Financial Markets
Highlights The yen’s sharp rally this week reflected a liquidation of carry trades. EUR/JPY has hit our target of 120, it is time to close our longstanding bearish recommendation on this pair. The downside in AUD/JPY is limited. The Bank of Japan will not stand idly by in front of the deflationary impact of a stronger yen. The coming weeks could witness some dollar softness, but this should prove temporary. Feature The FX market started the year with a bang. The yen rallied massively Thursday morning, during the so-called “witching hour” between the New York close and the Tokyo open. As is now usual, algorithms have been blamed. We agree that poor liquidity and automatized trading accentuated the speed of the move, but ultimately, the strength of the yen is rooted in fundamental reasons. As we have been arguing, the yen should be strong in the current environment, especially against the euro, the Australian dollar and high-yielding EM currencies. When global growth weakens and safe heaven yields fall, the yen benefits. Not only do Japanese domestic savers, who park their funds abroad in hope of higher yields, repatriate there money when growth slows, but also, carry-traders, who fund their purchases of high-yielding assets by selling the yen, buy back the JPY once volatility rises. The above-dynamics have driven the yen’s eye-catching move. The yen has been strong, but the AUD, the EUR, the TRY and the ZAR have also been weak, suggesting that investors who bought the yen also sold these currencies. This was a carry-trade reversal. What should we do with our long-held negative biases on EUR/JPY and AUD/JPY? Last night, EUR/JPY and AUD/JPY moved below 119 and 71, respectively. Our target for these pairs were EUR/JPY 120 and AUD/JPY 72. We are inclined to close these recommendations. As we have repeatedly highlighted, EUR/JPY is a function of global bond yields (Chart I-1). As a firm, BCA sees upward pressure on yields. Currently, the futures market is pricing in potential rate cuts in 2019 and 2020. We think that the U.S. economy is strong enough that the Fed will not cut rates over this timeframe. However, the Fed is likely to pause for one or two quarters, something made even more likely after the fall in the ISM manufacturing this week. Such a pause should create upward pressure on U.S. 10-year inflation breakevens, which currently trade at 1.7%, while also supporting risk asset prices. All these developments would be consistent with higher yields and thus, a stronger EUR/JPY. Chart I-1EUR/JPY Should Now Find Support Regarding AUD/JPY, this pair is now trading in line with the lows experienced in 2016, and at its worst Thursday morning, it traded at levels last recorded in the first half of 2009. We do anticipate continued weakness in the global economy, but not a recession. Hence, at current levels, the downside for AUD/JPY is limited. Beyond the global dynamics, we also need to take into account Japanese dynamics. The JPY may be cheap, but Japan’s core inflation remains well below the Bank of Japan’s objective, and shows little sign of hitting 2% within a reasonable period. The recent strength in the yen only re-enforces the inability of the BoJ to hit its target. In fact, the yen’s strength was met by a large rally in JGBs, with 10-year Japanese yields falling back to zero. We agree with the market’s assessment of the combined impact of a higher yen and slowing global growth: the BoJ will have to fight this deflationary impulse. How, though, is still unclear. The BoJ could cut rates while continuing to target a positive yield curve slope, something we think is likely. Also, Japan still sports a current account surplus as well as the largest positive net international investment position in the word. This means that this country has little to fear from a falling exchange rate. This raises the likelihood that the Ministry of Finance decides to intervene in the FX market in order to push the yen lower. The only constraint here is the U.S. Treasury, which could balk at such a move. Finally, the U.S. dollar has been losing momentum this December, and weaker U.S. economic data is likely to prompt the Fed to openly message that it will pause its hiking campaign for at least one quarter. This should cause a period of softness in the greenback. However, we continue to expect such softness to be temporary. The market anticipates rate cuts from the Fed, but this is not BCA’s baseline scenario. Thus, any pause along the hiking campaign should only have a transitory impact on the dollar, as the U.S. economy is likely to continue to grow above trend, preventing the need for lower rates. Bottom Line: Poor liquidity conditions may have facilitated the yen’s massive move this week, but its true driver was the weakness in global growth, which forced a massive liquidation of carry trades. As EUR/JPY has hit our 120 target, we are removing our long-standing negative bias on this pair. Staying short AUD/JPY at current levels does not make sense either, unless one expects a global recession, which is not our base case. Finally, the strength in the yen is hurting the Japanese economy, which will force the Bank of Japan to ease monetary conditions. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com
Getting right to the point: Oil fundamentals are, and could remain, disconnected from benchmark prices, as they were in the waning days of 2018, when markets were forced to recalibrate global supply-demand balances in the dark. Four factors will drive this disconnect and keep volatility elevated (Chart of the Week): Chart of the WeekPrice-Fundamentals Disconnect Will Persist Continuing uncertainty over how much oil Iran will export this year; A lack of precise information about individual production cuts from OPEC 2.0; Uncertainty over EM demand; and Illiquid markets, brought about by a diminution of speculators’ risk-bearing capacity, which is largely the result of the price-fundamentals disconnect. Nonetheless, we do not believe markets are responding to an as-yet undetected collapse in demand or run-away supply, which recent price action would suggest. To the contrary, we expect OPEC 2.0 and Canadian production cuts of ~ 1.4mm b/d, continued decline-curve losses and slower U.S. shale growth resulting from price-induced capex declines, will face off against stout demand to rebalance markets in 1H19. We are, therefore, getting long spot WTI, and long July 2019 Brent vs. short July 2020 Brent as a spread at today’s close. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We ended 2018 with an average gain of 24% on recommendations we closed or were stopped out of. Open positions going into 2019 – mostly Brent call spreads with stop-losses of -$1.00/bbl – were down 49%. Base Metals: Neutral. Chile’s national statistics agency INE reported copper output was 5.3mm MT over the January – November 2018 period, its highest level since December 2005, and 6% higher than year-ago levels.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold markets appear to be pricing less than the four rate hikes we’re expecting this year from the Fed. We remain long as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. U.S. negotiators head to Beijing next week to continue trade talks. We remain bearish soybeans all the same, given our expectation the current crop year will end with record-high stocks-to-use ratios worldwide. Feature The last time WTI oil futures traded this close to $40/bbl, OECD crude and products inventories stood at ~ 3.1 billion barrels, and OPEC 2.0 had just begun its output cuts in Jan17 (Chart 2). OECD inventories now stand under 2.9 billion barrels, and are on course to fall to ~ 2.5 billion by year-end, as the physical surplus is drained by a combination of falling production and still-strong demand (Chart 3). Chart 2OECD Inventories Will Draw, Taking Crude Prices Higher Chart 3Supply Cuts, Demand Strength Will Rebalance Markets Brent and WTI prices have fallen 39% and 41% from their October 2018 highs, following the about-face by the U.S. on Iranian oil-export sanctions in November. On the back of this, we expect OPEC 2.0 to follow through on its 1.2mm b/d production cuts – possibly even exceed them, as they did over the 2017 – 1H18 period. OPEC 2.0’s track record on production discipline is strong, hence our expectation the group’s 2019 output will fall to 31.14mm b/d vs. 2018’s 32.40mm b/d level.2 The Trump administration’s waivers for Iran’s eight largest oil importers expire May 2019. We view it as unlikely the administration will re-impose export sanctions in full on Iranian exports following the expiration of waivers, and expect they will be extended at least for 90 days. We expect Iranian production to fall from ~ 2.80mm b/d in 1H19 to an average 2.60mm b/d from June – December 2019, resulting in the loss of 1.25mm b/d of exports. We expect Saudi Arabia to raise production from 10.15mm b/d to 10.30mm b/d to offset most of this incremental loss of Iranian production. Government-mandated production cuts of 325k b/d in Alberta, Canada – undertaken to drain a persistent inventory overhang and loosen the flow of oil pipeline-transport-constrained production – also will remove actual production from the market this year.3 In addition, we continue to model the loss of 190k b/d of decline-curve losses in OPEC 2.0 member states that are incapable of maintaining or lifting output due to low prices and a lack of investment (Chart 4). The contribution of these states to the OPEC 2.0 cuts is to “manage” their depletion rates per their November 2016 accord (Table 1). Chart 4Production Outside Gulf OPEC Continues Decline, Led By VenezuelaTable 1Table 1 BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) Net, we have world supply growth at 0.5mm b/d this year vs. the 1.4mm b/d estimated by the EIA. Most of this again comes from the U.S., where we expect 1.3mm b/d growth. Due to the price rout following Iranian import waivers, we lowered our rig count projections – the main input of our U.S. production forecast – which took our Lower 48 U.S. (i.e., ex GOM) production growth to 1.2mm b/d from the 1.4mm b/d rate we estimated last month. Despite pipeline bottlenecks in the Permian Basin, which will be fully alleviated by 4Q19 when the last of ~ 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity comes on line, U.S. shales still account for most of the net growth in U.S. ouput (Chart 5).4 If WTI prices remain in the mid- to low-$40/bbl range, however, rig counts will be driven lower, which will, all else equal, lower U.S. shale-oil output this year. Chart 5Lower WTI Prices Slow U.S. Shale Growth Lower Prices Will Support Demand The price collapse since October will keep global oil demand from breaking down, leading us to expect consumption to grow ~ 1.40mm b/d this year. This is down slightly from our previous estimate of 1.45mm b/d of growth, and falls 200k b/d short of the ~ 1.6mm b/d of growth we expect for 2018.5 Forecasting demand is notoriously difficult. This is particularly true for forecasting EM demand, the source of most of the growth in the world. We have non-OECD demand – our proxy for EM oil consumption – growing 1.0mm b/d this year, down from 2018’s rate of 1.2mm b/d. This reflects our expectation the IMF will lower its growth expectation for EM GDP to 4.6% this year, from its October 2018 estimate of 4.7% growth. This will take global GDP growth to 3.6% to 3.7% previously estimated. EM demand continues to be led by China and India, which we expect will grow 450k b/d and 210k b/d, respectively, this year, again accounting for more than half of EM growth. China’s oil consumption is expected to average 14.3mm b/d, while India’s will average just over 5mm b/d. We continue to expect modest stimulus coming from China in 2H19, which will support oil demand and consumer spending. However, this could surprise to the upside, with the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party coming up in 2021. Our colleagues at BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) noted that if China’s government is to launch another large-scale stimulus package (not a foregone conclusion), then the likeliest time frame is 2H19 or 2020. Indeed, this is more probable than anytime earlier, due to the desire of Chinese policymakers to dispel any doubts about stability in 2021 for the Party’s centenary. GPS’s Matt Gertken observed the average gap between the bottom of China’s credit impulse and the top of nominal GDP growth is ~ 1.5 to 2 years. Policymakers will not want to stimulate too aggressively in early 2019 and risk having a flagging economy in the midst of 2021 celebration.6 Investment Implications Over the short term, oil prices could remain disconnected from market fundamentals, which we believe remain broadly supportive. Indeed, the balance of risks still favors the upside, despite the epic volatility over the past 3 months brought about by the larger-than-expected waivers to importers of Iranian oil just before U.S.-imposed sanctions were due to kick in in November (Chart 6). Chart 62019 Brent, WTI Price Forecasts: Slightly Lower at And /bbl We have lowered our average 2019 Brent forecast to $80 this year from $82/bbl, and our WTI forecast to $74 from $76/bbl, given our assessments of production and consumption.7 Markets continue to re-calibrate supply and demand balances largely in the dark, and will continue to do so until greater clarity is gained on actual OPEC 2.0 production cuts and the state of EM demand. On the supply side, we expect sharp production cuts from OPEC 2.0 and Canadian producers of ~ 1.4mm b/d; falling output in non-Gulf OPEC states from continuing decline-curve losses; and slower U.S. shale growth resulting from lower capex in the wake of the price collapse. On the demand side, we lowered our EM growth estimate slightly ahead of an expected downgrade of EM growth this year, but we still expect consumption to show relatively strong growth of 1.4mm b/d. Net, the combination of supply cuts plus still-strong demand will remove the current global surplus, and rebalance the market by the end of 1H19. Thus, in our view, the balance of risks – as seen in our ensemble scenarios – still is to the upside (Chart 7). Chart 7Balance of Risks Favors Upside In line with our expectation for higher prices, we are getting long spot WTI, believing prices in the low- to mid-$40s extending beyond 1Q19 will cause a 5 – 10% slowdown in U.S. production growth later this year, which will set up a rally later in the year. We also are getting long July 2019 Brent vs. short July 2020 Brent as a spread at today’s close, in the expectation of a return to backwardation by the end of 1H19, as OECD inventories draw. We have touched on 3 of the 4 drivers of volatility in this week’s research. Next week we will examine the effect of this volatility on speculators’ risk-bearing capacity, and the implications for price discovery. Contrary to popular and received political opinion, speculation is a necessary and vital activity for the efficient functioning of commodity markets, particularly those used by commercial participants to hedge untoward price risks. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “UPDATE 1-Chile monthly copper output highest in 13 years,” published December 31, 2018, by reuters.com. 2 Our estimates include continued production declines ex OPEC Gulf states and in other non-OPEC members like Mexico that are covered by the OPEC 2.0 agreement (Table 1). Under the production-cutting accord agreed at OPEC 2.0’s December meeting in Vienna, October 2018 is the benchmark against which new quotas – yet to by made public – are assessed. We note here that OPEC 2.0 has not published any official quota schedule following its December 2018 meeting, where it agreed to the 1.2mm b/d of production cuts. Our supply estimates use data from the U.S. EIA, IEA and OPEC, along with trade press reports. 3 We estimate there is ~ 200k b/d of trapped Alberta supply – i.e., excess production over takeaway capacity (pipeline and rail) – along with ~ 35mm bbls of accumulated excess production in storage the Alberta government is attempting to draw down by its action over the course of 2019 at a rate of ~ 96k b/d. 4 By year-end, we expect U.S. crude oil production of 12.6mm b/d, which will keep the U.S. the largest crude oil producer in the world. U.S. crude oil exports can be expected to continue to grow as a result, after hitting 3.2mm b/d for the week ended November 30, 2018, an all-time high, according to EIA data. U.S. product exports likely will run ~ 6mm b/d this year. 5 The IEA and OPEC are expecting 2019 demand growth of 1.3mm and 1.29mm b/d, respectively, while the U.S. EIA is expecting consumption will grow 1.5mm b/d. 6 Please see “China Sticks To The ‘Three Battles’,” published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy October 24, 2018. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 This puts us above the consensus Brent forecast of $69.13/bbl reported by Reuters. Please see “Oversupply, faltering growth to weigh on oil prices in 2019: Reuters poll,” published by reuters.com December 31, 2018. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Over the past couple of months global equities have fallen by more than 10%, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has dipped from above 3.2% to below 2.6%, and high-yield bond spreads have risen by more than 200 basis points. The market is sniffing out the risk…
GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of December 31, 2018. The quant model reduced Spain’s large overweight to a slight overweight, and further downgraded the U.S. allocation. As a result, the model now has assigned overweight allocations to Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada and Italy, with underweight allocations to the U.S., Japan, France and U.K. Australia and Sweden are now in the neutral zone, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI world benchmark by 38 bps in December, with a 48 bps of outperformance from Level 1 model offset by a 21 bps of underperformance from Level 2. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 96 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 120 bps and level 1 outperforming by 57 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 Dear Client, As advised in our October 2018 Special Alert, we have suspended the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model due to the significant changes in the GICS sector classifications, implemented at the end of September. We will rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors once full back data is available from MSCI, which we understood would be in December but which we have not received yet. We thank you for your understanding. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com
Feature No Recession – Add To Risk Again Markets have been notably weak and volatile since we published our 2019 Outlook1 in late November. Over the past couple of months, global equities have fallen by more than 10%, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has dipped from above 3.2% to below 2.7%, and high-yield bond spreads have risen by more than 200 basis points. The market is sniffing out the risk of recession on the near-term horizon. We think the market has got this wrong, and so we move back to overweight global equities (from neutral, to where we lowered our recommendation last June). Recommendations Last year, U.S. growth was much stronger than growth in the rest of the world (Chart 1). Markets are implying that the global slowdown will soon infect the U.S., with the stock market pointing to the manufacturing ISM, currently at 59.3, falling back to 50 in very short order (Chart 2). Chart 1Will U.S. Growth Also Fall Back? Chart 2Stocks Imply ISM At 50 It is, indeed, probable that growth will slow this year: the FOMC’s median forecast suggests a slowdown in real GDP growth from 3.0% in 2018 to 2.3%. And it may take the market a little longer to digest that deceleration. However, growth is likely to remain above trend (currently estimated at 1.8%). Higher interest rates have begun to take their toll on the housing market (with a noticeable deterioration in new housing starts and builder confidence). But residential investment is now only 4% of GDP, compared to 7% in 2006, so the impact of the slowdown will be limited. Moreover, consumption is likely to remain buoyant, with wage growth accelerating, consumer confidence strong, and the savings rate with room to fall (Chart 3). Additionally, though fiscal stimulus will not be as powerful in 2019, the IMF estimates that it will add a further half of one percentage point to U.S. GDP growth. Chart 3Consumption Likely To Remian Buoyant The Fed is reacting very pragmatically to the evolving circumstances. Chair Jerome Powell emphasized in his post-FOMC press conference in December that “some cross currents have emerged” and that “policy decisions are not on a pre-set course”. The FOMC cut its forecast for hikes in 2019 from three to two and lowered its estimate of the terminal rate from 3.0% to 2.8% (currently the fed funds rate is at 2.4%). This implies that it will take approximately two more 25 basis point rate hikes before the Fed gets rates back to neutral. As we have often shown, risk assets tend to outperform bonds until monetary policy is restrictive (Chart 4). Meanwhile, market sentiment has turned excessively bearish. Our sentiment index is at a level that has historically pointed to a good buying opportunity (Chart 5). The AAII survey shows that recently only 25% of U.S. retail investors expect the market to rise over the next six months, compared to 47% who expect it to fall. Valuations are cheap again: the forward PE for the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) is now back to the range it traded at in 2013 (Chart 6). The classic indicators of recession, such as the yield curve, are not yet flashing warning signals: the 3-month/10-year curve, which we have shown has historically been the most reliable,2 remains at +20 basis points (Chart 7). It needs to invert to signal recession – and, typically, it does that as much as 18-24 months in advance. Chart 5Sentiment Is Very Bearish Chart 6Global PE Back To To 2013 Level Chart 7Yield Curve Has Not Inverted Certainly, there are risks (we would highlight a reignition of the trade war after March 1, Brexit, U.S. government shutdown, the possibility that falling stock and house prices hurt consumer and business sentiment, and China’s reluctance to implement a massive 2016-style reflationary stimulus). But our analysis suggests there is significantly more upside than downside risk for equities over the next 12 months. If earnings growth, particularly in the U.S., comes in close to our top-down forecasts (Chart 8), it is hard to imagine – given the current depressed multiples – equities underperforming bonds this year. Accordingly, we recommend raising global equities to overweight in a multi-asset portfolio on a 12-month horizon, and lowering cash to neutral. For now, we have not changed our other tilts, and continue to recommend an overweight on U.S. equities and defensive sectors, a preference for equities over credit, and a high degree of caution towards emerging market assets. Chart 8Earnings On Track To Grow Healthily In 2019 Currencies: With growth likely to remain stronger in the U.S. than in the rest of the world, we expect appreciation of the dollar over the next six months. BCA’s Central Bank Monitors point to the need for the Fed to tighten policy further, but for the ECB to remain dovish. The gap between these two monitors has done a good job at forecasting EUR/USD over the past 10 years (Chart 9). However, speculative positions are already quite long dollar (Chart 10) and so the upside might be limited to around 5% in trade-weighted terms. If global growth begins to reaccelerate midway through 2019, the dollar might weaken again. Chart 9Relative Policy Suggests Stronger USD Equities: We prefer DM equities over EM. Further rises in the dollar and long-term U.S. interest rates, combined with continuing slowdown in global trade and Chinese growth, will remain headwinds for EM equities even if the market moves into a more risk-on phase. Valuations in EM do not look attractive either, with forward PE relative to DM in line with recent averages, and earnings growth forecasts likely to be revised down into negative territory over the coming months given the challenges facing developing economies (Chart 11). Within DM, we have a preference for the U.S., given its stronger growth and likely currency appreciation, over the euro zone and Japan, which are more sensitive to the global manufacturing cycle. Europe, in particular, will continue to be held back by the travails of its banks, which have been a major determinant of relative equity market performance in recent years (Chart 12). In a recent Special Report, we concluded that the long-term outlook for euro zone bank profitability remains lackluster.3 Chart 11EM Equities Are Not Cheap Chart 12Banks Will Weigh On Euro Zone Stocks Fixed Income: We see further upside for long-term rates in 2019, driven by a combination of above-trend economic growth, more Fed hikes than the market is pricing in, a moderate pick-up in inflation, and the unwinding of the Fed’s balance-sheet. We do not see rates being an impediment to growth until they reach the level of trend nominal GDP growth, currently 3.8% (which was the crunch point in both 1999 and 2006 – Chart 13). Despite our more positive view on equities, we remain more cautious on credit. Spreads have widened recently to more attractive levels (Chart 14). However, we remain concerned about the high leverage of U.S. corporates, whose debt/assets ratio is on average higher now than in 2009 (Chart 15). Signs of strain are already showing in the junk bond market, with new issuance having largely dried up since early December. If this continues, borrowers may struggle to refinance maturing debt in early 2019. At this stage of the cycle, credit spreads are unlikely to tighten much, even with an equity market rally. Furthermore, given the high leverage, credit is an asset class that is likely to perform particularly poorly in the next recession. Chart 13Only At 3.8% Do Rates Become A Risk Chart 14Credit Spreads Not More Attractive Chart 15U.S. Corporate Leverage Is A Problem Commodities: The sell-off in crude oil over the past two months was due to short-term supply-side shocks, most notably the U.S.’s agreeing to 180-day exceptions on Iranian sanctions. But supply is likely to tighten in coming months (Chart 16). Saudi Arabia and Russia intend to reduce production by 1.2 million barrels/day, and U.S. shale oil supply growth is likely to slow since one-year forward WTI is now around $49, slightly below the average breakeven level for shale oil producers. With global oil demand set to remain strong, our energy strategists see Brent oil rebounding to around $80 a barrel in 2019, with WTI $6 below that.4 Industrial commodities will continue to face headwinds from a stronger dollar and slowing China. Only when the effects of China’s moderate reflation measures start to come through in 2H 2019 would we expect to see a recovery in metals prices. Chart 16Oil Supply Set To Tighten Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “Outlook 2019: Late-Cycle Turbulence,” dated 27 November 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Can Asset Allocators Rely On Yield Curves?”, dated 15 June 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Euro Area Banks: Value Play Or Value Trap?”, dated 14 December 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 For the detailed rationale of their forecast, please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “2019 Key Views Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” dated 13 December 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation
Highlights Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to a litany of worries regarding the outlook. The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. There are some tentative signs that the two U.S. weak spots, housing and capital spending, are bottoming out. However, our global leading economic indicators continue to herald a soft first half of 2019 outside of the U.S. The dollar thus has more upside in the near term. The political risks facing investors have not diminished either. In particular, we expect turbulence related to the U.S./China trade war to extend well beyond the 3-month “truce” period. The returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities historically have not been particularly attractive on average when the U.S. yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies back to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The upgrade to stocks in the developed markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now, but be prepared to upgrade sometime in 2019. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil prices have overshot to the downside. Supply is adjusting and, given robust energy demand in 2019, we still expect prices to rise to $82. Feature Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to concerns regarding the U.S./China trade war, corporate leverage, global growth, rising U.S. interest rates and the shift toward quantitative tightening. Some equity indexes, such as the Russell 2000, reached bear market territory, having lost more than 20%. Losses have been even worse outside the U.S. Earnings revisions have plunged into the “net downgrade” zone. Implied volatility has spiked and corporate bond spreads are surging (Chart I-1). The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Chart I-1A Flight To Quality We laid out our economic view in detail in the BCA Outlook 2019 report, published in late November. Not enough has changed on the global economic front in the three weeks since then that would justify such a violent shift in investor sentiment. That said, our favorite global leading economic indicators continue to erode (Chart I-2). The only ray of hope is that the diffusion index constructed from our Global Leading Economic Indicator appears to have bottomed. Nonetheless, the actual LEI will keep falling until the diffusion index shifts into positive territory. Chart I-2Global Leading Indicators Still Weak For China, a key source of investor angst, the latest retail sales and industrial production reports reinforced that economic momentum continues to recede. We will not be convinced that growth is bottoming until we see an upturn in our credit impulse indicator (Chart I-3). Its continued decline in November suggests that the outlook for emerging market assets and commodity prices is poor for at least the next quarter. Global industrial output appears headed for a mild contraction. The manufacturing troubles are centered in the emerging Asian economies, but Europe and Japan are also feeling the negative effects. Chart I-3China: No Bottom Yet In the U.S., November’s bounce in housing starts and permits is a hopeful sign that the soft patch in this sector is ending. However, it is not clear how the devastating wildfires on the west coast have affected the housing data (Chart I-4). The downdraft in capital goods orders may also be drawing to a close, based on the latest reading from the Fed’s survey of capital spending intentions. The U.S. leading economic indicator dipped slightly in November, but remains consistent with above-trend real GDP growth in the months ahead. Chart I-4U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs The bottom line is that our outlook for growth has not been significantly altered. We see little risk of a U.S. recession in 2019. The global economy continues to weaken, but we expect enough policy stimulus out of China to stabilize growth in that economy in the second half of the year. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that, while the risks appeared elevated, we would consider shifting back to overweight in stocks if they cheapened sufficiently. Valuation has indeed improved in recent weeks and sentiment has turned more cautious. Global growth will likely continue to decelerate in the first half of 2019, but markets have largely discounted this outcome. In other words, the shift toward pessimism in financial markets appears overdone. The fact that the Fed has signaled a move away from regular quarter-point rate hikes adds to our confidence in playing what will likely be the last upleg in risk assets in this cycle. Fed: Rate Hikes No Longer On Autopilot The Fed lifted rates by a quarter point in December and signaled that any additional tightening will be data-dependent. The FOMC also trimmed the expected peak in the funds rate and its estimate of the long-run, or neutral, level. Policymakers were likely swayed by some disappointing U.S. economic data, the pullback in core PCE inflation, and the sharp tightening in financial conditions (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Financial Conditions Have Tightened Monetary conditions are not tight by historical yardsticks, such as the level of real interest rates. The problem is that investors fear that the neutral level of the fed funds rate, the so-called R-star, remains very depressed. If true, it could mean that the Fed is already outright restrictive, which would signal that the monetary backdrop has turned hostile for risk assets. The OIS curve signals that the consensus believes that the Fed is pretty much done the tightening cycle (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! We believe that R-star is higher than the current policy setting and is rising, as the growth headwinds related to the Great Financial Crisis fade with the passage of time. The problem is that nobody knows the level of the neutral rate. Thus, we need to watch for signs that the fed funds rate has surpassed that level, such as an inverted yield curve. The 10-year/3-month T-bill spread is still in positive territory, but barely so. Meanwhile, our R-star indicator is also flashing yellow as it sits on the zero line (Chart I-7). It is a composite of monetary indicators that in the past have been useful in signaling that monetary policy had become outright restrictive, leading to slower growth and trouble for risk assets. The lead time of this indicator relative to economic activity and risk asset prices has been quite variable historically, but a breakdown below zero would send a powerful bearish signal for risk assets if confirmed by an inverted yield curve. Chart I-7Worrying Signs Of Tight Money The Implications Of Four Fed Scenarios It is not surprising that investors are struggling with a number of different possible scenarios on how the R-star/Fed policy nexus will play out. We can perhaps boil down discussion of the Fed and the implications for financial markets to a matrix of four main outcomes, based on combinations related to the level of R-Star (high or low) and the pace of Fed rate hikes in 2019 (pause or continue increasing rates by 25 basis points per quarter). Policy Mistake #1: R-star is still very low, but policymakers do not realize this and the FOMC continues to tighten into restrictive territory in 2019. By definition, the economy begins to suffer in this scenario, inflation and inflation expectations decline and long-bond yields are flat-to-lower. The yield curve inverts. However, current real rates are still so low that the fed funds rate cannot be very far above R-Star, which means it would represent only a small policy mistake. As long as the Fed recognizes the economic slowdown early enough and truncates the rate hike cycle, then there is a good chance that a recession would be avoided. Investors would initially fear a recession, however, which means that risk assets would be hit hard in absolute terms and relative to bonds and cash until recession fears fade. The direction of the dollar is perhaps trickiest part because there are so many potential cross currents. To keep things simple we will assume that global growth follows our base-case view and remains lackluster in the first half of 2019, followed by a modest re-acceleration. We believe the dollar would likely rally a little as the Fed continues tightening, but then would fall back as the FOMC is forced to turn dovish in the face of a U.S. growth scare. Policy Mistake #2: R-Star is high and rising but the Fed fails to hike rates fast enough to keep up. The economy accelerates in this scenario because monetary policy remains stimulative through 2019, at a time when the 2018 fiscal stimulus will still be providing a demand tailwind. Core PCE inflation moves above 2% and long-term inflation expectations shift up, signaling to investors that the Fed has fallen behind the inflation curve. Risk assets rip for a while and the yield curve bear-steepens as the 10-year Treasury yield moves gradually higher at first. Belatedly, the FOMC realizes it has underestimated the neutral rate and signals a hawkish policy shift. A 50-basis point rate hike at one FOMC meeting causes risk assets to buckle on the back of surging Treasury yields. The yield curve begins to bear-flatten. Eventually the curve inverts and the economy enters recession. The dollar weakens at first because higher inflation lowers U.S. real interest rates relative to the rest of the world. Global growth prospects would initially get a boost from the acceleration in U.S. growth, which is also dollar-bearish. However, in the end the dollar would likely rise as global financial markets turn risk-off. Fed Gets It Right (1): R-star is high and rising. The Fed continues to tighten in line with the increase in the neutral rate. Treasurys sell off hard and the yield curve shifts higher, but remains fairly flat (parallel shift). The curve could mildly invert temporarily, but market worries about a recession eventually recede as economic momentum remains robust, allowing the curve to subsequently trade in the 0-50 basis point range. As discussed below, risk assets tend to outperform Treasurys and cash when the yield curve is in this range, but not by much. The Treasury market would suffer significant losses. This is the most dollar-bullish of the four scenarios, given our global growth view (tepid) and the fact that the market is not even priced for a full quarter-point rate hike in 2019. Fed Gets It Right (2): R-Star is actually still quite low, but the Fed correctly sees recent economic data disappointments and the tightening in financial conditions as signs that policy is close to neutral. The Fed pauses the rate hike cycle, followed by a slower and more data-dependent pace of tightening. The yield curve stays fairly flat and flirts with inversion as investors try to figure out if the Fed has overdone it. Risk assets are volatile and deliver little return over cash. Treasurys rally a bit as the chance of any further rate hikes is priced out of the market, but the rally is limited unless the economy falls into recession (which is not part of this scenario because we are assuming the Fed “gets it right”). The dollar fluctuates, but delivers no real trend since U.S. yield differentials versus the rest of the world do not change much. As we go to press, financial markets are moving in a way that is consistent the Policy Mistake #1; the consensus appears to believe that the Fed has already lifted the fed funds rate too far, causing financial conditions to tighten. But if U.S. real GDP growth remains above-trend as we expect, then the market view could eventually transition to a belief in Mistake #2; the Fed falls behind the inflation curve. The curve would re-steepen and risk assets could have one last hurrah before the Fed gets hawkish again and the 2020 recession arrives. The transition from Mistake #1 to Mistake #2 is essentially our base-case outlook. Nonetheless, obviously the risks around this central scenario are high, especially given how late it is in the U.S. economic and policy cycle. Asset Returns And The Yield Curve Our 2018 late-cycle investing theme focussed on historical asset return and policy dynamics after the U.S. unemployment rate fell below the full-employment level in past cycles. We found that risk assets tend to run into trouble once the U.S. S&P 500 operating margin peaks. As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, our margin proxies are still not heralding that a peak is at hand. Given the recent investor obsession with the U.S. yield curve, this month we look at historical asset returns at different levels of the 10-year/3-month T-bill yield curve slope: Phase I, when the slope is above 50 basis points; Phase II, when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points; and Phase III, when the curve is inverted (Table I-1). The data are presented as (not annualized) monthly average returns. It may be surprising that risk asset returns are for the most part positive even in when the curve is inverted. However, keep in mind that we are focussing on the curve, not on recession periods. The curve can be inverted for a long time before the subsequent recession occurs. Risk asset returns often remain positive during this period. The broad conclusions are as follows: Unsurprisingly, risk assets perform their best, in absolute terms and relative to government bonds and cash, in Phase I when the yield curve is steep. Returns tend to deteriorate as the curve flattens. This includes equities, corporate bonds and commodities. Small caps underperform large caps when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points, but the reverse is true when the curve is flatter or steeper than that range. The ratio of cyclical stocks to defensives has not revealed a consistent pattern with respect to the yield curve, although this may reflect the short historical period available. Value stocks shine versus growth when the curve is inverted. Hedge fund and private equity returns have not varied greatly across the three yield curve environments. Structured product, such as CMBS and ABS, have enjoyed their best performance when the curve is inverted. Timberland and Farmland have also rewarded investors during Phase III. We suspected that asset returns when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range