastructure cannot absorb all of the light-sweet crude that will be produced in the Permian and the other major basins in coming years. The export markets – particularly the Atlantic Basin, which is home to the physical Brent market – will be absorbing more and more of U.S. light-sweet production in coming years as North Sea production stagnates relative to the U.S. shales (Chart of the Week, panel 3). Output in the U.K. North Sea was at its lowest level since 1973 in 2017, following the price collapse of 2014 – 2017 instigated by the OPEC market-share war launched in 2014. UK output was flattish last year, while Norwegian production was down slightly more than 6% in 2018, bringing it to just under 1.5mm b/d. Drilling activity is picking up this year, along with M&A activity as private equity firms step in to buy properties being sold by the U.S. Majors. As can be seen in the Chart of the Week, production is expected to begin picking up at the end of this year, but base effects from the low levels of late exaggerate the gains in percentage terms. U.S. Crude Exports Set To Soar The North Sea Brent market is arguably the most important crude oil market in the world. It is the underlying physical market for the world’s benchmark crude oil – Brent Blend – against which up to two-thirds of the world’s crude oil prices are indexed.5 Production of the five constituent streams comprising the Brent index – the Brent, Forties, Oseberg, Ekofisk and Troll crudes – has been falling year on year, and one of the streams (Forties) is regularly being exported to Asian refining markets. This has prompted the main price-reporting agencies to consider adding to the constituents of the Brent index, and changing the type of pricing it records.6 At the same time, increasing volumes of WTI light-sweet crude are making their way into the Brent North Sea physical market.7 These export volumes will increase, supported by the buildout of pipeline takeaway and deep-water harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf, which, when done, will expand the capacity of Gulf ports to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs).8 On the back of these rising exports to the European market, Argus Media, one of the price-reporting agencies, this year began publishing U.S. waterborne pricing assessments as differentials to the ICE Brent futures. According to Argus, slightly over a quarter of the 2.6mm b/d of crude exports out of the U.S. last November went to Europe to compete with North Sea grades like Brent and Forties, two of the Brent index constituents. For the week ended February 22, 2019, the four-week average of crude oil exports from the U.S. was close to 3.1mm b/d, a record for average exports. According to S&P Global Platts, “There have been 48 VLCCs booked for loading out of the USGC so far in 2019 – about five times the amount booked in the first two months of 2018 and a drastic difference to the two VLCCs that were booked during the same period in 2017.”9 Most of the growth in U.S. exports is coming from the shale-oil production boom, which is swelling the volume of light-sweet barrels in the Gulf. While increasing volumes of WTI are making their way into European wet markets, it is too early to call WTI delivered to the Houston refining market (WTI – Houston) a benchmark; it’s more of a reference price for now. All the same, the necessary and sufficient conditions are falling into place for WTI – Houston to become a global benchmark: It has consistent quality; diversity of buyers (refiners and trading companies), sellers (producers and traders), and speculators to provide hedging liquidity to physical-market participants; and, in due course, will have reliable shipping facilities, including ports capable of handling VLCCs and smaller vessels. This last condition is the critical limiting factor at present.10 We expect that, by the early 2020s, the necessary and sufficient conditions will be in place to allow WTI – Houston to become a global benchmark. By that time, we project the U.S. will be exporting in excess of 10mm b/d of crude and liquids, and refined products, with crude exports alone exceeding 5mm b/d by then. Currently, the U.S. exports slightly more than 8mm b/d of crude oil and products (Chart 2). The six largest importers of U.S. crudes are found in the Atlantic and Pacific basins (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 2U.S. Will Expand Its Lead As Largest Crude and Products Exporter Chart 3AU.S. Exports To Atlantic ... Chart 3B... And Pacific Growing Bottom Line: We expect the Brent vs. WTI crude oil differential to narrow next year, as U.S. light-sweet crude oil exports expand and North Sea production stagnates. On the back of this, we are opening a long WTI vs. short Brent position in 2020. We expect this differential to average $3.25/bbl next year versus current market levels of $6.6/bbl. Canadian WCS Differentials Could Relapse The Western Canadian Select (WCS) differential to WTI YTD contracted to a discount of $10.50/bbl from an average discount of $26.3/bbl in 2018, as the Alberta government’s production curtailment took effect (Chart 4).11 This is allowing Alberta’s excess inventories to start declining, which was one of the primary motivations of the government’s action. Chart 4Government-mandated Production Cuts Reverse Inventory Builds in Alberta Not all the news out of Canada is good for producers, however. An unexpected delay in Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement and expansion puts future Canadian production growth in jeopardy. This will complicate the Alberta government’s plan to stabilize the sound discount to WTI, which is necessary to maintain investors’ confidence in the sector. In our previous analysis of the Canadian oil sector, we assumed the Line 3 replacement project would be completed in the fourth quarter of this year. This is now pushed back by at least 6 months, likely into 2H20.12 The replacement was expected to restore Line 3’s original takeaway capacity of 760k b/d from 390k b/d, and was a crucial input in our Canadian oil output forecasts. The reduction of the production curtailment to ~ 95k b/d in 2H19 previously announced by the Alberta government will not be sufficient to maintain the WCS transportation discount below $15/bbl (Chart 5). Thus, the government most likely will extend part of the ~ 325k b/d mandatory cuts into 2H19. A rollback of the curtailment policy to 95k b/d ahead of the Line 3 replacement would push the differential back above the crude-by-rail range – i.e., a $15-to-$22/bbl discount over the quality discount for heavy sour crude vs. the light-sweet. We expect a combination of production decreases and increased crude-by-rail transport, which will have to go to record levels, could help alleviate the negative pressure on the WCS-WTI discount (Chart 6). For instance, maintaining a 225k-barrel-per-day production curtailment from April to December 2019, combined with an increase in crude-by-rail transport to ~ 460k b/d by year-end would be enough to maintain the discount in our estimated crude-by-rail range (Chart 7).13 Heavy Crude Differentials Will Remain Tight The prolongation of Canadian crude bottlenecks will contribute to keeping heavy-sour vs. light-sweet price differentials tight. Altogether, our expectation of high compliance to the output cuts agreed by OPEC 2.0 countries, which primarily export heavy-sour crudes; larger-than-expected Venezuelan output declines in heavy-sour output; and continued takeaway capacity constraints in Canada will keep the price differentials between light-sweet and heavy-sour crudes tight. This can be seen in the Brent – Dubai spread, which at times, favors the heavy-sour crude streams (Chart 8). Chart 8Heavy-Sour Crude Differentials Tighten As Supply Contracts Bottom Line: The WCS differential vs. WTI is at risk of weakening once again, following the unexpected delay in Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement and expansion. The Alberta government will have to get more deeply involved to keep unconstrained production from hammering the differential once again.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see “OPEC likely to defer output policy decision until June – sources,” published by uk.reuters.com, March 4, 2019. 2 Please see “Permian Majors Expand Downstream Processing,” published by Morningstar Commodities Research, February 11, 2019. 3 These data were sourced from the EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report for February 2019. 4 See fn 2 above. See also “Chevron, Exxon take turns wooing investors with shale boasts,” published by reuters.com March 5, 2019. 5 This estimate comes from ICE Brent Crude Oil, published by The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which runs the Brent futures market. 6 Please see “Viewpoint: North Sea benchmark changes looming” which was published by Argus Media on December 27, 2018. 7 Please see “US waterborne crude trade shifts toward Brent basis” published by Argus Media on February 15, 2019. 8 See, e.g., Carlyle Group’s recently announced involvement in such a venture. Carlyle expects its deep-water buildout to be done in late 2020. 9 Please see “In the LOOP: Record US crude exports boost VLCC tanker demand, rates,” published by S&P Global Platts on March 5, 2019. 10 Please see Liz Bossley’s article “There Can (Not) Be Only One,” beginning on p. 15 of the May 2018 issue of the Oxford Energy Forum – Oil Benchmarks – Issue 113, for a discussion of different oil-price benchmarks. 11 We discuss Canada’s take-away dilemma in our November 29, 2018, publication entitled “The Third Man At OPEC 2.0’s Meeting.” It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see “Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline replacement likely won’t be in service until second half of 2020,” published by The Globe and Mail on March 3, 2019. 13 The government intends to increase the production ceiling by 100k b/d by April 2019, this makes the mandatory cuts at 225k b/d from 325k b/d in January 2019. https://www.alberta.ca/protecting-value-resources.asp Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in

Special Report

Highlights So What? Optimism over a U.S.-China trade deal is becoming excessive. Why? Presidents Trump and Xi appear to want a deal but their late March summit is not yet finalized. Several news reports supporting the bullish consensus are overrated. The odds of a “grand compromise” that entails China implementing U.S. structural demands are 10%. The odds of trade war escalation are 30%. China’s policy stimulus is a better reason than trade talks to become more constructive on Chinese and China-sensitive risk assets. Feature The Chinese equity market is rallying enthusiastically as the annual “Two Sessions” legislative meeting convenes (Chart 1). The basis for the rally is evidence of greater policy support for the economy along with a general belief that the U.S. and China are close to concluding a trade deal, possibly at a fourth summit between President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping that may be held in late March. The NPC session will build on the optimism with Premier Li Keqiang’s promise of more “forceful” policy support and the passage of a new foreign investment law that promises fair treatment to foreign companies. Chart 1Positive Trade Signals, But Market Getting Ahead Of Itself Our view is that the trade signals are broadly positive – implying a 70% chance that tariffs will either remain frozen or decrease in the scenario analysis below – but that the market is getting ahead of itself both in terms of the likelihood of a “structural deal” and in terms of the positive market impact from any deal. The market impact will depend on the depth of the concessions that China offers the United States. If the concessions are significant, President Donald Trump will be able to roll back tariffs to a considerable extent – trade policy uncertainty will fall, China’s economic outlook will improve, and Trump’s reelection odds (and hence U.S. economic policy continuity) could increase marginally. If China’s concessions are slight, tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent and the deal will stand on shaky ground, ensuring elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and raising the probability of a relapse into trade war ahead of the 2020 election. Trump may feel he has to prove his protectionist credentials anew against a trade critic in the general election. Will the outcome be positive enough to surprise Chinese and global markets that have already discounted a lot of positive news? From where we sit, this is unlikely. More likely, investors will be underwhelmed by a lack of resolution or the shallowness of a deal. The risk to this view is the aforementioned structural deal that involves substantial Chinese concessions combined with a major reduction in U.S. tariffs and sanctions. But even in this case investors will face additional trade uncertainty relating to the U.S. Section 232 investigation into auto imports, on which Trump must decide by May 18, underscoring the point that trade alone is not a firm basis for bullish investment recommendations over the course of H1 2019. The continued strength of the U.S. economy and China’s policy stimulus provide a more realistic basis for global risk assets to rally over the 6-12 month horizon. Presidential Momentum For A Trade Deal We remain pessimistic about U.S.-China relations in general and the prospects for a structural trade deal in particular. This is reflected in our subjective trade-deal probabilities, which hold that an additional extension is as likely as a final deal this month and that the risk of a relapse into trade war remains elevated at 30% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities Fundamentally, our pessimism stems from our view that the U.S. and China are locked in the early chapters of an epic struggle for supremacy in Asia Pacific that will reduce their ability to engage cooperatively (Chart 2). Chart 2China, U.S. In Geopolitical Power Struggle Critically, the economic impact of a trade war is not prohibitive for either country. China is not as reliant on exports as it once was. In addition, neither the U.S. nor China is too reliant on trade with the other to make a trade war unthinkable, as was the case with Canada and Mexico (Chart 3). Chart 3Economic Impact Of A Trade War Is Not Prohibitive China is economically vulnerable but is politically centralized, as symbolized by Xi Jinping’s aggressive purge of the Communist Party on the basis of corruption (Chart 4). The ruling party can and will accept the worst international economic outcomes since 1989-91, if it believes this is necessary for regime survival. Chart 4Regime Survival is Paramount Meanwhile the U.S. is economically insulated and performing relatively well (Chart 5), and is not politically divided on the question of China. A bipartisan, hawkish consensus has developed that will be discussed below. Just as we argued correctly that this trade war would occur, so too we believe it has a fair chance of reigniting. This could be due to policy miscalculation, unforeseen events, or the likelihood that Trump will face heat from the left-wing ahead of the election if he gives China as easy of a deal as he gave to Canada. Chart 5The U.S. Economy Is Strong But Softening... Nevertheless we accept that there is top-level momentum in favor of a deal for the time being, and this comes from both Presidents Trump and Xi. In China, delaying tactics are the standard way of coping with an angry Washington, as the perception in Beijing is that economic and technological advancement give it greater leverage over time. Moreover, the economy is weakening on several fronts, private sector sentiment is bearish, and the easing of fiscal and monetary policy is of unclear effectiveness (Chart 6). These are all reasons for Xi to seek at least a temporary reprieve. Chart 6...While the Chinese Economy Is Weak But Stimulating In the United States, Trump faces a difficult election campaign due to his relatively low job approval with voters (Chart 7). His polling has recently improved with the settlement of the FY2019 budget and avoidance of a second government shutdown, and this is despite his controversial decision to press forward unilaterally on southern border security. But he will be running for office late in the business cycle and is vulnerable to an equity bear market and recession. This explains why he has shown risk aversion since October on market-relevant issues ranging from NAFTA, Iran, and China. A trade deal with China offers the possibility not only of satisfying a campaign promise (renegotiating the terrible trade deals of the past) but also of a substantial boost to investor sentiment and key parts of the U.S. economy via Chinese cash. Thus it is reasonable to assess that Trump and Xi can satisfy their political preference for a deal in the short run. If Xi does not gratify Trump’s campaign platform as a great deal-maker, he will give impetus to Trump to form a grand protectionist coalition. Such a coalition could eventually succeed in constricting China’s technological development, as exemplified by the U.S.’s campaign against Chinese telecoms equipment maker Huawei. Fundamentally, China still depends on the West for the computer chips that are essential building blocks for its manufacturing sector (Chart 8). However, while this is a reason for Xi to play ball, it is far from clear that Xi will rapidly implement deep structural changes demanded by the United States. Xi has good reason to fear that Trump will continue the tech war on national security grounds despite any trade deal. Plus, either Trump or a Democratic president could take new punitive trade measures after 2020, given the underlying strategic struggle. For these reasons China is likely to slow-walk any structural concessions. We recognize that our 35% probability that trade talks will be extended cannot last forever. Assuming that Trump and Xi confirm the time and place of a fourth summit, the probability of some kind of deal will rise toward 70%. We doubt very much that Trump and Xi will attend such a summit without a high degree of confidence in the outcome, unlike the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi, which suffered from inadequate preparation. Yet even if the probability of a deal rises to 70%, we still think there would remain a 30% chance of either an unexpected extension or a disastrous breakdown in negotiations – and we are not yet at that 70% mark. Bottom Line: Until a Trump-Xi summit is finalized in the context of continued progress in trade negotiations, we maintain our pessimistic probabilities for the trade negotiations, with a 30% chance of total collapse and a 35% chance of a further extension of talks beyond March. Remain Vigilant On The Trade Talks It is debatable whether momentum in favor of a U.S.-China trade deal has increased over the past two weeks as much as the news flow suggests. First, Trump’s extension of the tariff deadline – which he originally envisioned as a pause for a month “or less” – could just as easily lead to additional extensions rather than a quick resolution. This will be clear if a Trump-Xi summit does not materialize in late March. A logical time for the two to meet would be at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29, which would prolong the trade policy uncertainty for nearly four months from today. Second, reports suggest that China, like the EU, is demanding that all Trump’s tariffs be removed as part of any trade deal. If true, this demand is more likely to result in a failure to make a deal than a total tariff rollback. The reason is that the U.S. needs to retain the ability to adjust Section 301 tariffs based on China’s actual degree of implementation of any commitments it makes to reduce forced technology transfers, economic espionage, and intellectual property theft. Several of these commitments are enshrined in the new foreign investment law that would pass through China’s legislature over the next two weeks (Table 2), but the U.S. will want to ensure that the law is actually implemented. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations If the U.S. rolls back all Section 301 tariffs it will lose a convenient legal standing from which to dial the tariffs back up if necessary. It is more likely that part or all of the 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of goods will be rolled back (our short-term trade deal scenario with 25% odds) than that the entire Section 301 tariffs will be rolled back (our best-case trade deal scenario with a 10% probability). The degree of rollback will be a critical indicator of the durability of any deal, as it will make a material difference for China’s export-manufacturing outlook (Chart 9). Thus far, China’s economy has counterintuitively benefited from the trade war due to tariff front-running. Chart 9The Degree Of Tariff Rollback Matters Third, the disagreements between President Trump and his hawkish lead negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, are likely overstated in their ability to increase the odds of finalizing a deal. There are two arguments for the view that Trump is losing faith in Lighthizer. The first is that he blames Lighthizer’s tough tactics for the equity market selloff. This may not be valid given that stocks continued to sell off after Trump sided with the trade doves and agreed to a trade truce with Xi Jinping. In December the S&P 500 suffered the worst monthly performance since February 2009 and the worst December performance since 1931. The second argument is more substantial and comes from Trump’s public interchange with Lighthizer over the use and value of memorandums of understanding (MOUs). The interchange was awkward and suggests that tensions exist between Trump and his top negotiator.1 However, the episode may have an important implication. Whatever the reason for the disagreement, Lighthizer gained the assent of two Chinese negotiators – Vice Premier Liu He and U.S. ambassador Cui Tiankai – in his declaration, on camera, that the term MOU would be dropped in preference for the term “trade agreement.” The result is that while the deal is still not going to be a “Free Trade Agreement” that requires legislative ratification, the language of the final document will be if anything more, not less, binding. This episode cannot possibly accelerate a final deal. It is hard to believe that Lighthizer is not secretly happy with the result of his dust-up with the president. It is well known – and frequently complained about by Lighthizer and other Trump administration officials – that China has very active diplomacy and makes many international agreements that are more nominal than real in their results. As a simple example, China typically agrees to a larger value of outbound investment than is ultimately realized (Chart 10). In fact, Lighthizer is at the forefront of the administration’s repeated and explicit aim to pin China down to better implementation and enforcement of any agreement. Indeed, in both of Lighthizer’s reports on the Section 301 investigation that motivate the tariffs, he refers to a well-known September 2015 commitment, between President Xi and former U.S. President Barack Obama, not to conduct cyber-espionage against each other’s countries. Lighthizer shares the view of the broader U.S. political establishment that China only temporarily enforced this commitment and later ramped up its hacking to steal trade secrets.2 Chart 10China Known For Overpromising Fourth, Trump’s failure to conclude a peace and denuclearization deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam does not increase the odds of a U.S.-China deal – it is either neutral or negative for U.S.-China talks. Whether intentional or not, the summit reminded the Chinese that Trump’s “art of the deal” requires the willingness to walk away from a bad deal. As mentioned, we view the odds of Trump walking away from a China deal at 30%. But the deeper problem is that Trump expects China’s assistance with North Korea as a condition of the trade deal. Whenever Trump thinks that China is not providing enough assistance, he threatens to walk away from talks with Kim. This occurred in May 2018 and has apparently occurred again. The failure of the summit is a failure of U.S.-China diplomacy in the sense that China could not or would not convince Kim Jong Un to offer more concrete steps toward denuclearization. This reflects negatively on the trade talks if it reflects anything at all. Bottom Line: Aside from the presidential momentum behind a trade deal, none of the recent news reports or leaks form a basis for upgrading the probability of a final agreement in late March. Will It Be A “Structural Deal”? Lighthizer is not isolated in driving a hard bargain with China: he enjoys the support of both parties in the U.S. Congress. At his recent testimony on U.S.-China trade to the House Ways and Means Committee, bipartisanship was a key theme. Democrats as well as Republicans voiced support for Lighthizer as the top negotiator due to his strict stance on China’s trade practices, while Lighthizer himself praised both Trump and Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being skeptical about China’s trade practices as far back as 2001. The takeaway is that Trump needs deep concessions from China – what the top Democrat on the committee called “a structural deal” – in order to defend any trade deal against domestic critics and skeptical voters on the campaign trail in 2020. In other words, there is unanimity in Congress, as there was in May 2018, that Trump should not sacrifice his leverage for a deal limited to Boeings and soybeans but should instead obtain victories on core disagreements: national security, foreign exchange rates, market access, and intellectual property. The MOUs – now “agreements” – that are reportedly being drafted address these core disagreements. Therefore signs of progress in producing final drafts should be seen as evidence that the odds of a final deal are improving: Forced tech transfers: Raising equity caps for foreign investment in key sectors is a headline way to reduce the leverage that Chinese companies have used to extract technology (Table 3). There are other arbitrary licensing and permitting practices that could also be curtailed. Table 3Foreign Investment Equity Caps Intellectual property: China’s purchases of U.S. intellectual property are conspicuously small, especially when considering that China is not yet an innovation giant in terms of international IP licensing receipts relative to the amount that it pays out.3 If the U.S.’s IP trade balance with China were equivalent to its balance with South Korea, it would result in a $36.7 billion improvement in the U.S. balance (Chart 11). Services: China is a major growing market for U.S. service exports but Washington frequently complains about denial of market access, for instance in financial and legal services. Services exports also underscore the above point about intellectual property (Chart 12). Foreign exchange: The U.S. is asking China not to maintain a more market-oriented currency but rather to promote a stronger currency relative to the dollar, perhaps referring to the yuan’s undervaluation according to purchasing power parity (Chart 13). It is impossible for Trump to accept a deal that does not include some text on the currency since he has hammered the issue of Chinese currency manipulation on the campaign trail and is trying to talk down the greenback. South Korea agreed to a currency annex and Japan is likely to do the same, and that makes it even less feasible for China to get off the hook. Non-tariff barriers: The U.S. has a long roster of complaints about China’s trade practices, including subsidies to state-owned companies, dumping, and inadequate health, environmental, and labor standards. Changing these practices will raise the costs of production in China. Changes to non-tariff barriers can also increase American market access in a way that goes beyond the simultaneous demands for lower tariffs on U.S. imports (Chart 14). Chart 13China Not Off The Hook On Currency Manipulation If China pledges improvements on these issues then it could justify substantial tariff rollback, perhaps the entire 10% tariff on $200 billion. This scenario, the best version of our 25% trade deal scenario, would comprise a positive surprise for markets in the current environment. It still could fall short of a grand bargain justifying a total tariff rollback, unless implementation is swift and decisive, which is highly improbable. A lesser but still market-positive surprise would be an American agreement to reduce pressure on Huawei (comparable to the deal reached in May 2018 on that other besieged Chinese tech company, ZTE). Still less positive outcomes would be a partial reduction in the tariff rate or an American agreement to expand or expedite exemptions to existing tariffs. The last would indicate relatively low expectations about the depth of China’s concessions. Bottom Line: Until the actual details of any Chinese structural concessions and American tariff relief are known, the durability of any U.S.-China trade deal cannot be assessed. This warrants at best cautious optimism regarding the trade talks: the two sides are working on draft texts about the right things. Investors will not be positively surprised by an agreement that does not include structural concessions of the nature above as well as substantial American tariff rollback, which is needed to verify American confidence in China’s commitments. Investment Implications The outcomes that are currently available to investors leave substantial room for prolonged trade policy uncertainty (Chart 15). Any further extension of trade talks means that uncertainty will persist at current levels. A deal that includes limited structural concessions means that uncertainty will ease but remain elevated relative to pre-2018 levels, due to the persistent threat of Section 301 tariffs that the U.S. will wield in order to secure Chinese concessions. A failure of negotiations means a dramatic escalation in uncertainty; this is our 30% risk due to the geopolitical and technological struggle underway. We allot only a 10% chance to a grand bargain that includes deep structural reforms and full tariff rollback. Chart 15Trade Uncertainty Will Persist As a final consideration, investors should be aware that the better the U.S.-China trade deal, the higher the probability that Trump imposes tariffs on auto and auto part imports pursuant to the Section 232 investigation into the impact of these imports on national security, which concluded February 17. The Commerce Department’s recommendations are still unknown but it is not a stretch to imagine that the administration has discovered a national security threat. However, this determination alone does not require Trump to impose tariffs. If he is to impose, he has until May 18 to do so. The full value of U.S. auto and auto parts imports is larger than the value of Chinese imports that currently fall under Trump’s tariffs. It is very unlikely that the U.S. will match this size of tariffs against the EU (Chart 16). Certainly it will not do so if the U.S.-China conflict remains unresolved, since it seems a stretch to believe the equity market can sustain both trade wars at the same time. The Trump administration has already found that the China tariffs without negotiations were disruptive to the U.S. equity market and economy, and the U.S. has told the European Union and Japan that it will not impose tariffs as long as negotiations are underway. To do so would be practically to foreclose the possibility of a trade agreement prior to the 2020 election, at least in the case of the EU. Thus it is only after any U.S.-China deal that the risk of EU impositions rises. We take the view that Japan is likely to conclude an agreement with the Trump administration quickly, possibly even before the China deal but almost certainly shortly afterwards. Trump administration officials will also likely intervene on behalf of South Korea due to the strategic need to stay on the same page regarding North Korea, which itself led to the successful renegotiation of the two countries’ existing trade agreement last year (which included autos but did not explicitly exempt Korea from Section 232 auto tariffs). This leaves the EU, which is quarreling with the U.S. over a range of issues: trade, Iran, Russia, China, Brexit, Syria, etc. Our base case is that the U.S. will not impose sweeping Section 232 tariffs on the EU due to the negative impact this would have on the U.S. auto industry, which is rooted in the electorally critical Midwest; the aforementioned risk to the equity market and economy; and the fact that neither the U.S. public, nor Congress, nor the corporate lobby are supportive of a trade war with Europe. Tariffs would also harm the Trump administration’s broader attempt to galvanize Western countries against the strategic challenge of China, Russia, and Iran. Nevertheless, the risk of such sweeping tariffs is non-trivial because Trump does not face legal constraints in imposing them – he can act unilaterally, just as he did with the early Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, which broadly remain in force. A negative trade shock to the EU at a time of economic weakness may not overwhelm the positive trade impact of a U.S.-China deal in the context of China’s policy stimulus, but it would take the shine off of any risk-on exuberance following a China deal. In the end, China’s risk assets are likely to continue benefiting from domestic policy stimulus plus the 70% likelihood that tariffs will not go up. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy remains cyclically positive Chinese stocks relative to emerging market stocks over a 12-month horizon given China’s more robust stimulus measures and the above trade view. We are shifting our long China Play Index to a trade as opposed to a portfolio hedge. We are also long copper. We would anticipate that the trend for CNY-USD will be flat to up as long as negotiations proceed in a positive manner. BCA’s China Investment Strategy is tactically positive Chinese stocks relative to the global MSCI benchmark on the same basis, but is awaiting more evidence of a stabilization in the earnings outlook before recommending that investors shift to an outright overweight over the cyclical horizon. Still, our China team placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in their February 27 Weekly Report, signaling that the next change in recommended allocation is likely to be higher rather than lower.4   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnote 1 News reports had indicated that Lighthizer and his Chinese counterparts were negotiating six MOUs – on forced tech transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture, and non-tariff barriers to trade – in pursuit of the March 1 deadline. When asked about the time horizon of the MOUs at a public press conference with the Chinese trade delegation in the White House, President Trump said that MOUs were not the same as a “final, binding contract” that he wanted as an outcome of the talks. Lighthizer spoke up in defense of MOUs, leading the president to publicly disagree with him. Lighthizer then declared that the term “MOU” would no longer be used and instead the two sides would use the term “trade agreement.” 2 This was the same summit at which Xi Jinping declared in the Rose Garden that China had no intention to militarize the South China Sea – an even more frequently cited example of divergence between China’s official rhetoric and policy actions on matters of strategic consequence. 3 Please see Scott Kennedy, “The Fat Tech Dragon: Benchmarking China’s Innovation Drive,” CSIS, August 2017, available at www.csis.org. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative,” dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chart 1Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Earlier this year the Fed signaled a dovish policy shift in response to slowing global growth and tighter financial conditions. In large part due to the Fed’s move, financial conditions are now easing and the CRB Raw Industrials index – a timely proxy for global growth – is starting to perk up. But when will this improvement translate to higher Treasury yields? The CRB/gold ratio offers some clues. Gold moves higher when monetary policy eases. Then with a lag, that easier policy spurs stronger global growth and a rising CRB index. Eventually, that stronger growth puts rate hikes back on the table. A more hawkish Fed limits the upside in gold and sends Treasury yields higher. In fact, we find that the 10-year Treasury yield only starts to rise when the CRB index outpaces the gold price (Chart 1). The recent jump in the CRB index is a positive sign, but we shouldn’t expect Treasury yields to rise until the CRB/gold ratio heads higher. In the meantime, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and initiate positive-carry yield curve trades (see page 10) to boost returns while we wait for the next upward adjustment in yields. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 59 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +243 bps. The Federal Reserve’s pause opens a window for corporate spreads to tighten during the next few months. We recommend overweight positions in corporate bonds for now, but will be quick to reduce exposure once spreads reach our near-term targets (Chart 2). Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview In last week’s report we published option-adjusted spread targets for each corporate credit tier.1 The targets are based on the median 12-month breakeven spreads during prior periods when the slope of the yield curve is quite flat but not yet inverted, what we call a Phase 2 environment.2 Currently, the Aa-rated spread of 59 bps is 3 bps above our target (panel 2). The A-rated spread of 91 bps is 6 bps above our target (panel 3). The Baa-rated spread of 156 bps is 28 bps above our target (panel 4). The Aaa-rated spread is already below our target. We advise investors to avoid the Aaa-rated credit tier. With profit growth poised to moderate during the next few quarters, it is unlikely that gross corporate leverage will continue to decline at its current pace (bottom panel). As such, we will be quick to reduce corporate bond exposure when spreads reach our targets. Renewed Fed hawkishness will be another headwind for corporate bonds in the second half of the year. High-Yield: Overweight High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 175 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +590 bps. In last week’s report we published near-term spread targets for each high-yield credit tier.3 The targets are based on the median 12-month breakeven spreads seen during periods when the yield curve is quite flat but not yet inverted, what we call a Phase 2 environment.4 At present, the Ba-rated option-adjusted spread is 224 bps, 37 bps above our target. The B-rated spread is 376 bps, 81 bps above our target. The Caa-rated spread is 780 bps, 208 bps above our target. Our default-adjusted spread is an alternative measure of high-yield valuation. It represents the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses. It is currently 243 bps, very close to the historical average of 250 bps (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast during the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 243 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview The Moody’s baseline forecast calls for a default rate of 2.4% during the next 12 months. This appears a touch too optimistic, as our own macro model is calling for a default rate closer to 3.5%.5 In either case, junk bonds currently offer adequate compensation for default risk. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +39 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 2 bps on the month, driven by a 5 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The fall in option cost was partially offset by a 3 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The recent drop in the 30-year mortgage rate led to a jump in mortgage refinancings from historically low levels, putting some temporary upward pressure on MBS spreads (Chart 4). However, the relatively tepid pace of new issuance during the past few years means that the existing MBS stock is not very exposed to refinancing risk, even if mortgage rates fall further. All in all, we view agency MBS as one of the safest spread products in the current macro environment. Chart 4MBS Market Overview The problem with MBS is that valuation remains unattractive. The index option-adjusted spread for conventional 30-year MBS is well below its average pre-crisis level (panel 3) and the sector offers less compensation than normal compared to corporate bonds (panel 4). We continue to recommend a neutral allocation to agency MBS. An upgrade will only be appropriate when value in the corporate sector is no longer attractive relative to expected default risk. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 38 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 97 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +320 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 54 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +86 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 44 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +109 bps, while Domestic Agencies outperformed by 12 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +9 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 10 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. The USD-denominated sovereign debt of most countries continues to look expensive relative to equivalently-rated U.S. corporate credit. However, in a recent report we highlighted that Mexican sovereign debt is an exception (Chart 5).6 Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Not only is Mexican sovereign debt cheap relative to U.S. corporate credit, but our Emerging Markets Strategy service highlights that the Mexican peso is very cheap as measured by the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs.7 This is not surprising given that the peso has been relatively flat versus the dollar during the past two years, despite real interest rates being much higher in Mexico than in the U.S. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 85 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 5% in February, and currently sits at 81% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and right at the average level that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview In other words, municipal bonds on average are no longer cheap. Rather, they appear fairly valued compared to similar prior macro environments. But a pure focus on the average yield ratio across the curve hides an important distinction. The yield ratio for short maturities (2-year and 5-year) is very low relative to history, while the yield ratio for long maturities (10-year, 20-year and 30-year) remains quite cheap (panel 2). Investors should continue to focus on long-maturity municipal debt to add yield to U.S. bond portfolios. In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1983, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps (where it stands today), investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +3 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +64 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage).8 Given strong historical returns during the current phase of the cycle and the fact that our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory (bottom panel), we advocate an overweight allocation to municipal bonds. Treasury Curve: Favor 2/30 Barbell Over 7-Year Bullet Treasury yields rose in February, led by the long-end of the curve. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 3 bps on the month and currently sits at 21 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 57 bps. Our 12-month fed funds discounter remains below zero, meaning that the market is priced for rate cuts during the next year (Chart 7). We continue to view rate hikes as more likely than cuts on this time horizon, and therefore recommend yield curve trades that will profit from a move higher in our discounter. In prior research we found that the 5-year and 7-year Treasury maturities are most sensitive to changes in our discounter, so any trade where you sell the 5-year or 7-year bullet and buy a duration-matched barbell consisting of the long and short ends of the curve will provide the appropriate exposure.9 Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview An added benefit of implementing a barbell over bullet strategy in the current environment is that barbells currently offer higher yields than bullets, meaning that you earn positive carry as you wait for the market to price rate hikes back into the curve (bottom 2 panels).10 Not surprisingly, barbell strategies also look attractively valued on our yield curve models, the output of which is found in Appendix B. TIPS: Overweight TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 36 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +120 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 11 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.96%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.07%. Both rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. After last month’s increase, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently very close to the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model (Chart 8).11 This model is based on a combination of backward-looking and forward-looking inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ inflation expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. The current fair value reading from the model is 1.97%, but that fair value will trend steadily higher as long as core CPI inflation remains above 1.84%. The 1.84% threshold is the annualized trailing 10-year growth rate in core CPI, and it is the most important variable in the model. Chart 8Inflation Compensation On that note, core CPI has increased at an annual rate of 2.58% during the past four months, well above the necessary threshold. And while some forward-looking inflation measures have moderated, notably the ISM Prices Paid index (panel 3), this is largely a reaction to the recent drop in energy prices. A drop that should reverse as global growth improves in the coming months. ABS: Neutral Cut To Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +38 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 31 bps, 3 bps below its pre-crisis low (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview Our excess return Bond Map, shown in Appendix C on page 18, shows that Aaa-rated ABS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off compared to other U.S. bond sectors. Aaa-rated auto loan ABS in particular offer greater risk and lower potential return than the Aggregate Plus index (the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index plus high-yield).  Tight spreads look even more unattractive when you consider that the delinquency rate for consumer credit is rising, and according to the uptrend in household interest expense, will continue to march higher in the coming quarters (panel 4). Lending standards are also tightening for both credit cards and auto loans, a dynamic that often coincides with a rising delinquency rate and wider ABS spreads (bottom panel). Given the recent spread tightening, we advise investors to reduce consumer ABS exposure in U.S. bond portfolios. Other sectors, such as Agency CMBS, offer a more attractive risk/reward trade-off within high-rated spread product. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 74 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +142 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 13 bps on the month and currently sits at 93 bps, below the average pre-crisis level but somewhat higher than the recent tights (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Market Overview The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that banks tightened lending standards on commercial real estate (CRE) loans in Q4 and witnessed falling demand (bottom 2 panels). This, coupled with decelerating CRE prices paints a relatively negative picture for non-agency CMBS. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Teasury index by 49 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +77 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 48 bps. The excess return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 2 basis points of rate cuts during the next 12 months. Given that we expect the Fed to deliver rate hikes in the second half of this year, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the change in the fed funds rate. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +55 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 55 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of February 28, 2019) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of February 28, 2019) Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return.   Ryan Swift,  U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 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 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting China’s Stimulus”, dated January 17, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 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 9  Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Don’t Position For Curve Inversion”, dated January 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights It was easy to upgrade equities to overweight at the beginning of the year, … : The fourth-quarter selloff had reduced the S&P 500’s forward four-quarter multiple to 13.6 at its trough, and we never shared the market’s fear that the Fed was one false move from triggering a recession. … but what should someone who sat out January’s and February’s moves do?: Is it worth buying stocks now, after they’ve risen 10% since our upgrade, and 18% since the Christmas Eve bottom? Wait, in our opinion, but it’s not an easy answer: We find it hard to believe that the S&P 500 is going to go straight back to its late-September highs, reversing the fourth-quarter swoon in a mirror-image first-quarter blast. Our best guess is that the bull market is not yet over, but we think its upside is limited: It’s hard to see a bear market materializing in the absence of a recession, and the Fed’s pause has likely pushed the next one out to the second half of 2020 at the earliest. The potential gains are not unlimited, however, and an inflation-wary Fed will eventually cut off the bull’s oxygen. Feature Take two dozen opinionated people with backgrounds in markets and economics and scatter them around a boardroom table. Introduce the day’s key global economic data releases, market activity, corporate news, and geopolitical developments as potential discussion topics. Have the moderator remain alert for points of contention and seek to intensify them at every opportunity. Add four or five months of the worst winter weather North America’s got to offer, this side of Winnipeg and International Falls, Minnesota, and stir. If only economists were more telegenic, or Canadians could credibly be as unpleasant as their neighbors to the south, that might be the elevator pitch for a can’t-miss reality show. Instead, it’s the recipe for BCA’s daily morning meetings, and not one of its hard-working participants is likely to be able to use it as a step on the path to celebrity riches. It is a path to getting better at analysis and reasoning, however, and an ideal forum for stress-testing economic or market hypotheses. It can also furnish research ideas, as it did for us last week. “Let’s say you have a client who missed the equity run-up in January and February. What would you recommend s/he do now?” one of our colleagues called out to us late in Tuesday’s session. Someone else jumped in before we could reply, the thread was lost, and the meeting broke up so everyone could get back to their own research priorities. Had we gotten to reply, we would have recommended that the client wait for a better entry point, and this week’s report is devoted to explaining why, in the simplest back-of-the-envelope terms. How Much Can S&P 500 Earnings Grow? When analyzing equities, we like to decompose them into their component parts: forward earnings and the multiple investors are willing to pay for them. In the hall of mirrors as described in Keynes’ newspaper-beauty-contest metaphor,1 what matters for our purposes in projecting S&P 500 earnings is less what will happen, or what our own earnings models might project will happen, than what the analyst consensus thinks will happen. The consensus estimate of calendar 2019 S&P 500 earnings per share (EPS) is currently $168.37, a modest 4% increase over calendar 2018 EPS. This is a conservative estimate, relative to history, given that S&P 500 operating EPS have grown at an average rate of 8% over the last 40 years (Chart 1). Chart 1Outside Of Recessions, Earnings Typically Grow It is also conservative given the pattern earnings estimates have followed across the five bull markets that have occurred in the 40 years since estimates began to be compiled. We have previously observed that equity bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line. On average, they begin by being blasted out of a cannon, sharply cool off in the second quintile, and build back up in the third and fourth quintiles, before retrenching ahead of a latter-stages surge (Chart 2). The earnings estimate pattern is jumpier. Forward estimates stumble out of the first-decile gate before rising at a double-digit rate over the rest of the first half, then slow sharply to the first decile’s pace in preparation for posting their most potent growth in the final decile (Chart 3). Disaggregating the individual bull markets’ performance shows that the overall last-decile performance is not the product of a couple of outlier readings. In all but the December ’87 – July ’90 bull market that ended with flatlining estimates, estimated forward four-quarter earnings growth in the final decile of the bull market comfortably exceeded mean growth across the full bull market (Chart 4). Chart 4Optimistic At The Very End Analysts’ 2019 estimates additionally look low because median corporate revenue growth ought to converge with nominal GDP growth over time. With 40 basis points of fiscal stimulus slated to be deployed in 2019, we expect the U.S. will have no trouble growing above its 2 – 2.25% trend. Assuming GDP growth at the top of that range, no change in profit margins, share buybacks to reduce outstanding share count by 2%, and 2% inflation, the S&P 500 should be able to grow EPS by 6.25%. The 2.25% difference between the consensus estimate and the back-of-the-envelope projection aligns with corporations’ desire to manage analyst expectations. If the S&P 500 can grow earnings at a rate of 6.25% this year, calendar 2019 EPS would come in at $172.13. The default estimate for the following year would be the mean of historical EPS gains, or about 9%. Applying a 2% lower-the-bar haircut, corporate management teams might guide to 7% growth in 2020. Grossing up our estimated calendar 2019 earnings by 7% yields projected calendar 2020 earnings of $184.17 (Table 1). Table 1Estimating Consensus Expectations For Calendar 2020 S&P 500 EPS What Multiple Might Investors Pay? Estimating a plausible forward multiple is more of a challenge than coming up with a reasonable consensus S&P 500 EPS estimate. Multiples, like all market prices, are dictated in large part by emotion, which often defies prediction. We can make some inferences from the 40-year history of forward multiples nonetheless. That history suggests that the current 16.5 multiple is elevated, but not worryingly so, as it is only a little more than half of a standard deviation above the mean (Chart 5). Chart 5Elevated, But Not Stretched Multiple movements have followed a pattern across the last five bull markets, but their moves are much more volatile than moves in forward estimates, which never decline in a bull market. Broadly, multiples explode higher at the start, plateau, and then retrace some of their initial gains (Chart 6). Their growth pattern inflects higher in the second half before peaking near the end of the bull market and rolling over into the finish. The broad pattern applies to all of the bull markets except the October ’02 – October ’07 bull, in which the multiple peaked in the third decile before sinking for much of the rest of the way. Chart 6Multiples Usually Follow A Well-Defined Pattern Aggregating the multiple moves by decile shows the pattern with more clarity (Chart 7). A burst of re-rating in the first decile signals the beginning of the bull market. The multiple goes on to retrench through the fourth decile and then expands at a double-digit annualized rate until it runs out of steam at the beginning of the final decile. The empirical takeaway is that investors shouldn’t look for much in the way of multiple expansion over the rest of the bull market, and we therefore apply a 16.5 multiple to our $184.17 estimate of forward four-quarter earnings a year from now, yielding an S&P 500 target of 3,040. Mapping A Course Using forward four-quarter earnings four quarters out to develop our price target shows that we do not expect the S&P 500 to surpass its late September highs anytime soon. We have marveled at the way the index has moved straight up since its Christmas Eve bottom, and have been waiting for it to reveal the top of a tradeable range. We thought 2,640, which had marked a triple-bottom in October and November’s turbulence, might present some resistance, and then perhaps 2,700, but the S&P went through both levels like a warm knife through butter (Chart 8). This week’s action suggests that 2,800 – which was a significant level throughout much of 2018 – just might mark the top for a little while. Chart 8Trying To Find The Top Of The Range Our recommendation to an investor who spent January and February underweight equities is therefore to wait. It’s also our recommendation to anyone seeking to add more exposure. As for investors seeking to reduce exposure, the action Friday as we were going to press seemed to suggest that the current levels around 2,800 are a good place to lighten up on equity holdings. If we’re wrong, an investor could buy out-of-the-money calls, which are not too onerously expensive now that the VIX is back below 15, though we almost always think the insurance offered by options is cost prohibitive for investors who are judged on a relative-return basis. Closing Thoughts We are devoted followers of long-term-oriented investors with long-term records of success who are willing to share aspects of their approach in print or in public appearances. We avidly read Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders this week, and were delighted to discover a transcript of Charlie Munger’s Q-and-A session with shareholders at the privately-held Daily Journal Corporation’s annual meeting. Howard Marks has been a particular favorite of ours over the years, and this exercise provided confirmation of his view that bull markets end when conditions appear to be at their very best. In line with the Buffett view that investors should be fearful when others are greedy, Marks has argued that bull markets are done in by too much optimism. The tendency for earnings estimates to grow at their most rapid pace in the final stages of a bull market supports Marks’ position. It seems improbable on its face that corporate earnings would make their biggest move at the end of the cycle (Chart 3). The fact that the growth in actual operating earnings tends to peak well before the end of the business cycle (Chart 1) suggests that analysts – and the corporate management teams whose guidance provides the starting point for their earnings models – get lulled to complacency by the successes in the rear-view mirror. In that sense, it may be good for equities that expectations are so beaten down now. Perhaps this bull market will not end until managers, analysts and investors get at least a little bit euphoric.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 In his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes compared financial markets to a newspaper contest in which every contestant chooses the six most attractive people from a set of one hundred head shots. The winner is the contestant whose choices best align with the most attractive photos as selected by all of the entrants. Sophisticated contestants don’t bother with the faces they consider to be the most attractive, but with the faces that best align with conventional notions of attractiveness. “It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects average opinion to be.”