would vary importantly with the direction of the curve. In Table I-I we split Phase II into two parts: when the curve is steepening after being inverted, and when the curve is flattening after being steep. In other words, when the consensus is either transitioning from quite bullish to very bearish, or vice-versa. Risk assets such as equities (U.S. and Global) and U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds indeed perform much better in absolute terms when the curve is flat but is steepening rather than flattening. The same is true for U.S. structured product. In terms of excess returns relative to government issues, both U.S. IG and HY corporates have tended to underperform when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range. Surprisingly, the underperformance is worse when the curve is steepening than when it is flattening. This appears to reflect an anomalous period in early 2006 when the curve was flattening but corporate bonds enjoyed strong excess returns. Emerging market equities show very strong returns in all three curve phases. This reflects the inclusion of the pre-2000 period in the mean calculations, a time when EM equities were much less correlated with U.S. financial conditions. EM equity returns have been significantly lower on average since 2000 when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range (and especially when the curve is flattening) The bottom line is that risk assets can still reward investors with positive returns during periods when the yield curve is flat. However, it is a dangerous time, especially when the global economy is up to its eyeballs in debt. This month’s Special Report beginning on page 17 argues that, although regulation has made the global financial system more resilient to shocks compared to the pre-Lehman years, the number of potentially destabilizing shocks has increased. Moreover, the trade war and Brexit risks make the investment backdrop all the more precarious. No Quick End To The Trade War The honeymoon following the trade ceasefire between the U.S. and China, agreed at the G20 summit in early December, did not last long. The arrest of the chief financial officer of Chinese telecom maker Huawei and continuing hawkish tweets from the U.S. president dampened hopes that a trade agreement can be negotiated by March. Even news that China intended to cut tariffs on U.S. auto imports did not help much. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that negotiations will prove to be protracted and testy. It will take a lot more than some token market-opening action on the part of China to placate the U.S. Our geopolitical team emphasizes that “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance.1 For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart I-8). While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Chart I-8R&D Expenditure By Country U.S. demands will also be hard for China to swallow. Most importantly, the U.S. is requesting that China rein in its hacking and spying, shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors, adjust its “Made in China” targets to allow for more foreign competition, and lower foreign investment equity restrictions. These stumbling blocks will make it difficult to strike a deal on trade. We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China will not arrive in the 90-day timeframe of the ceasefire. Thus, global risk assets will be subject to swings in sentiment regarding the likelihood of a trade deal well beyond March. Meanwhile, as previously discussed, Chinese policy stimulus has not yet become aggressive enough to spark animal spirits in the private sector. The Chinese authorities are proceeding cautiously so as to avoid adding significantly to private- and public-sector’s debt mountain. This month’s Special Report also discusses the risks that the surge in debt over the past decade poses for the global financial system, including escalating risk in China’s shadow banking system. Brexit Pain Continues Politics surrounding the torturous Brexit process will also remain a source of volatility for global markets in 2019. Prime Minister May survived a leadership challenge, but this is hardly confidence-inspiring. The question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The votes appear to be in place for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to essentially pay for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election (which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power), or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the failure of the Tories to endorse May’s proposed agreement means that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear; the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart I-9). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. The bottom line is that, while a soft Brexit is the most likely outcome, the path from here to the end result will be punishing. We do not recommend Brexit-related bets on the pound, despite the fact that it is cheap. Chart I-9A Shift Toward Bremain 2019: A Tale Of Two Halves For EM, Commodities And The Dollar One of our key themes in the BCA Outlook 2019 is that the growth divergence between China and the U.S. will persist at least for the first half of 2019. The result will be weak EM asset prices and currencies, little upside for base metals and a strong U.S. dollar. We expect the Chinese authorities will do enough to stabilize growth by mid-year, providing the impetus for a playable bounce in EM and commodity prices in the second half of 2019, coinciding with a peak in the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, the dollar still has some upside potential in broad trade-weighted terms in the first half of 2019. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to show a greater need for policy tightening in the U.S. than in the rest of the major countries. The dollar has usually strengthened when this has been the case historically. In particular, the ECB’s Central Bank Monitor has slipped back into “easy money required” territory, reflecting moderating economic momentum and still-depressed consumer price inflation (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar The ECB announced the well-anticipated end of its asset purchase program in December. The central bank will now focus on forward guidance as its main policy tool outside of setting short-term interest rates. Lending via targeted LTROs will also be considered under certain circumstances. Policymakers retained the latest forward guidance after the December MPC meeting, that rates are on hold “through the summer of 2019”. The latest reading from our ECB Monitor suggests that the central bank could be on hold for longer than that. We expect Eurozone growth to improve somewhat through the year, but we still believe that interest rate differentials will move further in favor of the dollar relative to the euro and the other major currencies. Periods of slow global growth also tend to favor the greenback. The bottom line is that, while a correction is possible in the very near term, investors with at least a six-month horizon should remain long the dollar. Investment Conclusions: Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. The risks facing investors have not diminished either, especially given the precarious nature of late-cycle investing and the uncertainty regarding the neutral level of the fed funds rate. Historically, the returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities have not been particularly attractive on average when the yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, we believe that the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Despite our more positive view on equities, we remain cautious on credit. Spreads have widened recently to more attractive levels, but we remain concerned about the high leverage of U.S. corporates, whose debt/assets ratio is on average higher now than in 2009. Signs of strain are already showing in the junk bond market, with new issuance having largely dried up since early December. If this continues, borrowers may struggle to refinance maturing debt in early 2019. Credit is an asset class that is likely to perform particularly poorly in the next recession. Our upgrade to stocks in the advanced markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil markets are still in the process of re-adjusting to an extraordinary policy reversal by the Trump Administration on its Iranian oil-export sanctions in November, as last-minute waivers were granted to Iran’s largest oil importers. We believe that oil prices have overshot to the downside. Following OPEC 2.0’s decision to cut 1.2mm b/d of production to re-balance markets in the first half of the year, we continue to expect prices to recover on the back of solid global energy demand. Canada also mandated energy firms to trim production. Our energy experts expect oil prices to reach $82/bbl in 2019. We also like gold as long as the fed funds rate remains below its neutral level. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 21, 2018 Next Report: January 31, 2019 II. (Part II) The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis This is the second of a two-part Special Report on the structural changes that have occurred as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. We look at three issues: asset correlation, the safety of the financial system, and the level of global debt. First, correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. Some believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has shifted permanently higher for two main reasons: (1) trading factors such as the increased use of exchange-traded funds and algorithms; and (2) the risk-on/risk-off environment in which trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. We have sympathy for the second explanation. The equity risk premium (ERP) was forced higher on a sustained basis by the financial crisis, driven by fears that the advanced economies had entered a ‘secular stagnation’. Elevated correlation among risk assets was a result of a higher-than-normal ERP. The ERP should decline as fears of secular stagnation fade, leading to a lower average level of risk asset correlation than has been the case over the last decade. Second, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. But is the financial system really any safer today? Undoubtedly, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. The propensity for contagion among banks has diminished and there has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities. The bad news is that the level of global debt has increased at an alarming pace. The third part of this report highlights that elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system. Choking debt levels boost the vulnerability to negative shocks. The number and probability of potential shocks appear to have increased since 2007, including extreme weather events, sovereign debt crises, large-scale migration, populism, water crises and cyber & data attacks. The lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide any fiscal relief in the event of a negative shock. Moreover, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend more in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. The Great Recession and Financial Crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policy and financial markets for years to come. Rather than reviewing the roots of the crisis, the first of our two-part series examined the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. We covered the changing structure of the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. We highlighted that the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. We made the case that the prolonged inflation undershoot is sowing the seeds of an overshoot in the coming years, in part related to central bank policymakers that are doomed to fight the last war. Finally, we argued that the forces behind the structural and cyclical bull market in bonds reached an inflection point in 2016/2017. In Part II, we examine the theory that the financial crisis has permanently lifted market correlations among risk assets. Next, we look at whether regulatory changes implemented as a result of the financial crisis have made the global financial system safer. Finally, we highlight the implications of the continued rise in global leverage over the past decade in the context of BCA’s Debt Supercycle theme. The bottom line is that the global financial system still faces substantial risks, despite a more highly regulated banking system. (1) Are Risk Asset Correlations Permanently Higher? Correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. For example, risk assets became more highly correlated, suggesting little differentiation within or across asset classes. Chart II-1 presents a proxy for U.S. equity market correlations, using a sample of current S&P 100 companies. The average correlation was depressed in the 1990s and 2000s relative to the 1980s. It spiked in 2007 and fluctuated at extremely high levels for several years, before moving erratically lower. It has jumped recently and is roughly in the middle of the post-1980s range. Chart II-1Two Factors Driving Correlation Correlations will undoubtedly ebb and flow in the coming years and will spike again in the next recession. But a key question is whether correlations will oscillate around a higher average level than in the 1990s and 2000s. The consensus seems to believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has indeed shifted higher on a structural basis for two main reasons: Market Structure Changes: Many investors point to trading factors such as the increased use of index products (exchange-traded funds for example), and high-frequency/algorithmic trading as likely culprits. Macro “theme” investing has reportedly become more popular and is often implemented through algorithms. The result is an increase in stock market volatility and a tendency for risk-asset prices to move up and down based on momentum