Feature The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of February 28, 2019. The quant model increased allocations to Spain, Italy, Sweden and Germany at the expense of the U.S., the Netherlands and Switzerland. As such, now the model underweights the U.S., Japan, the U.K, France, Canada (downgraded from overweight) and Australia, while overweighting Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Sweden (upgraded from underweight), as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 18 bps in February, with a 54 bps of outperformance from the Level 2 model offset by a 9 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 148 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 267 bps and Level 1 outperforming by 29 bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)​​​​​​​ Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model We are happy to reintroduce the GAA Equity Sector Selection model after we suspended it as of October 2018 following the GICS adjustments to global sector composition. As noted in our September 2018 Special Alert and October 2018 Quarterly, the most notable changes occurred in the new Communication Services sector (previously known as Telecommunication Services) and the Information Technology sector, whereas the Consumer Discretionary sector had various yet insubstantial movements in and out of the sector. Having received historical performance of the revised data, we have retested and adjusted various inputs in the model to match the cyclicality of the revised sectors. We were able to backtest the model to only June 2008 as this was the starting point of the revised data. Given the nature of firms that are now included in the global Communication Services sector, we revised our classification of this sector from a defensive to a cyclical. Hence, it will be positively impacted by the model’s growth component. Furthermore, we have introduced Real Estate as its own sector (following its removal from Financials in August 2016). Additionally, we have neutralized the impact of the liquidity component on the Real Estate sector; in other terms, we found no evidence that the Fed cycle affects this sector in any of its four phases. We also revised the valuations component by shortening the confirming signal of our technical indicator from a 12-month to a 6-month moving average. To properly assess the model’s adjusted performance, we have reset the “since going live date” to begin in March 2019. However, the historical backtested performance of the model will still be shown in Chart 4. Additionally, we show the old model’s performance vs. its benchmark (Table 3). Chart 4Overall Model Performance Given the above, and following our Monthly Update that was released yesterday, the model corroborates our slightly cyclical stance by overweighting Industrials and Materials (Table 4). Additionally, the model’s biggest underweight shift from last month was on Consumer Staples as the momentum indicator significantly deteriorated. The model is overweight Utilities due to positive inputs from its momentum and liquidity components. Table 3Old Model’s Performance Table 4Current Model Allocations​​​​​​​ For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com   Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com  

Feature Recommendations Two Key Questions For Asset Allocators Stocks have rallied this year – MSCI ACWI is up 17% from its late December low – despite the fact that economic growth outside the U.S. has continued to deteriorate. The PMI in Germany has fallen to 47.6, in Japan to 48.5, and the average in Emerging Markets to 49.5 (Chart 1). Chart 1PMIs Ex-U.S. Still Falling U.S. growth remains robust, though recent data have showed some signs of weakness. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index has fallen sharply, capex indicators have slipped, and December retail sales were terrible (Chart 2). The New York Fed NowCast for Q1 is now pointing at only 1.2% real GDP growth. Most of the slippage, however, was caused by the six-week government shutdown, and should be reversed in Q2. And the retail sales number appears “rogue”, perhaps caused by irregular data-collection methods during the shutdown, since other retail data do not support it (Chart 2, panel 3). The tightening of financial conditions in the last months of 2018 – which has now partly reversed – may have added to the slowdown (Chart 3). BCA’s view is that U.S. GDP growth is likely to come in well above 2% in 2019, slower than last year’s 2.9% but still above trend. Chart 2Should We Worry About U.S. Growth Too? Chart 3Financial Conditions Now Easing Our recommendation, therefore, is to continue to overweight equities (particularly U.S. equities), which should be supported by decent earnings growth (our top-down model points to 12% EPS growth for the S&P500 this year, compared to a bottom-up consensus forecast of only 5%), reasonable valuations, and sentiment that appears still to be damaged by the Q4 sell-off (Chart 4). Chart 4Environment Still Positive For U.S. Equities Two key questions will determine which asset allocation will be optimal this year. First, how long will the Fed stay “patient” and keep rates on hold? The futures market has almost completely priced out the possibility of any rate hikes in 2019, and even assigns a 15% probability of a cut (Chart 5). We still see upside risk to inflation, with core PCE likely to print above the Fed’s target of 2% by mid-year, partly because of the year-on-year base effect (in January 2018, monthly inflation was especially high), but also because underlying inflation pressures remain (Chart 6). Chart 5Is The Fed Really Going To Cut Rates? Chart 6Inflation Pressures Haven't Gone Away The market has misunderstood two of the Fed’s recent messages. Its mooted plan to end balance-sheet reduction by year-end is not intended as part of monetary policy. It is simply that bank excess reserves will have reached USD1-1.2 trillion, the level required to operate monetary policy using current tools, rather than those used before 2007 when reserves were zero (Chart 7). Second, recent discussions about changing the Fed’s inflation target from 2% a year to a price-level target will probably become effective only when the effective lower bound is hit in the next recession and, anyway, no decision will be taken until mid-2020. Chart 7Excess Reserves Will Be At Equilibrium Soon The market has taken this talk as dovish. We read recent comments by Fed Chairman Jay Powell to mean that if, by June, the economy is robust, risk assets are still rebounding, and inflation is ticking up, the Fed will continue to hike, maybe two or three times by year-end. This implies long-term bond yields will rise too. Equities may wobble initially but, as long as the Fed is hiking because growth is solid and not because of an inflation scare, this should not undermine the 12-month case for equity outperformance. The second key question is whether China has now abandoned its focus on deleveraging and switched to a 2016-style liquidity-driven stimulus. Certainly, the January total social financing number pointed in that direction, with new credit creation of almost 5 trillion RMB ($750 billion) and the first signs of an easing of restrictions on shadow banking (Chart 8). But the jury is still out on whether this is the massive reflation the market has been waiting for. Premier Li Keqiang criticized the increase, saying, “the increase in total social financing appears rather large…it may also bring new potential risks”. A PBOC official commented that the big increase was “due to seasonal factors” and emphasized that China was not embarking on “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. The recent more positive noises on the U.S./China trade war may also alleviate the pressure on China to stimulate. Chart 8First Signs Of Chinese Reflation? If and when Chinese growth does rebound, this will have major implications for asset allocation. It would signal a bottoming of the global cycle, which would favor stocks in Emerging Markets, Europe and Japan. It would push up commodity prices, and imply a weaker dollar. For now, we are not positioning ourselves like this, since global growth remains weak. Nonetheless, the first signs of a bottoming are appearing with, for example, the diffusion index of the global Leading Economic Index (which often leads the LEI itself) turning up (Chart 9). We may shift in this direction mid-year, and are now making some minor changes to our recommendations (see below) to hedge against this risk. But for the moment we prefer U.S. equities, expect further USD appreciation, and remain cautious on EM. Chart 9Is The LEI Close To Bottoming? Equities: We prefer U.S. equities given their better growth, reasonable valuations, and depressed sentiment (despite their outperformance year-to-date). But we are watching for an opportunity to increase our weighting in Europe, where growth still looks poor but may rebound in H2 due to fiscal stimulus, improving wage growth, a dovish turn by the ECB, and an eventual recovery in exports to China (Chart 10). We still see problems in EM, since earnings growth expectations need to be revised down further and stock prices have risen prematurely on expectations of a Chinese recovery (Chart 11). But we reduce the size of our underweight bet, to hedge against Chinese credit growth continuing to accelerate. We are also raising our recommendation for the industrials sector (with its large weight in capital goods companies dependent on exports to China) to overweight for the same reason.  We fund this by cutting consumer staples to underweight. We also raise our weighting on the energy sector, given our positive view on oil prices (see below). This gives our sector weightings a slightly more cyclical tilt, in line with our macro view. Chart 10Some Good News In Europe Too Chart 11EM Has Further Downside Fixed Income: It has been a conundrum this year why equities have risen and credit spreads tightened significantly, but the 10-year Treasury yield remains stuck below 2.7%. One explanation is that inflation expectations have been dampened by the crude oil price and if, as we forecast, oil continues to recover, the inflation component of the yield will rise (Chart 12). U.S. yields have also been dragged down by weak growth in other developed markets, where bond yields have therefore fallen. The spread between U.S. and German and Japanese yields reached record high levels in late 2018 (Chart 13). The term premium also is deeply into negative territory because many investors remain highly bearish and have hedged this view by buying Treasuries. If our view of robust U.S. growth, rising inflation, and more Fed hikes is correct, we would see 10-year Treasury yields rising towards 3.5% over the next 12 months. Accordingly, we are underweight global government bonds. We raised credit to neutral last month, but continue to have some qualms about this asset class, and prefer equities as a way of taking exposure to further upside for risk assets. Besides high leverage among U.S. corporates, we are worried about the deterioration in the quality of the credit market, since duration has been extended, covenants weakened, and the average credit rating fallen (Chart 14). Chart 12Inflation Expectations Driven By Oil Chart 13U.S. Yields Pulled Down By Europe And Japan Chart 14Deterioration In Credit Market Fundamentals Currencies: We see some more upside in the U.S. dollar over the next few months, given U.S. growth and monetary policy relative to the euro area and Japan (Chart 15). This may reverse, however, if global cyclical growth rebounds in the second half. The dollar is particularly vulnerable if macro conditions change, since it looks around 10% overvalued relative to other major DM currencies, and speculative positions are predominantly long dollar (Chart 16). Chart 15Relative Rates Support USD Chart 16But Dollar Vulnerable To Macro Shifts Commodities: With demand likely to grow steadily this year, but supply under pressure because of production cuts by OPEC and Canada, lower U.S. shale oil output, and disruptions in Venezuela and elsewhere, our energy strategists see drawdowns in inventories throughout the year (Chart 17). They forecast Brent to average $75 a barrel during 2019 (compared to $66 now), with WTI $5 a barrel lower. Industrial commodities continue to be driven by China which means, given our view expressed above, that we may see further weakness short-term, with a possible rebound in H2 (Chart 18). Chart 17Oil Supply/Demand Is Tight Chart 18When Will Metal Prices Bottom?   Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   GAA Asset Allocation  

Special Report

Highlights Investors are currently too pessimistic on Europe’s growth prospects. In fact, European growth will soon bottom. European growth and inflation are also set to improve relative to the U.S. This should give investors an opportunity to reassess the long-term outlook for European Central Bank policy relative to the Fed. Global growth dynamics are also moving in an increasingly dollar-bearish direction, which should create a tailwind for the euro. Based on the pricing of European assets relative to the U.S., there is scope to see more capital flows into the euro area, implying that more euro buying is forthcoming. The entire European currency complex is a buy relative to the dollar; while the NOK, the SEK, and even the GBP could outperform the euro, the CHF will underperform. EUR/JPY also has upside. Feature The case to sell the euro is easy to make. European growth has been very poor: PMIs, industrial production and even German exports are all pointing to a contraction in output; and economic surprises are testing levels recorded during the euro area crisis. Most importantly, this economic retrenchment is particularly sharp when compared to the U.S., which suggests that real interest rate differentials should continue to hurt EUR/USD (Chart 1). Chart 1Selling The Euro Seems So Easy... The problem with this narrative is that investors are already well aware of Europe’s woes. Could Europe instead recover and the euro rebound against the dollar? After all, in the past, when investor pessimism towards Europe experienced as pronounced a dip as the one just witnessed, EUR/USD invariably rebounded soon after (Chart 2). Chart 2...But Maybe We Should Look The Other Way In this piece, we explore what could go right for the euro, and argue that the euro is indeed attractive at current levels. European Growth Has Hit A Nadir It is safe to say that the euro area is in a funk today: European real GDP growth dipped to a 1.1% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2018, while industrial production has plunged by 3.9% on a year-on-year basis. But the markets warned us this would happen: The euro has fallen 9% from its February 2018 top, German bund yields are again flirting with the 0.1% level and European banks plunged by more than 40% between January and December last year. Going forward, for European yields to remain as depressed as they are, for the euro to fall again by a similar margin, or for domestic plays to suffer large declines, European growth will have to slow even further. We are not expecting such a scenario. Instead, we expect European growth to recover significantly this year. First, when it comes to Germany, the locomotive of Europe, the shock from the implementation of the new WLTP auto emission standards is passing: Automobile production is stabilizing, capex is accelerating and inventories have been pared down. Moreover, the slowdown in foreign demand has already percolated through the domestic economy, as domestic manufacturing orders are already experiencing one of their sharpest declines since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart 3, top panel). Chart 3European Growth Is Set To Rebound Another source of optimism comes from the credit market. As the middle panel of Chart 3 illustrates, the European 12-month credit impulse has begun to bottom. This points to stronger euro area-wide domestic demand. Moreover, the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse is also bottoming, suggesting the drag from foreign demand could be dissipating (Chart 3, bottom panel). When looking at other specific trouble spots, Italy first springs to mind. In our view, the most recent deceleration in Italy was mainly a consequence of the tightening in financial conditions that resulted from the surge in Italian yields following the budget standoff between Rome and Brussels. However, the Lega Nord / Five Star Movement coalition has folded and is more or less acquiescing to the EU’s demands. Moreover, the rising probability that the European Central Bank will continue to provide long-term liquidity to the eurozone banking system via some form of new LTRO should diminish the funding risk to the Italian banking system, and thus, the risks to Rome’s fiscal sustainability. This implies that the decline in Italian borrowing costs could deepen (Chart 4), further easing Italian financial conditions and improving the growth outlook in the euro area’s third-largest economy. Chart 4Easing Financial Conditions In Italy France, too, has had its fair share of problems, though it is interesting that its industrial sector is not suffering as much as Germany’s, as highlighted by a French manufacturing PMI above the 50 boom/bust line. Instead, the French service sector is the one contracting (Chart 5). This bifurcation is likely to be a byproduct of the gilets jaunes protests that have lasted since November 2018 and affected retail trade. However, the intensity of the protests is declining and the French population is getting used to this. As a result, we are seeing a rebound in French household confidence, which implies that consumption, the main engine of French growth, is likely to perk up. Chart 5Fade The Gilets Jaunes, Paris In Spring Is Beautiful Finally, euro area fiscal policy is set to be loosened this year, with the fiscal thrust moving from 0.05% of GDP to 0.4% of GDP (Chart 6). The response of French President Emmanuel Macron to the gilets jaunes protests could even make the fiscal policy support slightly bigger this year. Chart 6Positive Fiscal Thrust In 2019 Ultimately, this combination of factors suggests that the large dip in European industrial production is likely to prove transitory, and that European activity will revert back toward the levels implied by the Belgian Business Confidence Index, which has historically been a good leading indicator of European growth (Chart 7). Chart 7European IP To Follow Brussels' Mood Bottom Line: The deterioration in European growth has captured the imagination of investors. However, the performance of European assets last year forewarned that growth would decelerate meaningfully. What matters now is how growth will evolve. Developments from Germany, France, Italy, the credit channel and the fiscal front all suggest that European activity will perk up soon. It’s All Relative While getting a sense of European growth is important when making a call on EUR/USD, economic trends must also be considered relative to the U.S. Surprisingly, despite notorious European growth underperformance, rays of hope are emerging. A major structural negative for EUR/USD has abated: The European debt crisis is behind us, and the aggregate European banking sector has been getting healthier, albeit slowly. This means that the euro area credit growth is not declining anymore against that of the U.S. This is a very long-term force that dictates multi-year cycles in the EUR/USD. As Chart 8 shows, it will be difficult for EUR/USD to move below 1.10 so long as the broad trend in the relative credit growth does not weaken anew. Chart 8Credit Dynamics Suggest That The Worst Is Over For EUR/USD More immediately, the euro area leading economic indicator relative to the U.S. is forming a bottom (Chart 9). Since the U.S. is not benefiting from as large a fiscal boost as in 2018, and financial as well as monetary conditions have tightened there relative to Europe, this suggests the improvement in the euro area relative LEI could continue this year. Chart 9Bottoming European LEI Versus U.S. Relative labor market slack is also evolving in a euro-friendly fashion. From 2013 to 2018, the euro area suffered from greater labor market slack than the U.S., courtesy of a double-dip recession and generally more-moribund growth. However, thanks to a 4.2-percentage-point fall in the European unemployment rate since 2013 to 7.9%, the euro area unemployment gap has not only closed, it is also below that of the U.S. Historically, when the U.S. unemployment gap leapfrogs that of Europe, EUR/USD tends to appreciate (Chart 10). Chart 10Less Slack Leads To A Stronger EUR/USD Relative slack does not only have value in itself, it also matters for relative inflation trends, which have been a crucial determinant of EUR/USD. As Chart 11 illustrates, EUR/USD tends to follow how euro area core CPI evolves relative to the U.S. After sharply falling last year, European relative core inflation is trying to rebound, which at a minimum suggests that EUR/USD has limited downside. Moreover, EUR/USD has correlated positively with German market-based inflation expectations (Chart 11, bottom panel). This suggests that actual relative inflation as well as euro area inflation expectations play a key role in determining perceptions among investors of how ECB policy will evolve relative to the Federal Reserve. Chart 11EUR/USD Trades Off Of Inflation Dynamics The recent euro decline has matched the decline in inflation expectations. However, inflation expectations have been much weaker than implied by the level of wage growth in Europe (Chart 12). This suggests that European inflation breakevens have scope to improve, a positive for the euro. Moreover, European wage growth is not only picking up steam in isolation, it is also rising relative to the U.S., which highlights that European inflation should not just stabilize vis-à-vis the U.S., but also accelerate. Chart 12European Wages Point To Rising Inflation Expectations This case is made even more saliently by looking at relative financial conditions. Due to the tightening in U.S. financial conditions compared to the euro area, European headline and core inflation is set to accelerate relative to the U.S. (Chart 13). Again, this reinforces the case that maybe the euro has upside this year. Chart 13Relative Euro Area Inflation Will Rise Thanks To Easier FCI Ultimately, for the euro to rise, investors will have to begin pricing in some switch in policy spreads between the ECB and the Fed. In the past, we showed that short-term policy expectations are important, but long-term ones can be even more relevant, especially when a central bank is well along the path of lifting rates, as the Fed is, while the other remains at maximum accommodation, like the ECB is today.1  Currently, investors expect euro area short rates to be only 0.5% 5-years from now (Chart 14, top panel). The spread between the eurozone and U.S. 5-year forward 1-month OIS rates remains near all-time lows, which explains the weakness in the euro. Now that European policy is much more accommodative than the U.S.’s, there’s scope for investors to upgrade the path of long-term euro area rates relative to the U.S. This would be bullish for the euro (Chart 14, bottom panel). Recovering relative credit flows and improving relative slack and inflation dynamics could catalyze this change. Chart 14The ECB Is Never Raising Rates Bottom Line: To make the euro an attractive buy, European growth and inflation conditions cannot just increase, they need to improve relative to the U.S. Since long-term interest rate expectations are very depressed in Europe relative to the U.S., a small improvement in the relative growth profile could be enough to catalyze a repricing of the ECB vis-à-vis the Fed, creating a powerful tailwind behind the euro. Nothing Happens In A Vacuum Ultimately, exchange rates, like other prices in the economy, do not only respond to domestic determinants but are also influenced by much larger, global forces. This is because those global trends percolate through domestic economies, resulting in changing relative expected returns that drive money across borders, leading to currency movements. In the case of the euro, global growth matters a lot, because European growth is much more sensitive to global economic fluctuations than U.S. growth is. This is particularly true if shocks emanate from emerging markets (Chart 15). Today, global cyclical variables are increasingly pointing toward an end to the global growth slowdown. A stabilization and reacceleration in global activity would support the euro. First, Chinese monetary conditions have begun to ease, which historically tends to be linked with improvements in European growth relative to the U.S. (Chart 16). Questions remain surrounding this point: How durable will the rebound in Chinese credit be? By how much will Chinese policymakers nurture this bounce? And will this jump be large enough to lift economic activity in the Middle Kingdom? Nonetheless, a reflationary wind from China has begun to blow, and since investors have already discounted much bad news out of Europe, only small improvements could turn the euro around.   Chart 16If China Is Really Stimulating, Europe Will Rip A Greater Dividend Second, as Chart 17 shows, our Nowcast for global industrial activity has decisively stepped down. Yet, the countercyclical dollar has been flat since October 2018. Historically, the performance of EM carry trades funded in yen tends to lead global growth. Currently the performance of these strategies is stabilizing. If EM carry trades funded in yen can rally further, this will spell trouble for the greenback, helping the euro – the anti-dollar – in the process. Chart 17An Early Positive For Global Growth Third, EUR/USD tends to correlate with the relative performance of global cyclical equities (Chart 18). The stabilization in these sectors since 2015 suggests it will be difficult for the euro to fall further from current levels. In fact, if EM carry trades can rebound more, cyclicals have additional scope to outperform, and the euro could rally. Chart 18Cyclical Stocks Pointing To No Real Downside In EUR/USD Fourth, the prospects for the semiconductor sector are improving. Demand for semis is highly pro-cyclical, and the U.S. Chip Stock Timing Model developed by our U.S. Equity Strategy service colleagues is currently sending a bullish signal.2 Since such developments link to improving global growth prospects, they are also associated with a stronger EUR/USD (Chart 19). This is also consistent with a generally weaker dollar and stronger Asian currencies. Chart 19The Outlook For Semiconductors Point Toward A Stronger Euro And A Weaker Dollar Finally, the breakout in copper prices, the stabilization in the CRB Raw Industrials Index and the rally in gold prices all support an improving global growth outlook that could lift EUR/USD. Bottom Line: Various indicators, such as Chinese monetary conditions, EM carry trades, semiconductor demand determinants and commodity prices are suggesting that global growth may soon bottom. Such a development should hurt the countercyclical dollar, amounting to a macro tailwind for EUR/USD. The Bad News Is Priced In Ultimately, the capacity of EUR/USD to rally rests on how much investors upgrade their outlook for Europe. It is therefore crucial to get a sense of exactly how uninspiring Europe currently is to global market participants. There is no better gauge of relative economic pessimism than the price of euro area financial assets relative to U.S. ones. Essentially, money talks. On this front, markets already seem to have internalized the known bad news from Europe, and there is scope for a contrarian rally in the euro, especially if, as we expect, European economic activity improves. First, on a 12-month forward P/E ratio basis, euro area equities are trading at the kind of deep discount to U.S. stocks normally symptomatic of a trough in relative sentiment toward Europe. Such a discount is often followed by a rally in EUR/USD (Chart 20). Chart 20Stock Valuations: Investors Do Not Like Europe Second, retailers’ equities can often give a more focused assessment of how investors perceive the comparative outlook for domestic demand between two nations. Currently, euro area retailers trade at a 16-year low versus their U.S. counterparts (Chart 21). Investors are therefore much more ebullient about the prospects for U.S. domestic demand than in Europe. Interestingly, the euro’s gyrations since 2016 have tracked the direction of the relative performance of retailers but have diverged in terms of levels. This suggests some underlying support for the currency. Chart 21Can European Domestic Demand Really Validate Such Pessimistic Expectations? Third, the relative stock-to-bond ratio also often provides a good read on investors’ comparative economic euphoria/pessimism towards two nations. In 2018, the annual performance of the euro area stock-to-bond ratio relative to the U.S. collapsed to levels not recorded since the euro area crisis was at its apex (Chart 22). This further confirms that investors were massively depressed on European growth prospects relative to the U.S. While this indicator is rebounding, it is still in negative territory, implying that market participants still have room to upgrade their assessment of the euro area relative to the U.S. Historically, this kind of setup has been associated with a rebound in the EUR/USD. Chart 22The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Points To Some Upside Potential Fourth, European net earnings revisions relative to the U.S. have also hit bombed-out levels and are in the process of improving. Since earnings are tightly linked to global growth and reflect the same information that informs capital flows into a country (Chart 23), sell-side analysts becoming more positive on Europe at the margin could indicate that investors are in the process of re-assessing whether to buy European assets. A decision to do so would support EUR/USD. Chart 23When The Sell-Side Move From Deeply To Mildly Bearish, EUR/USD Rallies Bottom Line: Financial market pricing suggests that investors are displaying deep pessimism toward the euro area’s relative growth prospects. The euro could be a contrarian buy. Most importantly, there are early signs that this growth pricing is starting to move in favor of Europe. If our economic view on Europe and global growth is correct, this trend has further to go, implying that more capital could move into Europe, creating a potent tailwind for EUR/USD. What Else? Three additional factors need to be considered: Currency valuations, balance-of-payment dynamics, and technicals. First, while it is not as cheap as it once was, the real trade-weighted euro is still trading below its historical average (Chart 24). Purchasing-power considerations can rarely be used as a timing tool, but our confidence in the euro’s upside would be greatly dented if the euro were a very expensive currency. It is not even mildly pricey. Chart 24Euro Valuations: No Headwinds There Second, balance-of-payment considerations have become increasingly euro-positive. The euro area runs a current account surplus of 3.3% of GDP, and despite large FDI outflows – a natural consequence of being a savings-rich economy – the basic balance of payments remains in surplus. Moreover, as fixed-income outflows have been dissipating, the aggregate portfolio flows into Europe have also been improving (Chart 25). The end of the ECB’s Asset Purchase Program should solidify this trend. Chart 25The Euro Area Balance Of Payments Is Increasingly Favorable Finally, technical oscillators are behaving increasingly well. As Chart 26 shows, not only does our Intermediate-Term Indicator remains oversold, but also, it is has begun to form a positive divergence with the price of EUR/USD. If the economic outlook is becoming more bullish, such a technical setup can often be translated into significant gains. Chart 26EUR/USD: Oversold And A Positive Divergence Is Forming Bottom Line: The euro’s valuation is not as attractive as it once was, but it remains cheap. Moreover, the euro area’s balance-of-payment dynamics and the EUR/USD’s technical setup both suggest the timing is increasingly ripe to buy the euro against the dollar. Investment Conclusions A trough in European growth, improving growth and inflation prospects relative to the U.S., green shoots for global growth and deep pessimism toward Europe relative to the U.S. all argue that the timing is right to bet on a euro rebound. At this point, the durability of the euro rebound remains unclear. Investors are under-appreciating the ability of the Fed to raise rates this year, which could help the dollar. On the other hand, they seem even more sanguine toward the ECB ever lifting rates. Ultimately, the capacity of the euro to rebound on a long-term basis against the dollar will be constrained by global growth. This means that China will continue to play a center-stage role for this crucial FX pair. At this point, it is unclear how determined Chinese policymakers are to reflate their economy. Thus, we recommend investors monitor Chinese policy to gauge how long to stay in the euro. For the time being, enough pieces are falling into place to warrant buying EUR/USD for three to six months. However, if the Chinese credit impulse can continue on its recent rebound, the durability of a euro rally could be extended, implying that the euro may be in the process of forming a long-term bottom against the dollar. A strengthening euro should support the entire European currency complex against the dollar. In fact, the NOK, the SEK and the GBP may even outperform the EUR. The NOK is being boosted by rising oil prices, a more hawkish central bank, better valuations and an even healthier balance of payments. The SEK is also supported by a Riksbank that is slightly more hawkish than the ECB, and better valuations; it also benefits from a Swedish economy that is even more pro-cyclical than the euro area’s. The GBP also benefits from a greater valuation discount than the euro, and political developments in the U.K. are beginning to move toward a more clear-cut positive outcome on the Brexit front.3 The countercyclical and expensive CHF will prove the European laggard. Finally, EUR/JPY is also set to continue its rebound that began on January 4th. In fact, it may be one of the best vehicles to express a euro-bullish view because it is less sensitive to what the Fed does than EUR/USD is. Rising bond yields are an unmitigated positive for EUR/JPY, and BCA firmly believes that U.S. Treasury yields have upside, whether or not the Fed goes back to lifting rates. The Fed will mostly impact whether it is the real or inflation component that lifts Treasury yields. Bottom Line: The entire European currency complex is set to rise along with the euro against the greenback. In fact, the NOK, the SEK and the GBP are likely to outperform the euro, while the CHF should underperform. EUR/JPY may in fact offer the best risk-adjusted returns to play a euro rebound. While it is clear that at this moment that buying the euro makes sense, the principal risk lies around how long this rally will last. We are increasingly convinced that the euro has made a low for the cycle and that its long-term outlook is looking increasingly bright.  Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the EUR/USD: Focus On The Western Shores Of The Atlantic section of the Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades”, dated December 1, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Reflationary Or Recessionary”, dated February 25, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Why A Catastrophic No-Deal Might Be Good… For The EU”, dated February 28, 2019, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