because they are all being traded as a group. These factors would likely be evident today even if the financial crisis never happened, but the popularity of algorithm trading may have been encouraged by the fact that the macro backdrop was so uncertain for years after Lehman collapsed. Risk On/Off Trading Environment: Trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Even after the recession ended, the headwinds to growth were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged largely on the success or failure of unorthodox monetary policies. The general feeling was that either the policies would “work”, the output gap would gradually close and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail and risk assets would be dragged down by a return to recession. Thus, markets traded on an extreme “risk-on/risk-off” basis, as sentiment swung wildly with each new piece of economic and earnings data. While the market structure thesis has merit on the surface, the impact should only be short term in nature. It is difficult to see how a change in the intra-day microstructure of the market could have such a fundamental, wide-ranging and permanent impact on market prices. Previous research suggests that any impact on market correlation beyond the very short term is likely to be small. For the sake of brevity, we won’t present the evidence here, but instead refer readers to two BCA Special Reports.2 The risk on/off trading environment thesis is a more plausible explanation. However, we find it more useful to think about it in terms of the equity risk premium (ERP). A higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which, in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. A lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious are an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Shifts in the ERP are sometimes structural in nature, but there is also a strong cyclical element in that persistent equity declines historically have had the effect of temporarily raising the ERP and correlations. A simple model based on the ERP and volatility explains a lot of the historical variation in equity correlation, including the elevated levels observed in the years after 2007 (Chart II-2).3 The shift lower in correlations after 2012 reflects both a lower equity risk premium and a dramatic decline in downside volatility. Chart II-2Simple Model Explains Correlation It is tempting to believe that the lingering shell-shock related to the financial crisis means that the underlying equity risk premium has shifted permanently higher. The ERP is still elevated by historical standards, but this is more reflective of extraordinarily low bond yields than an elevated forward earnings yield. Investors evidently believe that the U.S. and other developed economies are stuck in a “secular stagnation”, which will require low interest rates for many years just to keep economic growth near its trend pace. In other words, the equilibrium interest rate, or R-star, is still very low. The ERP and correlations among risk assets will undoubtedly spike again in the next recession. Nonetheless, in the absence of recession, we expect fears regarding secular stagnation to fade further. If the advanced economies hold up as short-term interest rates and bond yields rise, then concerns that R-star is extremely low will dissipate and expectations regarding equilibrium bond yields will shift higher. The ERP will move lower as bond yields, rather than the earnings yield, do most of the adjustment. The underlying correlations among risk asset prices should correspondingly recede. This includes correlations among a wide variety of risk assets, such as corporate bonds and commodities. While this describes our base case outlook, there is a non-trivial risk that the next recession arrives soon and is deep. This would underscore the view that R-star is indeed very low and the economy needs constant monetary stimulus just to keep it out of recession (i.e. the secular stagnation thesis). The ERP and correlations would stay elevated on average in that scenario. What About The Stock/Bond Correlation? Chart II-3 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and the early-2000s. Bond yields tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined when the stock market has swooned. Chart II-3Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Inflation expectations can help explain the shift in stock/bond correlation. Expectations became unmoored after 1970, which meant that inflationary shocks became the primary driver of bond yields. Strong growth became associated with rising inflation and inflation expectations, and the view that central banks had fallen behind the curve. Bond yields surged as markets discounted aggressive tightening designed to choke off inflation. And, given that inflation lags the cycle and had a lot of persistence, central banks were not in a position to ease policy at the first hint of a growth slowdown. This was obviously a poor backdrop for stocks. When inflation expectations became well anchored again around the late 1990s, investors no longer feared that central banks would have to aggressively stomp on growth whenever actual inflation edged higher. Central banks also had more latitude to react quickly by cutting rates at the first sign of slower economic growth. Fluctuations in growth became the primary driver of bond yields, allowing stock prices to rise and fall along with yields. The correlation has therefore been positive most of the time since 2003. Bottom Line: A negative correlation between stocks and bond yields reared its ugly head in the last quarter of 2018. The equity correction reflected several factors, but the previous surge in bond yields and hawkish Fed comments appeared to spook markets. Investors became nervous that the fed funds rate had already entered restrictive territory, at a time when the global economy was cooling off. We expect more of these episodes as the Fed normalizes short-term interest rates over the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we see no evidence that inflation expectations have become unmoored. This implies that the stock-bond correlation will generally be positive most of the time over the medium term. In addition, the average level of correlation among risk assets has probably not been permanently raised, although spikes during recessions or growth scares will inevitably occur. (2) Is The Global Financial System Really Safer Today? The roots of the great financial crisis and recession involved a global banking and shadow banking system that encouraged leverage and risk-taking in ways that were hard for investors and regulators to assess. Complex and opaque financial instruments helped to hide risk, at a time when regulators were “asleep at the switch”. In many countries, credit grew at a much faster pace than GDP and capital buffers were dangerously low. Banking sector compensation skewed the system toward short-term gains over long-term sustainable returns. Lax lending standards and a heavy reliance on short-term wholesale markets to fund trading and lending activity contributed to cascading defaults and a complete seizure in parts of the money and fixed income markets. A vital question is whether the financial system is any less vulnerable today to contagion and seizure. The short answer is that the financial system is better prepared for a shock, but the problem is that the number of potential sources of instability have increased since 2007. Since the financial crisis, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. Reforms have come under four key headings: Capital: Regulators raised the minimum capital requirement for banks, added a buffer requirement, and implemented a surcharge on systemically important banks. Liquidity: Regulators implemented a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and a Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) in order to ensure that banks have sufficient short-term funds to avoid liquidity shortages and bank runs.4 Risk Management: Banks are being forced to develop systems to better monitor risk, and are subject to periodic stress tests. Resolution Planning: Banks have also been asked to detail options for resolution that, hopefully, should reduce systemic risk should a major financial institution become insolvent. Global systemically-important banks, in particular, will require sufficient loss-absorbing capacity. A major study by the Bank for International Settlements,5 along with other recent studies, found that systemic risk in the global financial system has diminished markedly as a result of the new regulations. On the whole, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. Lending standards have tightened almost across the board relative to pre-crisis levels, particularly for residential mortgages. Additional capital and liquid assets provide a much wider buffer today against adverse shocks, allowing most banks to pass recent stress tests (Chart II-4). Financial institutions have generally re-positioned toward retail and commercial banking and wealth management, and away from more complex and capital-intensive activities (Chart II-5). The median share of trading assets in total assets for individual G-SIBs has declined from around 20% to 12% over 2009-16. Moreover, the propensity for contagion among banks has diminished. The BIS notes that assessing all the complex interactions in the global financial system is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, a positive sign is that banks are focusing more on their home markets since the crisis, and that direct connections between banks through lending and derivatives exposures have declined. The BIS highlights that aggregate foreign bank claims have declined by 16% since the crisis, driven particularly by banks from the advanced economies most affected by the crisis, especially from some European countries (Chart II-6). It is also positive that European banks have made some headway in diminishing over-capacity, although problems still exist in Italy. Finally, and importantly, there has been a distinct shift toward more stable sources of funding, such as deposits, away from fickle wholesale markets (Charts II-7 and II-8). Chart II-6Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Outside of banking, many other regulatory changes have been implemented to make the system safer. One important example is that rules were adjusted to reduce the risk of runs on money market funds. What About Shadow Banking? Of course, more could be done to further indemnify the financial system. Concentration in the global banking system has not diminished, and it appears that the problem of “too big to fail” has not been solved. And then there is the shadow banking sector, which played a major role in the financial crisis by providing banks a way of moving risk to off-balance sheet entities and securities, and thereby hiding the inherent risks. Shadow banking is defined as credit provision that occurs outside of the banking system, but involves the key features of bank lending including leverage, and liquidity and maturity transformation. Complex structured credit securities, such as Collateralized Debt Obligations, allowed this type of transformation to mushroom in ways that were difficult for regulators and investors to understand. A recent study by the Group of Thirty6 concluded that securitization has dropped to a small fraction of its pre-crisis level, and that growing non-bank credit intermediation since the Great Recession has primarily been in forms that do not appear to raise financial stability concerns. Much of the credit creation has been in non-financial corporate bonds, which is a more stable and less risky form of credit extension than bank lending. Other types of lending have increased, such as corporate credit to pension funds and insurance companies, but this does not involve maturity transformation, according to the Group of Thirty. There has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities such as collateralized debt obligations, asset-backed commercial paper, and structured investment vehicles since 2007 (Chart II-9). While the situation must be monitored, the Group of Thirty study concludes that the financial system in the advanced economies appears to be less vulnerable to bouts of self-reinforcing forced selling, such as occurred during the 2008 crisis. Chart II-9Less Private-Sector Securitization One exception is the U.S. leveraged loan market, which has swelled to $1.13 trillion and about half has been pooled into Collateralized Loan Obligations. As with U.S. high-yield bonds, the situation is fine as long as profitability remains favorable. But in the next recession, lax lending standards today will contribute to painful losses in leveraged loans. The Bad News That’s the good news. The bad news is that, while the financial system might have become less complex and opaque, the level of debt has increased at an alarming rate in both the private and public sectors in many countries. Elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system, especially as global bond yields return to more normal levels by historical standards. We discuss other pressure points such as Emerging Markets and China in the next section, although the latter deserves a few comments before we leave the subject of shadow banking. The Group of Thirty notes that 30% of Chinese credit is provided by a broad array of poorly regulated shadow banking entities and activities, including trust funds, wealth management products, and “entrusted loans.” Links between these entities and banks are unclear, and sometimes involve informal commitments to provide credit or liquidity support. The study takes some comfort that most of Chinese debt takes place between Chinese domestic state-owned banks and state-owned companies or local government financing vehicles. Foreign investors have limited involvement, thus reducing potential direct contagion outside of China in the event of a financial event. Still, the potential for contagion internationally via