  Highlights Global growth is still slowing. Having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a “dead zone” over the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout. We think they will appear in the second quarter, setting the scene for a reacceleration in global growth in the second half of the year, and an accompanying rally in global risk assets. Investors should overweight stocks and spread product while underweighting safe government bonds over a 12-month horizon. The U.S. dollar will strengthen a bit over the next few months, but should start to weaken in the summer as the global economy catches fire. Stronger global growth and a weaker dollar in the back half of the year will benefit EM assets and European stocks. Feature I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.  — Wayne Gretzky Gretzky's Doctrine To paraphrase Gretzky, a mediocre macro strategist draws conclusions based solely on incoming data. A good macro strategist, in contrast, tries to figure out where the data is heading. How can one predict how the economic data will evolve? Examining forward-looking indicators is helpful, but it is not enough. One also has to understand why the data is evolving the way it is. If one knows this, one can then assess whether the forces either hurting or helping growth will diminish, intensify, or remain the same. What Accounts For The Growth Slowdown? There is little mystery as to why global growth slowed in 2018. Chinese credit growth fell steadily over the course of the year, which generated a negative credit impulse. Unlike in the past, China is now the most important driver of global credit flows (Chart I-1). Meanwhile, the global economy was rocked by rising oil prices. Brent rose from $55/bbl on October 5, 2017 to $85/bbl on October 4, 2018. Government bond yields also increased, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rising from 2.05% on September 7, 2017 to 3.23% on October 5, 2018 (Chart I-2). In an ironic twist, Jay Powell’s ill-timed comment that rates were “a long way” from neutral marked the peak in bond yields. Unfortunately, the subsequent decline in yields was accompanied by a vicious stock market correction and a widening in credit spreads. This led to an overall tightening in financial conditions, which further hurt growth (Chart I-3). The critical point is that all of these negative forces are behind us: Financial conditions have eased significantly over the past two months; oil prices have rebounded, but are still well below their 2018 highs; and as we explain later on, Chinese growth is likely to bottom by the middle of this year. This means that global growth should start to improve over the coming months. The United States: Better News Ahead The latest U.S. economic data has been weak, with this morning’s disappointing ISM manufacturing print being the latest example. The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast is pointing to annualized growth of 0.9% in the first quarter. While there is no doubt that underlying growth has decelerated, data distortions have probably also contributed to the perceived slowdown. For instance, the dismal December retail sales report reduced the base for consumer spending going into 2019, thus shaving about 0.4 percentage points off Q1 growth. The drop in real personal consumption expenditures (PCE) cut the New York Fed’s Q1 growth estimate by a further 0.15 percentage points. We suspect that much of the weakness in December retail sales and PCE was linked to the government shutdown. The closure caused some of the surveys used to compile these reports to be postponed until January, which is historically the weakest month for retail sales. The Johnson Redbook Index – which covers 80% of the retail sales surveyed by the Department of Commerce – as well as the sales figures from Amazon and Walmart all point to strong spending during the holiday season (Chart I-4). Fundamentally, U.S. consumers are in good shape (Chart I-5). As a share of disposable income, household debt is over 30 percentage points lower than it was in 2007. The savings rate stands at an elevated level, which gives households the wherewithal to increase spending. Job openings hit another record high, while wage growth continues to trend upwards. The housing market should improve. Rising mortgage rates weighed on housing last year. However, rates have been declining for several months now, which augurs well for home sales and construction over the next six months (Chart I-6). While capex intention surveys have come off their highs, they still point to reasonably solid expansion plans (Chart I-7). Rising labor costs and high levels of capacity utilization will induce firms to invest in more capital equipment, which should support business spending. Government expenditures should also recover. By most estimates, the shutdown shaved one percentage point from Q1 growth. This is likely to be completely reversed in the second quarter. The End Of The Chinese Deleveraging Campaign? The popular narrative about weaker Chinese growth has focused on the trade war. While trade uncertainty undoubtedly hurt growth last year – and has continued to weigh on growth so far this year – most of the weakness in the Chinese economy can be traced to the deleveraging campaign which started in 2017, long before the surge in trade flow angst. Fixed investment spending in China is generally financed through credit markets. Chart I-8 shows that the contribution of investment spending to GDP growth has declined in tandem with decelerating credit growth.   Chinese credit growth has typically reaccelerated whenever it has dipped towards trend nominal GDP growth. We may have already reached this point (Chart I-9). New credit formation came in well above expectations in January. Given possible distortions caused by the timing of the Chinese lunar new year, investors should wait until the February data is released in mid-March before drawing any firm conclusions. Nevertheless, it is starting to look increasingly likely that credit growth has bottomed. The 6-month credit impulse has already surged (Chart I-10). The 12-month impulse should also begin moving up provided that month-over-month credit growth simply maintains its recent trend (Chart I-11). On the trade front, President Trump’s decision to delay the implementation of tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, gauging whether the trade war will continue to de-escalate is extraordinarily difficult. There is no major constituency within the Republican Party campaigning for protectionism. It ultimately boils down to what one man – Trump – wants. Our best guess is that President Trump will try to score a few political points by “declaring victory” – deservedly or not – in his battle with China in order to pivot to more pressing domestic issues such as immigration. However, there can be no assurance of this, which is why China’s leaders are likely to prioritize growth over deleveraging, at least for the time being. They know full well that the only way they can credibly threaten to walk away from the negotiating table is if their economy is humming along. Europe: From Headwinds To Tailwinds? Slower global growth, higher oil prices, and a spike in Italian bonds yields all contributed to the poor performance of the European economy last year. Economic activity was further hampered by a decline in German automobile production following the introduction of more stringent emission standards. The good news is that these headwinds are set to reverse course. Italian bond yields are well off their highs, as are oil prices (Chart I-12). German automobile production is recovering (Chart I-13). In addition, the European Commission expects the euro area fiscal thrust to reach 0.40% of GDP this year, up from 0.05% of GDP last year (Chart I-14). This should add about half a percentage point to growth. Finally, if our expectation that Chinese growth will bottom out by mid-year proves correct, European exports should benefit. Brexit still remains a risk, but a receding one. The political establishment on both sides of the British channel will not accept anything resembling a hard Brexit. As was the case with the EU treaty referendums involving Denmark and Ireland in the 1990s, the European political elites will insist on a “No fair! Let’s play again! Best two-out-of-three?” do-overs until they get the result they want. Theresa May’s efforts to cobble together a parliamentary majority that precludes a hard Brexit, along with the Labor Party’s increasing willingness to pursue a second vote, is consistent with our thesis. Fortunately for the “remain” side, public opinion is shifting in favor of staying in the EU (Chart I-15). Focusing on the minutiae of various timetables, rules, and regulations is largely a waste of time. If neither the political establishment nor the general public favor Brexit, it will not happen. Investment Conclusions Global growth is still slowing. Having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a “dead zone” for the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout. We think they will appear in the second quarter, setting the scene for a reacceleration in global growth in the second half of the year, and an accompanying rally in global risk assets. The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart I-16). The greenback will strengthen a bit over the next few months, but should start to weaken in the summer as the global economy catches fire. We do not have a strong view on EM versus DM equities at the moment, but expect to shift EM to overweight once we see more confirmatory evidence that Chinese growth is stabilizing. In conjunction with our expected upgrade on EM assets, we will move European equities to overweight. Stronger global growth will benefit European multinational exporters, while brisker domestic growth should allow the market to price in a few more ECB rate hikes starting in 2020. The latter will lead to a somewhat steeper yield curve which, along with rising demand for credit, should boost financial sector earnings (Chart I-17). This will give European bank stocks a welcome boost. Japanese equities will also benefit from faster global growth, but domestic demand will suffer from the government’s ill-advised plan to raise the sales tax in October. As such, we do not anticipate upgrading Japanese stocks. We also expect the yen to come under some pressure as the BoJ is forced to maintain its ultra-accommodative monetary policy stance, while bond yields elsewhere move modestly higher. Peter Berezin    Chief Global Investment Strategist March 1, 2019 Next Report: March 28, 2019 II. Troubling Implications Of Global Demographic Trends Developed economies are challenged by two powerful and related demographic trends: declining growth in working-age populations, and a rapidly-aging population structure. Working-age populations are in absolute decline in Japan and much of Europe and growth is slowing sharply in the U.S. An offsetting acceleration in productivity growth is unlikely, implying a marked deceleration in economic growth potential. The combination of slower growth in the number of taxpayers and rising numbers of retirees is toxic for government finances. Future generations face sharply rising debt burdens and increased taxes to pay for entitlements. The correlation between aging and asset prices is inconclusive but common sense suggests it is more likely to be bearish than bullish. Population growth remains rapid throughout most of the developing world, China being a notable exception. It is especially strong in Africa, a region that has historically faced economic mismanagement and thus poor economic prospects for most of its inhabitants. Migration from the emerging to developed world is a logical solution to global demographic trends, but faces a backlash in many countries for both economic and cultural reasons. These tensions are likely to increase. Making accurate economic and market forecasts is daunting because there are so many moving parts and unanticipated events are inevitable. Quantitative models are destined to fail because of the unpredictability of human behavior and random shocks. Demographic forecasts are a lot easier, at least over the short-to-medium term. If you want to know how many 70-year olds there will be in 10 years’ time, then count how many 60-year olds there are today and adjust by the mortality rate for that age group. Demographic trends are very incremental from year to year and their impact is swamped by economic, political and financial events. Thus, it rarely makes sense to blame demographics for cyclical swings in the economy or markets. In some respects, demographics can be likened to glaciers. You will quickly get bored standing by a glacier to watch it move. But, over long time periods, glaciers cover enormous distances and can completely reshape the landscape. Similarly, over the timespan of one or more generations, demographics can have powerful effects on economies and societies. Some important demographic trends have been going on for long enough that their effects are visible. The most common concern about global demographics has tended to be overpopulation and pressure on resources and the environment. And this is hardly new. In 1798, Thomas Malthus published his “Essay on The Principles of Population” in which he argued that population growth would outstrip food supply, leading to a very miserable outcome. Of course, what he missed was the revolution in agricultural techniques that meant food supply kept up with population growth. In 1972, a group of experts calling themselves The Club of Rome published a report titled “The Limits to Growth” which argued that a rising world population would outstrip the supply of natural resources, putting a limit to economic growth. Again, that report underestimated the ability of technology to solve the problem of scarcity, although many still believe the essence of the report has yet to be proved wrong. Phenomena such as climate change and rising numbers of animal species facing extinction are seen as supporting the thesis that the world’s population is putting unsustainable demands on the planet. Rather than get into that debate, this report will focus on three particular big-picture problems associated with demographic trends: Declining working-age populations in most major industrialized economies during the next several decades. Population aging throughout the developed world. Continued rapid population growth in many of the world’s poorest and most troubled countries. According to the UN’s latest projections, the world’s population will increase from around 7.5 billion today to almost 10 billion by 2050.1 The population growth rate peaked in the 1970s and is expected to slow sharply over the next several decades (Chart II-1). Despite slower percentage growth rates, the population keeps going up steadily because one percent of the 1970 global population was about 3.7 million, while one percent of the current population is about 7.5 million. But here is an important point: virtually all future growth in the global population will come from the developing world (Chart II-2). The population of the developed world is expected to be broadly flat over the period to 2050, and this has some significant economic implications. Let’s first look at why population growth has stagnated in the developed world. Population growth is a function of three things: the birth rate, the death rate and net migration. Obviously, if there are more births than deaths then there will be a natural increase in the population and net migration will either add or subtract to that. Over time, there have been major changes in some of these drivers. In the developed world, a stable population requires that, on average, there are 2.1 children born for every woman. The fact that it is not exactly 2 accounts for infant mortality and because there are slightly more males than females born. The replacement-level fertility rate needs to be higher than 2.1 in the developing world because of higher infant mortality rates. After WWII, the fertility rate throughout most of the developed world was well above 2.1 as soldiers returned home and the baby boom generation was born. But, by the end of the 1970s, the rate had dropped below the replacement level in most countries and currently is a lowly 1.5 in Japan, Germany and Italy (Table II-1). It