global sentiment and/or the economic fallout is high. The other bad news is that, while regulators in the advanced economies have managed to improve the ability of financial institutions to weather shocks, potential risks to the financial system have increased in number and in probability of occurrence. The Global Risk Institute (GRI) recently published a detailed comparison of potential shocks today relative to 2007.7 The report sees twice the number of risks versus 2007 that are identified as “current” (i.e. could occur at any time) and of “high impact”. The most pressing risks today include extreme weather events, asset bubbles, sovereign debt crises, large-scale involuntary migration, water crises and cyber & data attacks. Any of these could trigger a broad financial crisis if the shock is sufficiently intense, despite improved regulation. The GRI study also eventuates how the risks will evolve over the next 11 years. Readers should see the study for details, but it is interesting that the experts foresee cyber dependency rising to the top of the risk pile by 2030. The increase is driven by the importance of data ownership, the increasing role of algorithms and control systems, and the $1.2 trillion projected cost of cyber, data and infrastructure attacks. Our computer systems are not prepared for the advances of technology, such as quantum computing. Climate change moves to the number two risk spot in its base-case outlook. Space limitations precluded a discussion of the rise of populism in this report, but the GRI sees the political tensions related to income inequality as the number three threat to the global financial system by 2030. Bottom Line: Regulators have managed to substantially reduce the amount of hidden risk and the potential for contagion between financial institutions and across countries since 2007. Banks have a larger buffer against stocks. Unfortunately, the number and probability of potential shocks to the financial system appear to have increased since 2007. (3) Implications Of The Global Debt Overhang The End of the Debt Supercycle is a key BCA theme influencing our macro view of the economic and market outlook for the coming years. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness of monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit up-cycle. However, since the 2007-09 meltdown, even zero (or negative) policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed economies, except in a few cases. The end of the Debt Supercycle has severely impaired the key transmission channel between changes in monetary policy and economic activity. The combination of high debt burdens and economic uncertainty has curbed borrowers’ appetite for credit while increased regulatory pressures and those same uncertainties have made lenders less willing to extend loans. This has severely eroded the effectiveness of lower interest in boosting credit demand and supply, forcing central banks to rely increasingly on manipulating asset prices and exchange rates. On a positive note, the plunge in interest rates has lowered debt servicing costs to historically low levels. Yet, it is the level, rather than the cost, of debt that seems to have been an impediment to the credit cycle, contributing to a lethargic economic expansion. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) publishes an excellent dataset of credit trends across a broad swath of developing and emerging economies. Some broad conclusions come from an examination of the data (Charts II-10 and II-11):8 Chart II-10Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Chart II-11EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started Private debt growth has only recently accelerated for the advanced economies as a whole. There are only a handful of developed economies where private debt-to-GDP ratios have moved up meaningfully in the past few years. These are countries that avoided a real estate/banking bust and where property prices have continued to rise (e.g. Canada and Australia). The high level of real estate prices and household debt currently is a major source of concern to the authorities in those few countries. Even where some significant consumer deleveraging has occurred (e.g. the U.S., Spain and Ireland), debt-to-income ratios remain very high by historical standards. In many cases, a stabilization or decline in private debt burdens has been offset by a continued rise in public debt, keeping overall leverage close to peak levels. This is a key legacy of the financial crisis; many governments were forced to offset the loss of demand from private sector deleveraging by running larger and persistent budget deficits. Weak private demand accounts for close to 50% of the rise in public debt on average according to the IMF. Global debt of all types (public and private) has soared from 207% of GDP in 2007 to 246% today. The Debt Supercycle did not end everywhere at the same time. It peaked in Japan more than 20 years ago and has not yet reached a decisive bottom. The 2007-09 meltdown marked the turning point for the U.S. and Europe, but it has not even started in the emerging world. The financial crisis accelerated the accumulation of debt in the latter as investors shifted capital away from the struggling advanced economies to (seemingly less risky) emerging markets. Both EM private- and public-sector debt ratios have continued to move up at an alarming pace. The lesson from Japan is that deleveraging cycles following the bursting of a major credit bubble can last a very long time indeed. One key area where there has been significant deleveraging is the U.S. household sector (Chart II-12). The ratio of household debt to income has fallen below its long-term trend, suggesting that the deleveraging process is well advanced. However, one could argue that the ratio will undershoot the trend for an extended period in a mirror image of the previous overshoot. Or, it may be that the trend has changed; it could now be flat or even down. Chart II-12U.S. Household Deleveraging... What is clear is that U.S. attitudes toward saving and spending have changed dramatically since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart II-13). Like the Great Depression of the 1930s that turned more than one generation off of debt, the 2008/09 crisis appears to have been a watershed event that marked a structural shift in U.S. consumer attitudes toward credit-financed spending. The Debt Supercycle is over for this sector. Chart II-13...As Attitudes To Debt Change Developing Countries: Debt And Economic Fundamentals BCA’s long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Trade wars and a tightening Fed are negative for EM assets, but the main headwinds facing this asset class are structural. Excessive debt is a ticking time bomb for many of these countries. EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports (Chart II-14). Moreover, the declining long-term growth potential for emerging economies as a group makes it more difficult for them to service the debt. The structural downtrend in EM labor force and productivity growth underscores that trend GDP growth has collapsed over the past three decades (Chart II-14, bottom panel). Chart II-14EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... The 2019 Key Views9 report from our Emerging Markets Strategy team highlights that excessive capital inflows over the past decade have contributed to over-investment and mal-investment. Much of the borrowing was used to fund unprofitable projects, as highlighted by the plunge in productivity growth, profit margins and return on assets in the EM space relative to pre-Lehman levels (Chart II-15) Decelerating global growth in 2018 has exposed these poor fundamentals. Chart II-15...Along With Deteriorating Profitability As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, emerging financial markets may enjoy a rally in the second half of 2019 on the back of Chinese policy stimulus. However, this will only represent a ‘sugar high’. The debt overhang in emerging market economies is unlikely to end benignly because a painful period of corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms are required in order to boost productivity and thereby improve these countries’ ability to service their debt mountains. China’s Debt Problem Space limitations preclude a full discussion of the complex debt situation in China and the risks it poses for the global financial system. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart II-16). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart II-17). Chinese banks are currently being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. Chart II-16China's Overinvestment... Chart II-17Has Undermined The Return On Assets The previous section highlighted that much of the debt has been created in the opaque shadow banking system, where vast amounts of hidden risk have likely accumulated. Whether or not the central government is willing and/or able to cover a wave of defaults and recapitalize the banking system in the event of a negative shock is hotly debated, both within and outside of BCA. But even if a financial crisis can be avoided, bringing an end to the unsustainable credit boom will undoubtedly have significant consequences for the Chinese economy and the emerging economies that trade with it. Interest Costs To Rise Globally, many are concerned about rising interest costs as interest rates normalize over the coming years. In Appendix Charts II-19 to II-21, we provide interest-cost simulations for selected government, corporate and household sectors under three interest-rate scenarios. The good news is that the starting point for interest rates is still low, and that it takes years for the stock of outstanding debt to adjust to higher market rates. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, interest burdens will increase but will generally remain low by historical standards. It would take a surge of 300 basis points across the yield curve to really ‘move the needle’ in terms of interest expense. This does not imply that the global debt situation is sustainable or that a financial crisis can be easily avoided. The next economic downturn will probably not be the direct result of rising interest costs. Nonetheless, elevated government, household and/or corporate leverage has several important long-term negative implications: Limits To Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Government indebtedness will limit the use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy during the next economic downturn. Chart II-18 highlights that structural budget deficits and government debt levels are higher today compared to previous years that preceded recessions. The risk is especially high for emerging economies and some advanced economies (such as Italy) where investors will be unwilling to lend at a reasonable rate due to default fears. Even in countries where the market still appears willing to lend to the government at a low interest rate, political constraints may limit the room to maneuver as voters and fiscally-conservative politicians revolt against a surge in budget deficits. This will almost certainly be the case in the U.S., where the 2018 tax cuts mean that the federal budget deficit is likely to be around 6% of GDP in the coming years even in the absence of recession. A recession would push it close to a whopping 10%. Even in countries where fiscal stimulus is possible, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend and take on more debt. Growth Headwinds: The debt situation condemns the global economy to a slower pace of trend growth in part because of weaker capital spending. From one perspective this is a good thing, because spending financed by the excessive use of credit is unsustainable. Still, deleveraging has much further to go at the global level, which means that spending will have to be constrained relative to income growth. The IMF estimates that deleveraging in the private sector for the advanced economies is only a third of historical precedents at this point in the cycle. The IMF also found that debt overhangs have historically been associated with lower GDP growth even in the absence of a financial crisis. Sooner or later, overleveraged sectors have to retrench. Vulnerability To Negative Shocks: If adjustment is postponed, debt reaches levels that make the economy highly vulnerable to negative shocks as defaults rise and lenders demand a higher return or withdraw funding altogether. IMF work shows that economic downturns are more costly in terms of lost GDP when it is driven or accompanied by a financial crisis. This is particularly the case for emerging markets. Bottom Line: Although credit growth has been subdued in most major advanced economies, there has been little deleveraging overall and debt-to-GDP is still rising at the global level. Elevated debt levels are far from benign, even if it appears to be easily financed at the moment. It acts as dead weight on economic activity and makes the world economy vulnerable to negative shocks. It steals growth from the future and, in the event of such a shock, the lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide fiscal relief. The end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst APPENDIX Chart II-19Corporate Interest Cost Scenarios Chart II-20Government Interest Cost Scenarios Chart II-21U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our tactical upgrade of equities to overweight this month goes against most of our proprietary indicators. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S., Japan and Europe are all heading lower. 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. Investors are clearly moving funds away from the equity market at the moment. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a ‘sell’ signal. 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. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, supporting the view that caution is still warranted. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio has dropped into negative territory. The earnings surprises index has also declined, although it remains above 60%. Finally, our Composite Technical Equity Indicator has broken below the zero line and its 9-month exponential moving average, sending a negative technical signal. On the positive side, our Monetary Indicator has hooked up, although it is still in negative territory for equities. From a contrary perspective, the fact that equity sentiment has turned bearish is positive for stocks. In fact, this is the main reason why we upgraded stocks this month. While it is late in the U.S. economic expansion and the Fed is tightening, sentiment regarding U.S. and global growth has become overly pessimistic. Thus, we are playing a late-cycle bounce in stocks. For bonds, the term premium moved further into negative territory in December, which is unsustainable from a long-term perspective. Long-term inflation expectations are also too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% target over the medium term. These facts suggest that bond yields have not peaked for the cycle, although at the moment they have not yet worked off oversold conditions according to our technical indicator. The U.S. dollar is overbought and very expensive on a PPP basis. Nonetheless, we believe it will become more expensive in the first half of 2019, before its structural downtrend resumes in broad trade-weighted terms. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 For more details, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda," dated December 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The Bane Of Investors’ Existence: Why Is Correlation High And When Will It Fall?" dated January 4, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report "The Passive Menace," dated September 13, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 3 We use only below average returns in the calculation of volatility (downside volatility) because we are more concerned with the risk of equity market declines for the purposes of this model. 4 The LCR requires a large bank to hold enough high-quality liquid assets to cover the net cash outflows the bank would expect to occur over a 30-day stress scenario. The NSFR complements the LCR by requiring an amount of stable funding that is tailored to the liquidity risk of a bank’s assets and liabilities, based on a one-year time horizon. 5 Structural Changes in Banking After the Crisis. CGFS Papers No.60. Bank for International Settlements, January 2018. 6 Shadow Banking and Capital Markets Risks and Opportunities. Group of Thirty. Washington, D.C., November 2016. 7 Back to the Future: 2007 to 2030. Are New Financial Risks Foreshadowing a Systemic Risk Event? Global Risk Institute. 8 For more details on public and private debt trends, please see BCA Special Report "The End Of The Debt Supercycle: An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "2019 Key Views: Will The EM Lost Decade End With A Bang Or A Whimper?" dated December 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:
We downgraded global equities during the summer based on lofty valuations, overly bullish sentiment, and the prospect of slowing global growth. Since then, valuations have improved and sentiment has turned more cautious. Global growth will continue to…
Dear Client, This is our last publication of 2018. We wish all our clients a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year! We will be back on January 3, 2019. Thank you, The Commodity & Energy Strategy Team! Because they missed the first wave of North American Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) investments, Canadian gas producers will continue to endure low prices – compared to their U.S. counterparts – for the next three to five years. To become attractive to investors, proposed Canadian LNG projects will have to wait for demand to catch up to supply coming from the first wave of investment in 2010 – 2015.1 The good news is demand – mainly from Europe and Asia – is projected to outpace gas liquefaction capacity by 2023 – 2024.2 We believe this will create the necessary conditions to incentivize the second wave of LNG investment. To preserve its strong natural gas sector, Canada will have to become a leading LNG exporter, or risk seeing production decline. Highlights Energy: Overweight. The 2H18 OPEC 2.0 production surge undertaken to cover the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iranian oil exports still is being absorbed in key refining centers. We expect to see inventories begin to draw heavily in January, given the transit from the Persian Gulf to the U.S. Gulf, where inventory levels are reported weekly, takes roughly 50 days per the U.S. EIA (Chart of the Week). Base Metals: Neutral. Asian copper concentrate treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) appear to be headed lower next year. According to Metal Bulletin’s Fastmarkets, a deal agreed by Antofagasta and Jiangxi Copper setting TC/RCs at $80.80/MT / 8.08 cents/lb is setting next year’s levels. This will be the “the lowest benchmark since 2013,” coming in $1.45/MT under this year’s levels. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices have rallied, as markets appear to be discounting fewer rate hikes by the Fed next year.3 We expect at least three rate hikes in 2019. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA will release the second and final installment of farm assistance totaling $4.7 billion, to cover losses arising from the Sino – U.S. tit-for-tat tariffs and lost trade. This brings the total U.S. payout to $9.6 billion, according to agriculture.com. Feature U.S. LNG companies have the first-mover advantage in the North American LNG market.4 Because of this, these firms have a decided advantage in attracting capital investments and securing shorter- and long-term contracts to absorb their output. We believe the upcoming second wave of North American LNG investment – likely to get rolling in early 2019 – might be the last opportunity for Canadian producers to secure a position in the global gas market. If they miss this wave, Canadian natural gas production likely will plateau at close to current levels and begin to decline as early as 2019 (Chart 2).5 Currently, ~ 51% of Canadian natural gas production is exported to the U.S., but the shale revolution south of the border threatens every single cubic-foot of exports. U.S. gas supply is projected to increase by 20%, while its domestic demand by only 5%. This means the U.S.’s supply-surplus is poised to increase by 4.25 Bcf/d by 2023. Most of the American surplus will be exported via the LNG facilities that received final-investment decisions (FID) during the first wave of investment, and the rest via pipelines to Mexico and Canada. By 2020 the U.S. will have ~ 9.5 Bcf/d of liquefaction capacity and 3.4 Bcf/d of additional pipeline capacity destined to Mexico and Canada (Table 1). Table 1U.S. LNG Capacity To Reach 9.5 Bcf/d In The Early 2020s Canadian Gas Market Balance The U.S. natural gas market is the most important factor driving the evolution of Canadian natural gas production. Canadian natgas exports to the U.S. are expected to decrease from 8.2 Bcf/d to ~ 5 Bcf/d by 2040, according to EIA data. Moreover, Eastern Canada’s imports of natural gas from Northeast U.S. are projected to increase by 2.2 Bcf/d, due to the region’s proximity to the super-giant Marcellus and Utica gas fields in the Appalachian Basin. This trend has already started (Chart 3). Our base case projections for Canadian natural gas includes five new projects reaching FID in 2019-2020, with a combined capacity of 6.4 Bcf/d by 2024: Woodfibre LNG (prob > 80%): Small-scale project with capacity close to 0.3 Bcf/d located near Squamish, BC. This involves a 47-kilometer expansion of the existing FortisBC pipeline, transporting gas from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Goldboro LNG (prob > 80%): Although the project is placed in proximity to the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, the ~0.5 Bcf/d import capacity of this pipe would not sustain the 1.3 Bcf/d facility’s export capacity suggesting a required expansion, or new infrastructure to source its gas from the Marcellus Basin or Canada West. Bear Head LNG (prob > 80%): This project in Richmond County, NS must decide on whether to source 1.6 Bcf/d from the U.S. or Western Canada. Kitimat LNG (prob > 50%): This 1.3Bcf/d terminal in Bish Cove, BC will source its gas from the Horn River and Liard Basins via the proposed 480-kilmeter Pacific Trail Pipeline. Kwispaa LNG (prob > 50%): Formally known as Sarita LNG, the 1.9 Bcf/d project in Sarita Bay, BC would rely on gas supply from northeastern BC and/or Alberta. On the back of these expansions, we expect a short-term gas supply-surplus in Canada from 2019 to 2022, followed by balanced market, as LNG export capacity rises sufficiently to support Western Canadian gas production growth and pipeline-export declines (Chart 4). If there are no new Canadian LNG projects receiving FID decisions in the next two years, the domestic market will become over-supplied. This would depress the Canadian benchmark price at the AECO-C hub, and curtail investment in the energy sector. Should this scenario play out, we would expect future Canadian natural gas production to ~ 14.3 Bcf/d by 2040 (Chart 2). Bottom Line: Next year will be crucial for the medium- and long-term Canadian natgas outlook. Any delays in the construction of projects in the development pipeline would depress AECO-C prices and increase uncertainty for future investments in the Western Canadian Select Basin. Can Canada Compete With The U.S.? Canadian LNG projects are in direct competition with those in the U.S. to attract investment for the next wave of needed liquefaction capacity. We believe the Canadian LNG sector offers several advantages, which could favor its development versus the U.S. There are three major points of comparison: Proximity to key demand markets: One crucial advantage of Canadian LNG is its proximity to Asian markets, which will be the principal driver of LNG demand growth (Chart 5). In fact, a voyage from the Canadian Westcoast to Ningbo, China, takes on average 28 days less than from the GOM (Table 2). Moreover, the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) estimates shipping from Eastern and Western Canada offers cost advantage over most liquefaction facilities around the world (Chart 6). Lastly, U.S. GOM exports to China are constrained by the Panama Canal and are expected to reach full transit capacity in early 2020s.6 This would increase U.S. voyage time by close to 14 days. Table 2BC’s LNG Voyage Time To Asia Is Advantageous Proximity to cheap and abundant feedstock gas: British Colombia’s integrated LNG projects are close to the growing Montney, Horn River and Liard production basins (Map 1).7 Natural gas reserves in these basins are estimated at ~ 41 Tcf, and are located within 400 miles of pipeline infrastructure.8 Moreover, prices have historically been lower compared to Henry Hub, and this is especially true today (Chart 7). We believe AECO-C prices will have to remain at a discount to U.S. prices over the next two years to incentivize LNG investments or disincentivizes production. Chart 7AECO-C's Discount To Henry Hub Widens Capital Costs and pipeline systems: Canadian LNG projects have competitive capital costs (Chart 8). However, Canada lacks a developed pipeline system from the Montney, Horn River and Liard basins to the west coast. Each proposed LNG project includes a dedicated pipeline. According to CERI, the cost of building a new pipeline in BC is higher than average due to the mountainous terrain. The U.S. has the advantage in regard to its developed pipeline system connected to the Henry Hub. This allows LNG projects to access an abundant and reliable feedstock by investing in short connection pipelines to the Hub. This makes the U.S. slightly more attractive in terms of capital costs. Bottom Line: Canada offers a competitive alternative to U.S. LNG projects. Western Canadian gas offers the most cost-effective solution to fill the rising Asian gas demand. Short- And Medium-Term Price Outlook We expect Canadian natural gas prices – i.e. the AECO-C benchmark – to modestly pick up and the U.S. Henry Hub prices to remain flat over the coming winter. Going into the winter heating season in November, Canadian gas storage levels were 15.5% lower than last year. Environment Canada continues to project a “normal” winter, which should not pressure prices in any direction. The Enbridge pipeline segment north of Prince George, BC is back at 85% utilization rate from reduced levels of 50-80% following the explosion in early October. As exports pick up, this will alleviate some of the downward pressure on Canadian prices. Over the medium term, however, we believe there is limited upside to Canadian gas prices. British Columbia pipelines to the U.S. already are close to full capacity, and no new projects are under construction (Chart 9). The province’s gas production is poised to grow by 1.56 Bcf/d from the prolific Montney and Horn River plays over the next 5 years. Given the lack of LNG export capacity until at least 2022, the excess capacity will have to find its way through Alberta – where the AECO-C benchmark is determined – increasing the available supply and pushing its price down. Domestic Canadian markets are unlikely to absorb this new supply. Higher-than-expected U.S. production from the Utica and Marcellus plays in the Appalachian Basin will satisfy a growing proportion of Eastern Canadian natural gas consumption, increasing the competition for Western Canadian gas. Reversals of pipeline flows within existing systems so as to import greater volumes from U.S. is evidence of this trend (Chart 10). Furthermore, according to the EIA, close to 1.3 Bcf/d additional pipeline capacity from Northeast U.S. to Canada will be built in the next 2 years. In the U.S., Henry Hub price volatility picked up as the U.S. market experienced an early-season freeze at the start of the November – March heating season, which was accompanied by record low working gas inventories (Chart 11). The April-October 2018 re-fill season paled in comparison to last winter’s withdrawal (Chart 12). Expressed in Days-Forward-Cover (DFC), this year’s October seasonal inventory peak was 16% lower than the historical average and 10% lower than the 5-year average. This was most recently followed by warmer-than-expected temperatures that subsequently crashed prices (Chart 13). Chart 13Weather-Related Natgas Volatility U.S. natgas prices remain vulnerable to weather shocks. We expect a premium on prices to remain throughout most of the winter season, keeping prices above $3.00/MMbtu. Still, upside price movements remain capped by higher-than-expected production (Chart 14, panel 1). U.S. production reached 90.7 Bcf/d in November 2018, according to EIA data, and is projected to reach 93.5 Bcf/d by the end of next year. This is an 8.4% revision to the EIA June 2018 projections. Moreover, our higher 2019 shale production estimates vs. the EIA estimates will support additional associated gas production. Similarly, domestic demand and net exports are surging, and we expect these trends, especially regarding the U.S. natural gas exports, to continue next year (Chart 14, panel 2 & 3). This implies fundamentals will be fairly balanced in 1H19. The wildcard will be weather. The latest NOAA weather projections show extremely warm weather for the next 6-10 days, and warmer-than-normal temperature for the next two months. This keeps us Neutral. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 According to NEB, since 2010, 43 projects have been proposed. Of those, 35% have been cancelled and 20 were approved and working toward receiving FID. 2 Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market,” published October 4, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see “Druckenmiller Urges Fed to Pause Tightening `Blitz’ in WSJ Op-Ed,” published by bloomberg.com on December 17, 2018. 4 The U.S. already has more than 3 Bcf/d of liquefaction capacity. The experience/expertise acquired from these projects will facilitate the construction and permitting of new projects, reducing time delays and uncertainty. Brownfield expansions benefit from economies of scale (e.g. additional trains can share jetty, land, storage, pipeline and permitting). Lastly, the well-developed pipeline system reduces the need to built long direct pipelines to LNG projects, which speeds up the construction. For more details, please see Canadian Energy Research Institute, “Competitive Analysis Of Canadian LNG,” July 2018. 5 The largest LNG project in Canada clearing the FID hurdle is LNG Canada, the 1.8 Bcf/d project in Kitimat, BC, being developed by Shell. It is expected to cost $40 billion, and to be on line in 2023, with the possibility to double capacity eventually. 6 Please see Oxford Institute For Energy Studies, “Panama Canal and LNG: Congestion Ahead?” April 2018. 7 Please see National Energy Board, “Canada’s Role in the Global LNG Market: Energy Market Assessment,” July 2017. 8 Marketable reserves are estimated at 532 Tcf. Please see BC Oil and Gas Commission, “British Columbia’s Oil and Gas Reserves and Production Report,” December 2017. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 3Q18 Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Highlights Asset allocation: Start 2019 with an overweight to industrial commodities versus equities. Await an oversold sell-off signal on the 65-day fractal dimension to go tactically overweight equities versus cash. Equities: Start 2019 with a cyclical equity sector tilt, but become more defensive as the global economy inevitably flips into a down-oscillation later in 2019. Start tactically overweight Italy’s MIB versus the Eurostoxx. Bonds: Initiate a bond yield convergence play: long 10-year Italian BTPs versus Spanish Bonos. Currencies: Start 2019 short EUR/JPY combined with long EUR/USD. There will be a great opportunity to buy the GBP, but not yet. Alternatives: A compelling buying opportunity for the cryptocurrencies Litecoin and Ethereum. Feature 2019 will present investors a mirror-image pattern to 2018. Through most of 2018, global growth was decelerating while inflation was accelerating. Now this configuration is flipping: global growth is rebounding while inflation is set to collapse. Growth To Rebound, Then Fade Global growth has entered an up-oscillation, for which the evidence is irrefutable: Industrial (non-oil) commodities are strongly outperforming equities, and rising even in absolute terms (Chart of the Week and Chart 2). Emerging markets are strongly outperforming developed markets (Chart 3). Financials are outperforming the broad equity market (Chart 4). Sweden’s manufacturing PMI – a bellwether of global activity – is rebounding strongly (Chart 5). Perhaps most importantly, China’s 6-month credit impulse has gone vertical (Chart 6). Chart of the WeekNon-Oil Commodities Are Strongly Outperforming Equities Chart I-2Non-Oil Commodities Are Recovering In Absolute Terms Too Chart I-3Emerging Markets Are Strongly Outperforming Developed Markets Chart I-4Financials Are Outperforming Chart I-5Sweden’s Manufacturing PMI Is Up Sharply Chart I-6China’s 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Gone Vertical Taken together, this is compelling evidence of a growth rebound, even if it is modest. Crucially, such up-oscillations tend to last at least six to eight months. Hence, equity sector performances, which always take their cue from global growth, will follow a mirror-image pattern in 2019 to that in 2018. Bottom Line: Start the year with an overweight to industrial commodities versus equities and a cyclical equity sector tilt, but prepare to fade to a more defensive tilt as the global economy inevitably flips into a down-oscillation later in 2019. Inflation Is The Dog That Will Not Bark There are not many things that are certain in the economy, but a racing certainty for early 2019 is that headline inflation will collapse. This is because the plunge in the crude oil price – 40 percent so far and getting worse by the day – is about to feed through into headline consumer price indexes (Chart 7 and Chart 8). Inevitably, it will seep through into core inflation too, via the impact on energy dependent prices such as transport costs. Chart I-7Headline Inflation Will Collapse In Europe Chart I-8Headline Inflation Will Collapse In The U.S. Coming at a time that central banks have professed a much greater reliance on “incoming data”, we can deduce that central banks will find it hard to tighten policy in the face of weaker headline and core inflation prints. Crucially though, the ECB and BoJ were not planning on tightening policy anyway, so the plunge in reported inflation will be much more impactful on the Fed. This makes the dollar vulnerable, leaving us a choice between the euro and yen as our preferred major currency. And on this head-to-head the yen still beats the euro given its lower political risk: Bottom Line: Start 2019 short EUR/JPY combined with long EUR/USD. Use ‘The Rule Of 4’ And Fractals To Predict Tipping-Points For Equities Investment strategists are obsessed with timing the next recession. The thinking is that by predicting the next recession they can predict the next equity bear market. The logic sounds fine, except that the causality rarely runs from economic downturns to financial market instabilities. The causality almost always runs the other way. Paul Volcker, arguably the greatest central banker of the modern era, correctly points out that the danger to the economy almost always comes from systemic financial disturbances. The last three downturns, in 2000, 2007 and 2011, all resulted from financial disturbances: the bursting of the dot com bubble, the gross mispricing of U.S. sub-prime mortgages, and the distortion of euro area sovereign debt markets respectively. Instead of timing the next recession to predict financial market instability, the correct approach is to flip the logic around and ask: is there a glaring source of financial instability that could cause the next recession? To which the answer is yes. The current glaring instability is the hyper-vulnerability of elevated risk-asset valuations to the global bond yield. Near the lower bound of bond yields, bond prices develop the same unattractive negative asymmetry as equities, removing the need for an equity risk premium, and justifying sharply higher equity valuations. But when the 10-year global bond yield rises back to around 2 percent – or equivalently when the sum of the 10-year U.S. T-bond, German bund and Japanese government bond approaches 4 percent ‘the rule of 4’ – the process viciously reverses: bond prices lose their negative asymmetry, re-requiring an equity risk premium and sharply lower equity valuations (Chart 9 and Chart 10). Chart I-9Equities Plunged In February After A Spike In Bond Yields Chart I-10Equities Plunged In October After A Spike In Bond Yields In 2019, just as in 2018, investors should use this dynamic to allocate tactically to equities versus cash as follows: 1. When the rule of 4 approaches 4 and the market’s 65-day fractal dimension signals an overbought rally, go underweight equities. 2. When the rule of 4 approaches 3 and the market’s 65-day fractal dimension signals an oversold sell-off, go overweight equities. 3. At all other times stay neutral. Bottom Line: With the rule of 4 now approaching 3, await an oversold sell-off signal on the 65-day fractal dimension to go tactically overweight equities versus cash. Britain Escalates EU Tensions, Italy De-Escalates The two points of political tension in Europe, the U.K. and Italy, have a common theme: brinkmanship with the EU. The Brexit tension remains high and may even intensify in early 2019 before a resolution. Hence, while 2019 will offer a great opportunity to buy the pound, it might require a little patience. In contrast, Italy is de-escalating its brinkmanship with Brussels over its budget deficit. Meanwhile the crux of Italy’s long-standing woes – its banking system – is also showing signs of healing. The proportion of bank loans that are non-performing is plummeting, while the solvency of the banking system continues to improve (Chart 11 and Chart 12). Chart I-11Italian Banks’ NPLs Are Plummeting… Chart I-12…And Italian Banks’ Solvency Is Improving Bottom Line: Initiate a bond yield convergence play: long 10-year Italian BTPs versus Spanish Bonos. And tactically overweight Italy’s MIB versus the Eurostoxx. Cryptocurrencies Will Rebound 60 Percent Cryptocurrencies are here to stay, because the underlying technology, the blockchain, is here to stay. Just as the internet’s major innovation was to decentralise and democratise information, the blockchain’s major innovation is to decentralise and democratise trust. Until now, counterparties without an established trust relationship could only transact through an intermediary who could provide the necessary trust overlay. But once each participant in a transaction trusts the blockchain itself, they no longer need to use a conventional intermediary, like a bank or a law firm. One major argument against the blockchain is that it is energy intensive and therefore prohibitively costly. But conventional intermediation also exacts a significant cost. Let’s say that the stock of excess savings that the banks intermediate to borrowers conservatively equals global GDP. If the risk-adjusted interest rate spread that banks charge for their intermediation role conservatively equals 1 percent, it means that this conventional intermediation is costing 1 percent of global GDP. Against this, global energy consumption equals roughly 5 percent of global GDP. So even if the blockchain consumed a fifth of the world’s energy, its cost might still be comparable to conventional intermediation. The plunge in cryptocurrencies during 2018 was exacerbated by the recent ‘hard fork’ in bitcoin protocol. But such hard forks are a necessary part of the evolutionary process – being analogous to a Darwinian mutation which eliminates the weakest protocols while allowing the strongest and fittest to thrive. In the latest fork, the battle was between those who want cryptocurrencies to remain a speculative asset with low long-term survival prospects, and those who want them to become a stable means of payment with high long-term survival prospects. A year ago almost to the day, we recommended selling bitcoin at a price of $18,000. Our rationale was that excessive herding required a price gap down to normalise liquidity. The subsequent decline in the price to $3500 today has rewarded that recommendation handsomely. But today, Litecoin and Ethereum are approaching an opposite tipping-point where the price may have to gap up to normalise liquidity (Chart 13 and Chart 14). Chart I-13Litecoin Is Oversold On A 65-Day Horizon Chart I-14Litecoin Is Oversold On A 130-Day Horizon Bottom Line: A compelling buying opportunity for the cryptocurrencies Litecoin and Ethereum. For a 50:50 basket, target a return of 60 percent. And on that positive note, I am signing off for the year. I do hope that you have enjoyed reading this year’s reports, but more importantly that you have found value in them. This publication’s philosophy is to think out of the box, independently and unconstrained, never to shirk from challenging the received wisdom, and ultimately to provide successful investment ideas. We promise to continue this way in 2019! It just remains for me to wish you a very happy holiday season and a prosperous new year. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* As discussed in the main body of this report, this week’s recommended trade is to buy a 50:50 combination of Litecoin and Ethereum. Set a profit target of 60 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. As also discussed in the main body of this report, remain tactically overweight Italy’s MIB versus the Eurostoxx. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1 Chart II-2 Chart II-3 Chart II-4 Interest Rate Chart II-5 Chart II-6 Chart II-7 Chart II-8