has stayed higher in the U.S. but even there it has dipped below the critical 2.1 level. This trend has reflected lot of factors including more widespread use of birth control and more women entering the labor force. In the developed world, the birth rate is expected to drop below the death rate in the next ten years (Chart II-3). That means there will be a natural decrease in the population. In the case of Japan, Germany, Italy and Portugal that change already occurred between 2005 and 2010. In the U.S., the UN expects birth rates to stay just above death rates in the period to 2050, but the gap narrows sharply. Births exceed deaths throughout most of the developing world meaning that populations continue to grow. Notable exceptions to this are Eastern Europe where populations are already in sharp decline and China, where deaths begin to exceed births in the 2030s. Although life expectancy is rising, death rates in the developed world will rise simply because the rapidly growing number of old people more than offsets the impact of longer lifespans. Of course, the population of a country can also be boosted by immigration, and that has been true for much of the developed world. In Canada and most of Europe, net migration already is the dominant source of overall population growth and it will become so in the U.S. in the coming decades, based on current trends (Chart II-4). This is the background to the first key issue addressed in this report: the declining trend in the growth of the working-age population in the developed world. Slowing Growth In Working-Age Populations An economy’s growth potential depends on only two things: the number of people working and their productivity. If the labor force grows at 1% a year and productivity also increases by 1%, then the economy’s trend growth rate is 2%. In the short-run, the economy may grow faster or slower than that, depending on issues like fiscal and monetary policy, oil prices etc. Over the long run, growth is constrained by people and productivity. The potential labor force is generally regarded to be the people aged 15 to 64. The growth trend in this age segment has slowed sharply in recent years in the major economies and is set to weaken further in the years ahead (Chart II-5). The problem is most severe in Japan and Europe where the working-age population is already declining. In the case of the U.S., growth in this age cohort slows from an average 1.5% a year in the 1960s and 1970s to a projected pace of less than 0.5% in the coming decades. While this generally is not a problem faced by the developing world, a notable exception is China, now reaping the consequences of its one-child policy. Its working-age population is set to decline steadily in the years ahead. Thus, it is inevitable that Chinese growth also will slow in the absence of an acceleration of productivity growth The slowing trend in the working-age population could be offset if we could get more 15-64 year olds to join the labor force, or get more older people to stay working. In the U.S., almost 85% of male 15-64 year olds were either employed or were wanting a job in the mid-1990s. This has since dropped to below 80% - a marked divergence from the trend in most other countries (Chart II-6). And the female participation rate in the U.S. also is below that of other countries. The reason for the decline in U.S. labor participation rates for prime-aged adults is unclear. Explanations include increased levels of people in full-time education, in prison, or claiming disability. A breakdown of male participation rates by age shows particularly sharp drops in the 15-19 and 20-24 age groups, though the key 20-54 age category also is far below earlier peaks (Chart II-7). The U.S. participation rate has recently picked up but it seems doubtful that it will return to earlier highs. Other solutions to the problem would be getting more people aged 65 and above to stay in the labor force, and/or faster growth in productivity. The former probably will require changes to the retirement age and we will return to that issue shortly. There always are hopes for faster productivity growth, but recent data have remained disappointing for most developed economies (Chart II-8). New technologies hold out some hope but this is a contentious topic. On a positive note, the shrinking growth of the working-age population may be easier to live with in a world of robotization and artificial intelligence where machines are expected to take over many jobs. That would support a more optimistic view of productivity but it remains to be seen how powerful the impact will be. Another important problem related to the slowing growth of the working-age population relates to fiscal burdens. In 1980, the level of government debt per taxpayer (ages 20-64) was around $58,000 in the U.S. in today’s money and this is on track for $104,000 by 2020 (Chart II-9). But this pales in comparison to Japan where it rises from $9,000 to $170,000 over the same period. Canada looks more favorable, rising from $23,000 in 1980 to $68,000 in 2020. These burdens will keep rising beyond 2020 until governments start running budget surpluses. Our children and grandchildren will bear the burden of this and won’t thank us for allowing the debt to build up in the first place. There will be a large transfer of privately-held assets from the baby boomers to the next generation, but the ownership of this wealth is heavily skewed. According to one study, the top 1% owned 40% of U.S. wealth in 2016, while the bottom 90% owned 20%.2 And it seems likely that this pool of wealth will erode over time, providing a smaller cushion to the following generation. This leads in to the next topic – aging populations. Aging Populations In The Developed World The inevitable result of the combination of increased life expectancy and declining birth rates has been a marked aging of populations throughout the developed world. Between 2000 and 2050, the developed world will see the number of those aged 65 and over more than double while the numbers in other age groups are projected to show little change (Chart II-10). As long as the growing numbers of those aged 65 and above are in decent health, then life is quite good. Fifty years ago in the U.S., poverty rates were very high for those of retirement age compared to the young (i.e. under 18). But that has changed as the baby boomer generation made sure that they voted for increased entitlement programs. Now poverty rates for the 65+ group are far below those of the young (Chart II-11). At the same time, real incomes for those 65 and older have significantly outperformed those of younger age groups. A major problem is that aging baby boomers are expensive because of the cost of pensions and medical care. As would be expected, health care costs rise dramatically with age. For those aged 44 and under, health care costs in the U.S. averaged around $2,000 per person in 2015. For those 65 and over, it was more than $11,000 per person. And per capita spending doubles between the ages of 70 and 90. So here we have the problem: a growing number of expensive older people supported by a shrinking number of taxpayers. This is illustrated by the ratio of the number of people between 20 and 64 divided by those 65 and older. In other words, the number of taxpayers supporting each retiree (Chart II-12). In 1980, there were five taxpayers for every retiree in the U.S., four in W. Europe and seven in Japan. These ratios have since dropped sharply, and in the next few decades will be down to 2.5 in the U.S., 1.8 in Europe and 1.3 in Japan. For each young Japanese taxpayer, it will be like having the cost of a retiree deducted from their paycheck. Throughout the developed world, the baby boomers’ children and grandchildren face a growing burden of entitlements. Some of the statistics related to Japan’s demographics are dramatic. In the first half of the 1980s there were more than twice as many births as deaths (Chart II-13). They become equal around ten years ago and in another ten years deaths are projected to exceed births by around three million a year. In 1990, the number of people aged four and under was more than double the number aged 80 and above. Now the situation is reversed with those aged 80 years and above more than double those four and under. That is why sales of adult diapers reportedly exceed those of baby diapers – very depressing!3 What’s the solution to aging populations? An obvious one is for people to retire later. When pension systems were set up, life expectancy at birth was below the age pensions were granted - typically around 65. In other words, not many people were expected to live long enough to get a government pension. And the lucky ones who did live long enough were not expected to be around to receive a pension for more than a few years. By 1950, those males who had reached the age of 65 were expected, on average, to live another 11 to 13 years in the major developed countries (Table II-2). This rose to 16-18 years by 2000 and is expected to reach 22-23 years by 2050. Governments have made a huge error in failing to raise the retirement age as life expectancy increased. Pension systems were never designed to allow people to receive government pensions for more than 20 years. Some countries have raised the retirement age for pensions, but progress on this front is painfully slow. Other solutions would be to raise pension contributions or to means-test benefits. Not surprisingly, governments are reluctant to take such unpopular actions. At some point, they will have no choice, but that awaits pressures from the financial markets. Currently, not many people aged over 65 remain in the workforce. The participation rate for men is less than 10% in Europe and less than 25% in the U.S. And it is a lot lower for women (Chart II-14). The rate in Japan is much higher reflecting the fact that it is at the leading edge of aging. Participation rates are moving higher in Europe and the U.S. and further increases are likely in the years ahead if Japan’s experience is anything to go by. Having people staying in the workforce for longer will help offset the decline in prime-age workers, but there is a downside. While it is a contentious topic, many studies point to a negative correlation between age and productivity after the age of 50. As we age, there is some decline in cognitive abilities and older people may be less willing or able to adapt to new technologies and working practices. These would only be partly offset by the benefits of experience that comes with age. Therefore, an aging workforce is not one where one would expect productivity growth to accelerate, other things being equal. An IMF study concluded that a 1% increase in the labor force share of the 55-64 age cohort in Europe could reduce the growth in total factor productivity by 0.2% a year over the next 20 years.4 Another study published by the NBER paper estimated that aging will reduce the U.S. economic growth rate by 1.2% a year this decade and 0.6% a year next decade.5 Other studies are less gloomy but it would be hard to argue that aging is actually good for productivity. Another aging-related issue is the implications for asset prices. It is generally believed that aging will be bad for asset prices as people move from their high-saving years to a period where they will be liquidating assets to supplement their incomes. This is supported by a loose correlation between the percentage of the labor force between 35 and 64 (the higher-saving years) and stock market capitalization as a percent of GDP (Chart II-15). However, other studies cast doubts on this relationship.6 One might think real estate is even more vulnerable than stocks to aging. However, in late 1988, two high-profile economists (Greg Mankiw and David Weil) published a report arguing that real house prices would fall substantially over the next two decades as the baby boom generation aged.7 That forecast was catastrophically wrong. Of course, that does not mean that the more dramatic aging occurring over the next couple of decades will not have a major negative impact on home prices. Numerous studies have been carried out on the relationship between demographics and asset prices and the conclusions are all over the place.8 Time and space constraints prevent a more in-depth discussion of this topic. Nonetheless, common sense would suggest that aging is more likely to be bearish than bullish for asset prices. Thus far, we have addressed two demographic challenges facing the developed world: slowing growth in the number of working-age people and a marked aging of the population. Much of the developing world has the opposite issue: continued rapid population growth and large numbers of young people. This is my third topic. Rapid Population Growth In The Developing World We already noted that nearly all future growth in global population will occur in the developing world, China being a notable exception. With birth rates remaining far above death rates, emerging countries will not have the aging problem of the developed world and this has some positives and negatives. On the positive side, a rapidly-growing young population creates the potential for strong economic growth – the opposite of the situation in advanced economies. But this assumes that the institutional and political framework is conducive to growth. Unfortunately, the history of many developing countries is that corrupt and incompetent governments prevent economies from ever reaching their potential. This means there will be a growing pool of young people likely facing a dim economic future. In some cases, these young people could be an excellent recruiting ground for extremist groups. It is unfortunate that there is particularly rapid population growth in some of the most troubled countries in the world. The Institute for Economics and Peace ranks countries by whether they are safe or dangerous.9 According to their ranking, the eight most dangerous countries in the world will see their population grow at a much faster pace than the developing world as a whole (Chart II-16). Some individual country comparisons are striking. The UN’s projections show that Nigeria’s population will exceed that of the U.S. by 2050, The Democratic Republic of Congo’s population will match that of Japan by 2030 and by 2050 will be 80% larger (Chart II-17A and B). Similarly, Afghanistan will overtake Italy in the 2040s. Most incredibly, Africa’s overall population surpassed that of the whole of Europe in the second half of the 1990s and is projected to be 3.5 times larger by 2050. That suggests that the numbers seeking to migrate from Africa to Europe will increase dramatically in the next couple of decades. Controlling these flows will become an increasing challenge for countries in Southern Europe. Migration is the logical solution to declining working-age populations in the developed world and expanding young populations in the developing world. However, there currently is a backlash against immigration in many developed countries. Anti-immigration political parties are gaining strength in many European countries and immigration was a major factor influencing the Brexit vote in the U.K. And it is a hot-button political issue in the U.S. Concerns about immigration are twofold: competition for employment and potential cultural change. Employment fears have coincided with a long period of severely depressed wages for low-skill workers in many developed economies and immigration is an easy target for blame. Meanwhile, the cultural challenge of absorbing large numbers of immigrants clearly has fueled increased nationalist sentiment in a number of countries. In the U.S., projections by the Bureau of the Census show that the non-Hispanic white population will fall below 50% of the total by 2045. That has implications for voting patterns and lies behind some of the concerns about high levels of immigration. There is no simple solution to this controversial issue and an in-depth discussion is beyond the scope of this article. Conclusions We have only touched on some aspects of demographic trends. It is a huge topic and has many other implications. For example, the political and cultural views of each generation are shaped by the environment they grow up in and this changes over time. This year, the number of millennials (those born from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s) in the U.S. is expected to surpass those of baby boomers and that will have important political and social implications. Again, that is beyond the scope of this report. The demographic trends we have discussed will pose serious challenges to policymakers. In the developed world, the baby boom generation has accumulated huge amounts of government debt, partly to fund generous entitlement programs and did not have enough children to ease the burdens on future generations. The young have good reason to feel frustrated by the actions of their elders (see cartoon). In the developing world, the challenge will be to provide economic opportunities for a growing pool of young people. The biggest problems will be in Africa, a continent where economic success stories have been few and far between in the past. Failure to deal with this will have troubling implications for geopolitical stability. Martin H. Barnes Senior Vice President Economic Advisor III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our tactical equity upgrade is beginning to pay off, and an increasing proportion of our proprietary indicators is confirming that stocks have more upside over the next few quarters. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. has stopped falling. This pattern is also evident in both Europe and Japan. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. After clearly pulling funds out of the equity markets, investors are beginning to tip their toes back in. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) has clearly shifted back into stocks. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. According to BCA’s composite valuation indicator, the U.S. stock market remains overvalued from a long-term perspective, despite the dip in multiples since last fall. It is a composite of 11 different valuation measures. Moreover, our Monetary Indicator has shifted out of negative territory for stocks, and is now decisively in stimulative territory. The Fed pause, along with some dovish-sounding commentaries have improved the monetary backdrop by removing expected rate hikes from the money market curve. Our Composite Technical indicator for stocks broke down in December, providing a clear ‘sell’ signal, and has not yet delivered a ‘buy’. However, if the recent improvement in this indicator can continue, the S&P 500 will likely be able to punch above the 2800 level. The 10-year Treasury yield is in the neutral range according to our valuation model. Bonds are not overbought, but they have now fully worked out their previously deeply-oversold conditions. The Adrian, Crump & Moench formulation of the 10-year term premium remains close to its 2016 nadir, suggesting that yields are unsustainably low. Our bond-bearish bias is consistent with the view that the Fed rate hike cycle is not over. The U.S. dollar is still very expensive on a PPP basis. Our Composite Technical Indicator is not as overbought as it once was, but it is far from having reached oversold levels either. This combination suggests that the greenback could experience further downside over the coming month. It remains to be seen if this wave of depreciation will mark the beginning of the cyclical bear market required to correct the dollar’s overvaluation. EQUITIES: FIXED INCOME:     CURRENCIES:   COMMODITIES:   ECONOMY: Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1       Most of the data referred to in this report comes from the medium variant projections from the United Nation’s World Population Prospects report, 2017 revision. There is an excellent online database tool that allows users to access numerous demographic series for every country and region in the world. This can be found at https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/ 2       Edward N. Wolff, Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962 to 2016. NBER Working Paper 24085, November 2017. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085. 3       This is not a joke: https://www.businessinsider.com/signs-japan-demographic-time-bomb-2017-3 4       The Impact of Workforce Aging on European Productivity. IMF Working Paper, December 2016. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/The-Impact-of-Workforce-Aging-on-European-Productivity-44450 5       The Effect of Population Aging on Economic Growth, the Labor Force and Productivity. NBER Working Paper 22452, July 2016. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w22452.pdf 6              For example, see “Will Grandpa Sink The Stock Market?”, The Bank Credit Analyst, September 2014. 7       The Baby Boom, The Bay Bust, and the Housing Market. NBER Working Paper 2794. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w2794 8       For those interested in this topic, we recommend the following paper: Demographics and Asset Markets: A Survey of the Literature. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/912a/5d6d196c3405e37b3a50d797cbf65a27ba44.pdf 9       Global Peace Index, 2018. Available at: http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2018/06/Global-Peace-Index-2018-2.pdf. According to this index, the eight least-safe countries are (starting with the most dangerous): Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Trade talks have been the primary driver of the rally in Chinese stocks and China-related assets over the past five months. While trade is important to China’s economy, Chinese domestic demand is the primary driver of China-related asset fundamentals, meaning that the recent equity rally has occurred on the back of a largely false narrative. The January surge in credit has brought the first concrete sign that Chinese domestic demand will eventually bottom, but the current pace of money & credit growth suggests that investable earnings are facing a “catch up” period of potentially material weakness. The need for a stabilization in the outlook for earnings argues against an immediate shift to overweight, but we agree that investors should put Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch for the coming few months. Feature Chart 1 reviews the recent performance of the Chinese investable equity market, and highlights two important facts: Chinese equity performance bottomed in both absolute and relative terms at the end of October, and The relative performance trend versus global stocks has now retraced roughly 40% of the decline that occurred in 2018 Chart 1A Sizeable Retracement, Based On A (Largely) False Narrative For investors looking for an appropriate allocation to Chinese stocks and China-related assets more generally over the coming 6-12 months, it is important to understand what has driven this post-October outperformance. In our view, it is only the January surge in credit growth that has brought the first concrete sign that Chinese domestic demand will eventually bottom, meaning that China plays have been rallying for the past five months on a largely false narrative. This significantly complicates the cyclical investment outlook, even under the assumption of an imminent trade deal with the U.S. As we will detail below, several factors argue against an immediate shift to overweight, but we agree that investors should put Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch. We will be watching closely over the next few months for confirmation that above-average credit growth will be sustained, and that the outlook for Chinese earnings is stabilizing. Dissecting The Rally: Mostly Driven By Trade Optimism, Not Easing During the week of October 29th, the equity market was buoyed somewhat by a statement emerging from the late-October politburo meeting. The statement cited the need for the government to take “more timely steps” to counter increasing downward pressure on the economy, which catalyzed a 6% bounce in investable stocks (3% for the domestic market) by Thursday, November 1st. However, to most investors, news of a much more significant event came on Friday, November 2nd: President Trump was looking to make a deal with China at the late-November G20 meeting in Argentina, and had asked key officials to begin drafting potential terms.1 The investable market rallied over 3% on the day in response to the news, and continued to rise until Monday December 3rd, the day after the 3-month trade talk agreement was struck. Chart 1 shows that while investible stocks nearly hit a new 2018 low in December, this was due to a significant sell off in global stocks: relative performance was flat during this period, and resumed its uptrend once global stocks began to rise. Chart 2 provides confirmation that trade talks have been the primary driver behind the rally in China-related assets as well. The chart shows the BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator alongside a diffusion index of its 17 components, with the vertical line denoting the point where the prospect of a deal became public. The Fed’s shift to a more dovish posture following its December rate hike has certainly helped propel the global rally in risky assets, but Chart 2 makes it clear that a shift in the outlook for trade between the U.S. and China has been the more important factor driving the prices of China-related assets over the past few months. Chart 2Trump's Desire For A Deal Was The Turning Point For The Market In terms of its relative importance for the Chinese economy, the focus of investors on trade is mostly wrongheaded. Trade is important to China’s economy, but the domestic demand trend is a far more important driver for the fundamental performance of China-related assets. We have highlighted over the past year that investor attention has been focused on the wrong factor, underscoring the rally in Chinese stock prices over the past few months has been driven by a largely false narrative. From Trade, To Credit Chart 3 compares our leading indicator for the Chinese economy with a measure of coincident economic activity, and highlights that the sharp slowdown in growth that has occurred over the past few months represents a reversion to a level that would be more consistent with that of our leading indicator (which has been pointing to weaker economic activity for the better part of the past 18 months). In fact, Chart 3 implies that actual growth is still stronger than what monetary conditions, money, and credit growth would imply, meaning that a further slowdown should be expected over the coming several months. Chart 3Economic Activity Is Recoupling With Our Leading Indicator However, judging by January’s credit release, this further slowdown in growth may occur against the backdrop of a durable uptrend in our leading indicator. Our calculation of adjusted total social financing grew by nearly 5 trillion RMB in January, a very substantial rise that has seldom occurred over the past few years (Chart 4). Legitimate questions about the seasonal effects of the Lunar New Year remain, but Chart 5 shows that the January data was large enough to cause a visible tick higher in the YoY growth rate, caused a sharp rise in our ratio of new credit to GDP, and occurred alongside an easing in the contraction of shadow credit as a percent of total credit. These are clear signs that reluctant policymakers are responding to the need to stabilize a weak economy. Chart 4A Very Strong Surge In January Credit...Chart 5...Has Led To A Visible Uptick In Annual Growth The magnitude of the January surge suggests that there is now a legitimate basis to forecast an eventual bottom in Chinese domestic demand. Our December 5 Weekly Report outlined our key views for 2019,2 and in it we noted that “our base case view is that growth will modestly firm in the second half of 2019, which would provide a somewhat stronger demand backdrop for commodities and emerging economies that sell goods to China”. The odds of a firming in growth have certainly gone up as a result of January’s data, although it remains unclear how strong the upturn in credit growth will ultimately be over the course of 2019. This, along with the desynchronizing effect of trade front-running and a truce-driven rally in Chinese stocks, significantly muddles the 6-12 month investment strategy outlook. From Credit, To Investment Strategy We noted in our December key views report that a tactical overweight stance towards Chinese stocks was probably warranted over the coming three months, in recognition of the fact that investors could bid up the market in the lead-up to a possible trade deal with the U.S. We argued that the conditions for a cyclical overweight stance (6-12 months) were not yet present but could emerge sometime this year, particularly if money & credit growth begin to pick up. Is the January surge in adjusted total social financing a sign that investors should increase their allocation to Chinese equities today? We agree that investors should put Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch for the next few months, but three factors continue to argue against an immediate shift: Investors appear to have bid up Chinese stocks assuming not only that the trade deal with the U.S. will occur, but that it will result in a durable resolution to the dispute (including, presumably, the rolling back of all tariffs that have been imposed). Even under the assumption that a deal does occur, it may be less comprehensive than investors are assuming and could still cause some lasting negative implications for global trade. While the odds of a credit overshoot have legitimately risen,3 January’s credit number is only one data point and the month-over-month change in credit is always abnormally strong in the first month of the year. At a minimum, investors should wait until the February credit data is released in mid-March to judge whether a higher pace of credit growth will be sustained over the course of the year. The recent quarrel between Premier Li Keqiang and the PBOC over whether the January credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus suggests that policymakers are still somewhat reluctant to significantly boost credit,4 underscoring the need to monitor whether the recent pace of growth will be sustained. As first highlighted in Chart 3 above, the inflection point in credit growth implies that economic activity will improve at some point in the months ahead, but the current pace of money & credit growth suggests that both activity and, crucially, the level of earnings are facing a “catch up” period of potentially material weakness before they durably bottom. Chart 6 illustrates this potential weakness by comparing the current circumstance of our leading economic indicator, our measure of coincident economic activity, and the level of forward earnings to the 2015/2016 episode. The chart shows that by comparison to today, the 2015/2016 episode had clearer sequencing: our leading indicator fell, coincident activity followed, and stock prices bottomed only once forward earnings had contracted materially. Chart 6In 2015/2016, Our Leading Indicator Led Activity, Earnings, And Relative Stock Performance This time around, our leading indicator peaked in Q1 2017, but activity remained stronger than our indicator would have suggested even though it peaked relatively soon afterwards. Incoming data over the past three months suggest that economic activity is now catching up to the downside, and forward earnings remain elevated. Chart 7 shows that Chinese net earnings revisions remain firmly in negative territory, at levels that have been historically been associated with contracting forward earnings growth. Chart 7Earnings Weakness Looks Set To Continue Panel 4 of Chart 6 is emblematic of the fact that the recent rally in Chinese relative performance, driven largely by a false narrative, has significantly complicated the cyclical investment outlook. If the January improvement in credit had instead come in late October when Chinese relative performance was near its low, it would have been much easier for us to recommend that investors move to an overweight stance in response to a legitimate fundamental improvement and to take the risk of being somewhat too early. Now, a razor sharp focus on the earnings outlook is necessary, and we are unlikely to recommend an increased allocation to Chinese stocks unless that outlook stabilizes. Table 1 presents one of the tools that we will be using to judge the outlook for earnings, based on a model that we presented in two recent reports.5 The table shows a series of earnings recession probabilities that are based on a variety of credit and exchange rate scenarios and conditional on a material improvement in Chinese exporter sentiment. Light colored cells represent an earnings recession probability of less than 1/3rd, and the circled cell shows roughly where we would be today if the new export order component of the NBS manufacturing PMI were to rise sharply back to its June 2018 level. Table 1Credit Needs To Rise Further And RMB Appreciation Needs To Slow For The Earnings Outlook To Stabilize The table makes two key points. First, even given January’s surge, new credit will have to improve relative to GDP over the coming months in order to stabilize the earnings outlook. Second, the more that China’s currency appreciates in response to a trade deal with the U.S., the higher the hurdle rate for credit. Chart 8 shows that CNY-USD is already deviating quite significantly from the level implied by interest rate differentials, suggesting that significant further currency appreciation may not be in the cards. But the bottom line for investors is that a rising currency has the potential to negate some of the reflationary effects of stronger credit, and is a risk that must be monitored alongside the effort to gauge the sustainable rate of credit growth. Chart 8While Policymakers Or Rate Differentials Drive CNY-USD Over The Coming Year? Stay tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Please see “Trump Said To Ask Cabinet To Draft Possible Trade Deal With Xi”, dated November 2, 2018, available at Bloomberg News 2 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. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report “China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks”, dated February 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Chinese Premier In Rare Spat With Central Bank”, Financial Times. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Six Questions About Chinese Stocks”, dated January 16, 2019, and Weekly Report “A Gap In The Bridge”, dated January 30, 2019 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations