Global

Special Report

Highlights The plunge in government bond yields means that There Is No Alternative to stocks: TINA. As long as bond yields stay reasonably low, stocks will continue to climb the proverbial wall of worry. Global equities are quite cheap compared with bonds. This suggests that stock market returns could be quite strong over the next couple of years, as PE multiples rise in order to narrow the gap between bond yields and earnings yields. While cheap in relative terms, global equities are modestly expensive in absolute terms. Thus, long-term absolute stock market returns are likely to be subpar, even if they are reasonably high in the near term. U.S. stocks are noticeably more expensive than their overseas peers. Differences in sector composition can explain some of the valuation gap, but not all of it. We intend to upgrade EM and European stocks later this year once global growth begins to reaccelerate. Feature Falling Bond Yields Have Made Stocks More Attractive After peaking last year, global bond yields have plunged anew (Chart 1). To a large extent, the decline in yields has been driven by the slowdown in global growth. Chart 2 shows that there is a strong correlation between government bond yields and manufacturing purchasing manager indices. Chart 1Global Bond Yields Sinking Chart 2The Decline In Bond Yields Driven By Slower Global Growth   Chart 3Dividend Yields Are Higher Than Bond Yields Globally As we discussed last week, global growth should stabilize and recover over the remainder of the year, which will cause bond yields to move somewhat higher. Nevertheless, yields are poised to stay low by historic standards – at least until inflation picks up significantly, which is unlikely to occur during the next 12 months. The fact that government bond yields in many countries are negative in real terms – and indeed, negative in nominal terms in Japan and across much of Europe – implies that the only way investors can hope to generate decent returns is by taking on more risk. This means moving further down the quality ladder in the fixed-income space, as well as turning to historically riskier asset classes such as equities. The allure that equities have in today’s low rate environment even has a name: TINA – There Is No Alternative. The S&P 500 dividend yield is currently 1.98%, 37 bps above the yield on 10-year Treasury notes. To put things in perspective, even if S&P 500 companies did not increase cash dividends at all for the next ten years, the real value of the index would still have to fall by 26% (assuming 2% inflation) for bonds to outperform stocks. The gap between dividend yields and bond yields is even greater abroad (Chart 3).   TINA’s Critics That may seem like a very low bar for success, but there are plenty of prognosticators who think stocks will still fail to clear it. TINA’s detractors offer two arguments to justify their skepticism: Today’s low interest rates are simply a reflection of poor economic growth prospects. Even if one believed that lower interest rates warrant higher equity multiples, the stock market has already priced that in. John Hussman eloquently summarized these arguments in a recent report: Another danger for investors here is the willingness to accept offensively speculative valuations on the argument that bond yields are low. The empirical fact is that bond yields are tightly correlated with nominal GDP growth. But as one can demonstrate using any discounted cash flow model, if interest rates are low because growth rates are also low, no valuation premium is “justified” by the low interest rates at all. Long-term returns will already be lower, commensurate with the lower interest rates, by virtue of the lower growth rate itself. A valuation premium then just adds insult to injury.           – John Hussman, “Questions we hear a lot,” Hussman Market Comment, (January 2019). John Hussman is a perspicuous market observer, but there are two flaws in his logic here. The first one is factual. Despite his claim to the contrary, U.S. bond yields have actually fallen more than trend nominal GDP growth over the past decade (Chart 4). The current gap between U.S. potential nominal GDP growth, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the 10-year Treasury yield is over two percentage points, the highest since 1979. Chart 4Bond Yields Have Fallen More Than Trend Nominal GDP Growth Chart 5The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM At the global level, trend GDP growth has barely changed, largely because faster-growing emerging markets now make up a larger share of the global economy (Chart 5). For large multinational companies, global growth, rather than domestic growth, is the more relevant measure. If trend global GDP growth has not fallen, why are real interest rates so low? The answer is that the world is still awash with savings. As Chart 6 illustrates, an increase in desired savings will lead to a decline in real rates, even if underlying growth does not change.   No Free Lunch The second error is more subtle. Hussman discusses earnings growth and GDP growth as though they are one in the same. However, there is no long-term mechanism that magically bestows faster earnings growth on firms just because trend economic growth accelerates. Earnings growth and GDP growth are tightly correlated over the course of a business cycle because rising demand allows firms to spread fixed costs over a larger amount of output, thus increasing so-called operational leverage. But if a firm wishes to grow earnings over the long run, it has to invest in new technology and new capacity. That takes real resources — resources that could otherwise be distributed to shareholders. An example might clarify this point. Consider two firms, each with a market value of $1 million and $100,000 in earnings. Firm A distributes all its earnings to shareholders in the form of dividends. Firm B pays no dividend. Rather, it invests all its earnings in trying to grow the business. Which firm would you rather own? There is actually no simple answer to this question. If you invest in Firm A and the share price remains unchanged because the company has done nothing to grow its business, you will still receive a 10% dividend yield. You will not receive a dividend by investing in Firm B. However, if the company is able to grow earnings by 10% and the price-earnings ratio remains unchanged, the share price will rise by 10%. In both cases, you make a 10% return. The point is that there is no free lunch. Firms in fast-growing economies will be able to avail themselves of expanding domestic markets, but they will need to spend money to grow their businesses. They are also likely to face stiffer competition from new entrants. This is a key reason why Jay Ritter and other economists have shown that there is no clear correlation between long-term economic growth and shareholder returns (Chart 7). Priced For Perfection? One thing that Hussman gets completely right is that absolute long-term equity returns depend on the absolute level of valuations rather than how expensive stocks are in relation to bonds. A decline in the discount rate will increase the present value of future earnings, thus leading to a temporary period of abnormally high returns. However, once equity valuations have reset to a higher level, returns will be permanently lower. In other words, falling interest rates simply shift returns from the future into the present (Chart 8). The key question for investors is where we are in this process. If stock valuations have yet to fully adjust to the decline in interest rates, near-term returns could still be quite strong, even if they do come at the expense of subsequent returns. There is good reason to think this adjustment has yet to play out fully. The forward PE ratio for U.S. stocks is currently 16.5. If one were to use the earnings yield as a proxy for expected returns (see Appendix A for details), one would expect U.S. equities to generate long-term annualized real total returns of 6.1%. Outside the U.S., the forward PE ratio stands at 12.7, implying an expected return of 7.8% (Chart 9). Chart 10 shows that the equity risk premium in the U.S. based on the forward PE ratio remains quite high, indicating that the earnings yield has not fallen as much as one would have expected based on the decline in real bond yields. The equity risk premium is even higher outside the U.S., reflecting both the fact that valuations are cheaper abroad and interest rates are generally lower. Chart 10AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 10BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II)   Are PE Ratios Biased Down? One legitimate criticism of the forward PE ratio is that it relies on analyst earnings estimates, which tend to be too optimistic. That analysts tend to be too bullish is undeniable (Chart 11). However, even if one were to use the trailing PE ratio, the implied long-term expected real total return would still be 4.8% in the U.S. and 7.1% abroad. Chart 11Analysts Are Usually Too Optimistic Moreover, as Chart 12 illustrates, projected 12-month earnings growth is currently below its historic average both in the U.S. and abroad. Thus, to the extent that forward PE ratios are biased downwards, that bias is arguably smaller than in the past. Chart 12Earnings Growth Estimates Are Not Excessive Today Chart 13Cyclically-Adjusted PEs Point To Subpar Absolute Future Returns   A further criticism of both trailing and forward PE ratios is that they do not take into account cyclical factors that could either flatter or depress earnings. For example, if profit margins are temporarily inflated, standard PE ratios will tend to show that stocks are cheaper than they really are. One way to address this issue is to use a moving average for earnings. The most popular tool for doing so is the Shiller PE ratio (also known as the cyclically-adjusted PE ratio, or CAPE). It divides the value of today’s stock market index by the average of real earnings over the past ten years. The Shiller PE ratio currently points to below-average, but still positive, real returns for stocks over the coming years (Chart 13). S&P 500 Margins Versus Economy-Wide Margins Some stock market bears charge that the Shiller PE ratio does not go far enough in eliminating the upward bias to earnings. They point out that even though S&P 500 profit margins were very depressed following the Global Financial Crisis, the 10-year average of margins is now well above its historic norm (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S.: 10-Year Average Of Margins Is Now Well Above Its Historic Norm John Hussman’s preferred measure, the Margin-Adjusted PE ratio, tries to control for this alleged problem by adjusting earnings using the economy-wide profit-to-GDP ratio. It suggests that future returns will be lower than those implied by the Shiller PE ratio. The problem with Hussman’s approach is that S&P 500 profits have increasingly become disconnected from economy-wide profits. Chart 15 shows that pre-tax profits have trended lower as a share of GDP in recent years, a move that has been mirrored in the rise in employee compensation. However, no such decline has occurred for S&P 500 profits. Chart 15The Recent Decline In U.S. Pre-Tax Profits Has Been Mirrored In The Rise In Employee Compensation Chart 16S&P 500: All Of The Increase In Margins Has Occurred In The IT Sector S&P 500 margins have stayed elevated partly because U.S. multinationals are less exposed to domestic wage pressures. Margins have also been propped up by the fact that the largest companies in the index increasingly operate like natural monopolies. It is perhaps no surprise that all of the increase in S&P 500 margins over the past few decades has been due to soaring profits in the IT sector (Chart 16). If this represents a true structural change, S&P margins could remain high by historic standards. Investment Implications Different valuation measures can generate different results. As such, we would not get too hung up on the precise expected return forecast that any one particular valuation indicator produces. Appendix B shows long-term return projections for various stock markets using a composite valuation measure based on price-to-trailing earnings, price-to-forward earnings, price-to-cash flow, price-to-sales, price-to-book, Tobin’s Q, stock market capitalization-to-GDP, and dividend yield. Three broad conclusions stand out: First, global equities are quite cheap compared with bonds. This suggests that stock market returns could be quite strong over the next couple of years, as PE multiples rise in order to narrow the gap between bond yields and earnings yields. We recommend that asset allocators overweight stocks relative to government bonds on a 12-to-18 month horizon. Second, global equities are modestly expensive in absolute terms. Thus, long-term stock market returns are likely to be subpar, even if they are reasonably high in the near term. Put differently, while equities will trump bonds over the long haul, both asset classes will deliver uninspiring absolute returns compared with their long-term history. Third, U.S. stocks are noticeably more expensive than their overseas peers. Differences in sector composition can explain some of the valuation gap, but not all of it. As Chart 17 illustrates, if one were to calculate the forward PE of say, European stocks, using U.S. sector weights, the former would still be significantly cheaper than the latter. We intend to upgrade EM and European stocks later this year once global growth begins to reaccelerate.   APPENDIX A The Earnings Yield As A Proxy For Expected Shareholder Returns  APPENDIX B CHART 1 Equities: Composite Valuation Indicators Versus Subsequent 10-Year Real Annualized Returns Peter Berezin,  Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy  peterb@bcaresearch.com MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores  

Hard-to-predict policy risks and trade-war uncertainty will continue to hinder oil-demand growth, as will USD strength. The cost of oil in local-currency terms remains close to highs not seen since Brent and WTI traded above $100/bbl in 2014 in key EM economies, which partly explains the fall-off in demand begun in 2H18 that carried into 1H19 (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect oil demand to revive on the back of global fiscal and monetary stimulus, which, along with continued production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline by U.S. shale producers, keeps our 2020 Brent forecast at $75/bbl. For 2019, however, our Brent forecast falls to $66/bbl from $70/bbl, following a re-basing of estimated demand in 2017-18 to bring it in line with lower historical data, and the lingering impact of a stronger USD.1 We also are revising our WTI expectation, as markets price in the last bits of ~ 2mm b/d of new pipeline takeaway capacity coming online in the Permian Basin. For 2019, we expect WTI to trade $6.50/bbl under Brent, and $4/bbl under next year, vs. $7/bbl and $5/bbl we expected last month. Chart of the WeekUSD Strength Hinders Oil-Demand Rebound Highlights Energy: Overweight. Distillate fuel accounted for 29.6% of the product derived from refining crude oil in the U.S. during July, a record for the month, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Refiners are gearing up for the global change-over to low-sulfur marine fuels ahead of the January 1, 2020, implementation of IMO 2020. Base Metals: Neutral. Increased infrastructure spending will add ~ $2 billion (14 billion RMB) to China’s total infrastructure spending of 524 billion RMB, according to a Fastmarkets MB analyst survey. Copper usage is expected to increase as 2H19 grid spending picks up. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold and silver continue to mark time close to recent highs. USD strength could slow the metals’ rally. We remain long both metals as portfolio hedges. Ags/Softs: Underweight. This week’s USDA’s Crop Progress report showed 56% of the corn crop was in good or excellent condition, vs. 68% in 2018. For beans, 53% of the crop is in good or excellent condition, vs. 65% last year. Feature We expect global fiscal and monetary stimulus to lift demand in EM economies, which will be visible over the balance of this year and next. In this month’s assessment of supply-demand balances, we are lowering our 2019 Brent forecast to $66/bbl from $70/bbl, after re-basing our demand estimates so that they are more in line with EIA’s historical data (Chart 2). We lowered our historical demand estimates up to and including 2017, in line with the EIA data. This reduces the base level for 2018-20 demand. As a result, the level of our 2018 demand is down by 200k b/d to 100.1mm b/d, vs. last month’s estimate, and the level of our 2019 and 2020 demand estimates is down by 250k b/d to 101.3mm b/d and to 102.8mm b/d. The adjustments are mainly due to the revision of historical level of demand in 2017-2018. In addition, we lowered our growth estimate for 2019 slightly to 1.2mm b/d from 1.25mm b/d last month, but kept our 2020 growth rate expectation at 1.5mm b/d. Chart 2Lower 2019 Demand Estimate, Price; Keeping 2020 Unchanged As noted above, we expect global fiscal and monetary stimulus to lift demand in EM economies, which will be visible over the balance of this year and next. Continued production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline by U.S. shale producers leaves our 2020 Brent forecast unchanged at $75/bbl. In addition, this combination of stronger demand and tighter supply will create a physical supply deficit (Chart 3). This deficit will force inventories lower, which remains OPEC 2.0’s paramount goal, and backwardate the Brent and WTI forward curves (Chart 4). Chart 3Stronger Demand, Tighter Supply Produces Physical Deficit Chart 4Inventory Draws Will Resume For WTI, we now expect it to trade $6.50/bbl under Brent in 2019 and $4/bbl under in 2020, vs. the $7/bbl and $5/bbl differentials we expected last month. This narrowing of the differential comes on the back of the build-out of takeaway pipeline capacity in the Permian Basin, which amounts to ~ 2mm b/d by the end of this year. The expansion of deep-water harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf is being delayed by regulatory action, which means the Brent vs. WTI differential will not significantly contract further until later in 2020 or 2021 when we expect crude-oil export volumes to pick up sharply. Over the course of the coming year, we do expect exports to pick up before 2021, as they have done in 2018-2019. This trend likely continues. We calculated there is ~ 4.5 mm b/d of current export capacity in the Gulf, therefore exports still can increase before being fully constrained. In addition, small capacity expansion projects already are under construction, which will lift capacity next year. That said, any delays could pressure differentials (LLS-Brent, WTI-Brent). But, as long as shale-oil production keeps increasing and foreign demand remains strong, exports can increase – likely at a slower pace – while differentials hold around the $4/bbl level next year. Digging Into The Oil Demand Slow-Down This was a stealthy USD rally, overshadowed by the Sino-U.S. trade war, and exogenous foreign-policy shocks re U.S. Venezuela and Iran policy. For 2019, a grouping of negative demand-side effects have proven to be quite strong – uncertainty spawned by the Sino-U.S. trade-war, tightening financial conditions globally, and the strong USD. Over the past year, these effects have combined to lower actual demand, and forced us to lower our growth expectation for this year for a fourth time to 1.2mm b/d. In hindsight, it is apparent the strong USD has affected EM demand by raising the local-currency cost of oil in particular over the past year to levels not seen since crude was trading above $100/bbl in 2014 (Charts 5A and 5B). Chart 5AAs USD Strengthened Local-Currency Costs Skyrocketed Chart 5BAs USD Strengthened Local-Currency Costs Skyrocketed   This was a stealthy USD rally, overshadowed by the Sino-U.S. trade war, and exogenous foreign-policy shocks re U.S. Venezuela and Iran policy. In addition to raising the cost of commodities priced in USD, in local-currency terms, the stronger dollar lowered the cost of producing commodities for countries like Russia, whose currencies are not pegged to the USD. So, in one fell swoop, USD strength lowered demand via higher prices, and increased supply via lower costs of production. In addition, weaker local currencies catalyze capital outflow, which reduces the supply of savings available to EM economies for investment. At the margin, this also stunts income growth.2 The effects of USD strength could persist, and continue to have a deleterious influence on oil demand into next year, given the way in which monetary policy – and its effects on FX rates – can act with “long and variable lags.” Our BCA Commodity-Demand Nowcasting model continues to point toward a revival of demand as EM economic growth picks up (Chart 6).3 Given the dollar is a counter-cyclical currency vis-à-vis the rest of the world, we expect this will weaken the USD and be supportive of commodity prices. Chart 6BCA Commodity-Demand Nowcast Remains Upbeat Chart 7Expect Further Backwardation In Crude Oil Forward Curves Higher oil demand and lower supply likely will further backwardate Brent and WTI forward curves, which will diminish the impact of the USD’s strength (Chart 7), and lead to higher volatility, as fundamentals once again dominate price formation (Chart 8). Still, the effects of USD strength could persist, and continue to have a deleterious influence on oil demand into next year, given the way in which monetary policy – and its effects on FX rates – can act with “long and variable lags," to borrow Milton Friedman's well-turned phrase.4 We will monitor this risk closely, and will be offering further research into it.   Supply Concerns Persist E&P companies are using their accumulated inventory of excess Drilled-but-Uncompleted (DUC) wells to reach their production targets, while controlling capital expenditures (i.e. flat/lower rig count). We continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to manage production, and to keep a laser focus on reducing inventories. The producer coalition continues to get a huge assist in this effort from the U.S. sanctions against Iran, which, according to the American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have taken almost all of that country’s oil exports – some 2.7mm b/d – out of the market (Chart 9).5 In our balances estimates, we show OPEC producing 29.8mm b/d of crude oil on average this year, and 29.7mm b/d next year. This is down sharply from the 32mm b/d we estimate the Cartel produced last year, which included a surge in 2H18 undertaken in response to pressure from the U.S. to build inventories ahead of oil-export sanctions being re-imposed against Iran (Table 1). Given the lower demand estimate OPEC is forecasting for this year and next – 99.9mm b/d, and 101.1mm b/d this year and next – we expect OPEC’s leader, KSA, to keep production closer to 10mm b/d vs. its 10.33mm b/d quota. We expect the other putative leader of OPEC 2.0, Russia, to produce 11.43mm b/d and 11.41mm b/d this year and next, versus 11.4mm b/d last year. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Once again, U.S. shale-oil output provides the largest increase in supply globally. That said, shale-oil producers are being forced to temper production growth, as investors’ demand higher profits or greater return of capital. We revised down our U.S. shale production growth to 8.2mm b/d in 2019 and 9.1mm b/d in 2020 (Chart 10). In 2018, we estimated U.S. shale production at 7.2mm b/d. Chart 10Shale Output Reduced Slightly Lower-than-expected WTI prices and capital discipline will limit U.S. shale production growth this year, and temper it next year. E&P companies are using their accumulated inventory of excess Drilled-but-Uncompleted (DUC) wells to reach their production targets, while controlling capital expenditures (i.e. flat/lower rig count).6 Year to date, DUC completions increased in the Big Five tight-oil basins, overtaking new wells drilled (Chart 11).7 However, the Permian’s excess DUC inventory increased in July despite the ongoing pipeline capacity expansion and falling rig count. The Permian’s completion rate will be important to monitor. At current oil prices, producers need to tap into their excess DUC inventories to reach both their free-cash-flow and production goals. Bottom Line: We are reducing our Brent price forecast for 2019 to $66/bbl, on the back of weaker demand. Our forecast for 2020 remains unchanged at $75/bbl. Our expectations are driven by our expectation fiscal and monetary stimulus to lift commodity demand – oil in particular – and that production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline from U.S. shale-oil producers will tighten markets and lift prices from here.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition formed in late 2016 by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. The producer coalition’s mission was – and remains – managing global supply so as to reduce inventories. We expect OPEC 2.0 production to be at or below quota levels agreed December 7, 2018, when KSA and Russia and their respective allies set about once again to drain global inventories of the 62-million-barrel overhang that resulted from the production ramp-up undertaken in response to demands from U.S. President Donald Trump. 2      The International Energy Agency (IEA) noted that, on the back of higher prices last year, oil once again was “the most heavily subsidized” energy source, expanding its share of the $400 billion provided consumers by their governments to 40%. Please see Commentary: Fossil fuel consumption subsidies bounced back strongly in 2018, published by the IEA June 13, 2019. 3      For a description of our nowcast model, please see Just In Time For Christmas! U.S. Tariff Delay Rocks Oil published last week by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We noted last week that our expectation of stronger EM growth and a weaker USD is contrary to the view of BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy, which expects continued weakness in EM GDP growth. Moreover, as mentioned in last week's report, our nowcast’s last data point was observed in July, which is before the latest escalation in trade tensions. We could see a move down in some of the indicators used as input in our nowcast model in the coming month. 4      Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Laureate in Economics, noted monetary policy operates with long and varying lags, which makes it difficult to be precise as to when its effects will be noticed in the macroeconomy. Please see Milton Friedman’s article, “The Lag in Effect of Monetary Policy,” Journal of Political Economy Vol. 69, No. 5 (Oct., 1961), pp. 447-466. 5      To date, OPEC and non-OPEC producers have had no apparent trouble replacing lost Iranian and Venezuelan barrels taken off the market as a result of U.S. sanctions. This indicates spare capacity remains sufficient to meet short-term supply disruptions and unplanned outages. Please see U.S. removed almost 2.7 million barrels of Iranian oil from market - Pompeo, published by uk.reuters.com August 20, 2019. 6      The process of drilling and completing wells produces a normal inventory of uncompleted wells, because of the time lag between the moment wells are drilled and the time they are completed. The development of multi-well pad drilling in U.S. shales structurally increased the time lag between drilling and completion to ~ 5 months. This implies a normal level of DUC inventory that corresponds to ~ 5 - 6 months’ worth of drilling activity. We define any DUC above our estimate of normal as an excess DUC well. On average, completion accounts for ~ 65% of the total well costs. 7      The Big Five shale basins are the Permian; the Eagle Ford; Niobrara; the Bakken, and the Anadarko. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Duration: Global manufacturing growth will rebound near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, but be prepared to shift to below-benchmark when our global growth indicators show signs of improvement. Country Allocation: Countries with yield curves furthest away from the effective lower bound also have the most cyclical bond markets. At present, this means that U.S. and Canadian bond markets will perform best if global growth continues to weaken. They will also perform worst in the event of an economic turnaround. Japanese bonds will perform best in a bond bear market, with German debt a close second. Relative Value In Global Government Debt: Changes in the level and shape of global yield curves have altered the relative value opportunities in the global government bond space. We find that the most positive carry (including both yield income and rolldown) in global government bond markets is earned in 30-year German, Japanese and Australian bonds, and in 10-year U.K. and Japanese bonds. Feature Reflexivity Chart 1A Brief Inversion The decline in global bond yields has been unrelenting, and it took on a life of its own last week when the U.S. 2-year/10-year slope briefly inverted (Chart 1). After the inversion, the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield broke below 2% and the 10-year yield broke below 1.50%. The average yield on the 7-10 year Global Treasury Index closed at 0.49% last Thursday, just above its all-time low of 0.48% (Chart 1, bottom panel). There’s an interesting self-fulfilling prophesy that can take hold when the yield curve inverts. Investors interpret the inversion as a signal of weaker economic growth ahead. They then bid up long-dated bond prices causing the curve to invert even more. This sort of circular reasoning can cause bond yields to disconnect from the trends in global economic data, often severely. While recession fears have benefited government bonds, risky assets – equities and corporate bonds – have experienced relatively minor pain. The S&P 500’s recent sell-off pales in comparison to the one seen late last year (Chart 2). Meanwhile, corporate bond spreads remain well below early-2019 peaks. Risky assets have clearly benefited from the drop in bond yields, as markets price-in a future where central banks ease monetary policy in response to weaker economic growth, and where that easing is sufficient to keep equities and credit well supported. Chart 2Low Yields Support Risk Assets I Chart 3Low Yields Support Risk Assets II Further evidence of this dynamic is presented in Chart 3. The chart shows the sensitivity of daily changes in the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to changes in the S&P 500 for each year since 2010. The sample is split into days when the S&P 500 rose and when it fell. For example, in 2010 the sensitivity on “up days” was 2.6, meaning that on days when the S&P 500 rose, the 10-year yield rose 2.6 basis points for every 1% increase in the S&P 500. Similarly, the sensitivity in 2010 on “down days” was 3.2. This means that the 10-year yield fell 3.2 bps for every 1% drop in the equity index. The main takeaway from Chart 3 is how dramatically the sensitivities have shifted in 2019. The yield sensitivity on “up days” has fallen sharply – down to 0.8. This means that yields barely rise on days when equities move up. Meanwhile, the sensitivity on “down days” has shot higher, to just under 4. This means that yields fall a lot on days when equities sell off. The perception of easier monetary policy has been the main support for risk assets this year.  The logical interpretation of these trends is that the perception of easier monetary policy has been the main support for risk assets this year. Global Growth Needed At present, we are stuck in an environment where aggressively easy monetary policy and low bond yields are the sole supports for risky assets. In turn, falling bond yields are stoking concerns about the economy, leading to even easier monetary policy. Only one thing can bust us out of this pattern, and that’s a resurgence of global manufacturing growth. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that this is taking place (Chart 4). The Global Manufacturing PMI is now down to 49.3, below the 2016 trough of 49.9 (Chart 4, top panel). U.S. Industrial Production growth remains weak, but is showing signs of stabilization above the 2016 trough (Chart 4, panel 2). European Industrial Production, on the other hand, continues to contract (Chart 4, panel 3). The downtrend in our favorite real-time indicator of global manufacturing – the CRB Raw Industrials index – remains unbroken (Chart 4, bottom panel). However, even though evidence of a turnaround in global manufacturing is scant, we expect a rebound near the end of this year, for the following reasons: Global financial conditions have eased this year, the result of aggressive central bank stimulus. Financial conditions are easier now than they were in 2018, and much easier than they were prior to the 2015/16 global growth slowdown (Chart 5, top panel). China has started to ease credit conditions in response to U.S. tariffs and the slowdown in growth. So far, stimulus has been tepid relative to 2015/16 levels, but it should ramp up in the coming months.1 Many large important segments of the global economy remain unaffected by the global manufacturing slowdown. The U.S. consumer continues to spend: Core retail sales are growing at a robust 5% year-over-year rate, and consumer sentiment remains elevated (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3). Even in the Eurozone, the service sector has not experienced the same pain as manufacturing (Chart 5, bottom panel). Fiscal policy will remain a tailwind for economic growth this year and next. Last week, there were even rumors of increased fiscal thrust from Germany if the growth slowdown persists.2 Strong inflation readings only increased market worries that the Fed might not be as accommodative as necessary.  On the whole, we expect that the above 4 factors will lead to a rebound in global manufacturing growth near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon, but the global growth indicators shown in Chart 4 will need to rebound first. Chart 4Global Growth Indicators Chart 5Catalysts For Economic Recovery Inflation Puts Pressure On Powell Chart 6Strong Inflation Could Complicate The Fed's Message Strong U.S. inflation prints during the past two months add an interesting wrinkle to the macro landscape. Core U.S. inflation grew at an annualized rate of 3.55% in July, following an annualized rate of 3.59% in June (Chart 6). However, these strong inflation readings only increased market worries that the Fed might not be as accommodative as necessary. This exacerbated the flattening of the yield curve and sent long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates lower. Our sense is that the Fed is chiefly concerned with re-anchoring inflation expectations (Chart 6, bottom panel). This probably means that another rate cut is coming in September, and that Chairman Powell will do his best to sound accommodative in his Jackson Hole address on Friday. However, recent strong inflation data could prompt Powell to sound more hawkish than the market would like, causing yield curves to flatten and risky assets to fall. Bottom Line: Global manufacturing growth will rebound near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, but be prepared to shift to below-benchmark when our global growth indicators show signs of improvement. Country Allocation & The Zero Lower Bound Perhaps the most straightforward way to think about country allocation within a portfolio of developed market government bonds is to classify the different markets as either “high beta” or “low beta”. Chart 7 shows the trailing 3-year sensitivity of major countries’ 7-10 year bond yields relative to the global 7-10 year yield.3 The U.S. and Canada have the highest betas, followed by the U.K. and Australia. Germany has a beta close to one, and Japan’s beta is the lowest. Chart 7Global Yield Beta In other words, if global growth falters and global bond yields decline, U.S. and Canadian bond markets should perform best, followed by the U.K. and Australia. German bonds should perform in line with the global index, and Japanese bonds should underperform the global benchmark. What makes this approach to portfolio allocation even better is that the calculation of trailing betas is not really necessary. A very similar ordering of countries – from “high beta” to “low beta” – is achieved by simply ranking the markets from highest yielding to lowest yielding. High yielding countries, like the U.S. and Canada, have the most room to ease monetary policy in response to a negative growth shock. This means that yields in those countries will respond most to global growth fluctuations. On the other hand, the entire Japanese yield curve is already pinned near the effective lower bound. Even in the event of a negative growth shock, there is little scope for easier Japanese monetary policy, and JGB yields will be relatively unaffected. Chart 8High Beta Countries Are Most Sensitive To Economic Growth It’s interesting to note in Chart 7 that while German yields are actually below JGB yields, bunds remain somewhat less defensive than the Japanese market. This is because the German term structure has only recently moved to the effective lower bound, and investors likely still retain some hope that an improvement in global growth could lead to European policy tightening at some point in the future. This belief is largely absent in Japan, where the term structure has been pinned at the lower bound for many years.   Chart 8 provides some further evidence of the split between “high beta” and “low beta” bond markets. It shows that the bond markets with the highest yields are also the most sensitive to trends in global growth, as proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI. U.S. bond yields are highly correlated with the Global PMI, while Japanese bond yields are hardly correlated at all. It follows that if the slowdown in global growth continues and all nations’ yield curves converge to Japanese levels, then the overall economic sensitivity of global bond yields will decline. Bottom Line: Countries with yield curves furthest away from the effective lower bound also have the most cyclical bond markets. At present, this means that U.S. and Canadian bond markets will perform best if global growth continues to weaken. They will also perform worst in the event of an economic turnaround. Japanese bonds will perform best in a bond bear market, with German debt a close second. Looking For Positive Carry Yield curves have undergone dramatic shifts in recent months, in terms of both level and shape. Not only have curves for the major government bond markets shifted down since the beginning of the year, they also now exhibit varying degrees of a ‘U’ shape (Charts 9A-9F). With that in mind, in this week’s report we look for the best “positive carry” opportunities in global government bond markets. Yield curves for the major government bond markets have shifted down since the beginning of the year, they also now exhibit varying degrees of a ‘U’ shape. We use the term carry to mean the expected return from a given bond assuming an unchanged yield curve. This is essentially the combination of yield income (i.e. coupon return) and the price impact of rolling down (or up) the yield curve. For the purposes of this report, we assume a 12-month investment horizon and incorporate the impact of currency hedging into each security’s yield income. Rolldown ‘U’ shaped yield curves mean that bonds near the base of the ‘U’ currently suffer from negative rolldown, while the rolldown for long maturities is often highly positive. Table 1 shows that rolldown is currently negative for all 2-year bonds, but especially for U.S. and Canadian debt. The U.S. and Canada have the highest policy rates within developed markets, so it’s not surprising that the front-end of their yield curves are also the most steeply inverted. In other words, their yield curves are pricing-in that they have more room to cut rates than other countries. Table 112-Month Rolldown* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds In general, rolldown is relatively modest for most 5-year and 7-year maturities. The exceptions being German 5-year debt and Aussie 7-year debt, which benefit from 31 bps and 45 bps of positive rolldown, respectively. As mentioned above, rolldown is currently very positive for long maturity debt. In fact, a 10-year U.K. bond offers a whopping 85 bps of rolldown on a 12-month horizon. Yield Income & Overall Carry As mentioned above, rolldown is only one part of a bond’s carry. The other is the yield an investor earns over the course of the investment horizon – the yield income. Because we assume that investors hedge the currency impact of their bond positions, this yield income also depends on the native currency of the investor. Therefore, we show yield income and overall carry below from the perspective of investors in each of the major currency blocs (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD). USD Investors Being the global high yielder, USD investors benefit the most from currency hedging. That is, USD investors earn a lot of additional income on their currency hedges, making non-U.S. bonds look more attractive. Unsurprisingly, carry is most positive at the long-end of yield curves (Tables 2 & 3). Table 2In USD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 3In USD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds EUR Investors The polar opposite of USD investors, EUR-based investors give up a lot of return through currency hedging. This makes the potential for positive carry much less. In any case, the best positive carry opportunities still lie in German, Japanese and Australian 30-year bonds. U.K. and Japanese 10-year bonds are also attractive (Tables 4 & 5). Table 4In EUR: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 5In EUR: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds JPY Investors Yen-based investors currently have more opportunities to earn positive carry than those based in euros. But these opportunities remain confined to long-maturity debt. Once again, the standouts are Japanese, German and Australian 30-year bonds, and also U.K. and Japanese 10-year debt  (Tables 6 & 7). Table 6In JPY: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 7In JPY: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds GBP Investors Currency hedges work more in favor of GBP than EUR or JPY. As a result, GBP-based investors see more opportunities to earn positive carry (Tables 8 & 9). Table 8In GBP: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 9In GBP: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds CAD Investors As with USD-based investors, CAD-based investors also benefit from currency hedging. All securities continue to offer positive carry when hedged into CAD (Tables 10 & 11). Table 10In CAD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 11In CAD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds AUD Investors AUD-based investors also see positive carry across the entire global bond space, after factoring-in the impact of currency hedging (Tables 12 & 13). Table 12In AUD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bond Table 13In AUD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Bottom Line: Changes in the level and shape of global yield curves have altered the relative value opportunities in the global government bond space. We find that the most positive carry (including both yield income and rolldown) in global government bond markets is earned in 30-year German, Japanese and Australian bonds, and in 10-year U.K. and Japanese bonds.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Trump Interruption”, dated August 13, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/germany-ready-to-raise-debt-if-recession-hits-spiegel-reports  3 We calculate betas using average yields from the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Master index. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Disappointing economic data outside the U.S. and the inversion of the 2-year/10-year portion of the Treasury curve have overshadowed positive developments on the trade front. Global growth should improve later this year, spurred on by lower bond yields and fiscal stimulus in some countries. In contrast to the consensus view, we see flatter yield curves around the world as a “glass half full” story, mainly reflecting the shift to an ultra-dovish stance by most central banks. A variety of structural forces have dragged down term premia in fixed-income markets, thus making the purported recessionary signal from an inverted yield curve less prescient. Had the U.S. term premium in the mid-1990s been anywhere close to today’s levels, the yield curve would have surely inverted, causing yield curve-obsessed investors to miss out on the biggest equity bull market in history. The meltdown in bond yields is ending. Investors should favor stocks over bonds over the next 12-to-18 months. Feature Recession Risk Forces Trump’s Hand Risk assets remain caught in the crossfire of slowing global growth, flattening yield curves, and trade war uncertainty. Stocks received a short-lived boost on Tuesday from the Trump Administration’s decision to delay raising tariffs until December 15th on roughly 60% of the Chinese imports – including smartphones, laptops, and toys – which were slated to be taxed starting September 1st. The decision followed a phone call between U.S. and Chinese trade representatives that Trump described as “very productive.” Seemingly in contradiction to his earlier claim that China will end up bearing the full cost of the tariffs, President Trump admitted that “We're doing this for the Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers.” The fact that the trade war is weighing on growth and the stock market has not been lost on Trump. The latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey revealed that 34% of managers believed that a recession is likely within the next 12 months. This is the largest share in eight years. The trade war topped the list of “biggest tail risks” for the fifth month in a row. A net 22% of investors said they had taken out protection against a sharp drop in the stock market, the highest number since the survey began asking this question in 2008. The question is whether Trump’s half-hearted attempt to hold out an olive branch to the Chinese is too little, too late. The fact that the Chinese government indicated on Thursday that it will still go ahead and take “necessary countermeasures” suggests that Trump’s overture does not go far enough. More worryingly, the meltdown in bond yields and the stock market’s failure to hold Tuesday’s gains imply that many investors think that the trade war has already pushed the global economy past the breaking point. Industrial Activity Struggling To Find A Bottom It is not helping matters that industrial activity outside the U.S. remains in a slump. It was confirmed this week that the German economy contracted in the second quarter on the back of flagging export demand. The decline in the expectations component of the German ZEW survey in August to the lowest level since 2012 suggests that growth has remained weak in the third quarter. Chinese economic activity also disappointed in July. Industrial production growth slowed significantly. Retail sales decelerated, led by a relapse in automobile sales. A variety of political developments around the world have further undermined market confidence. The protests in Hong Kong have become increasingly violent, causing severe disruptions to air travel in the region. The risks of a hard Brexit are rising. Italy’s coalition government has collapsed. And in one of the biggest daily moves on record, the Argentine stock market fell by 48% in dollar terms on Monday after its current reform-minded president, Mauricio Macri, was trounced by his left-wing rival in primary elections. Will The U.S. Be Dragged Down? The U.S. economy has held up relatively well compared with the rest of the world. Retail sales rose by 0.7% in July, the fastest pace in four months, and more than twice what analysts were expecting. While industrial production was somewhat softer than expected, both the Philly and New York Fed manufacturing surveys surprised on the upside. The forward-looking new orders component increased in both surveys. With this week’s data in hand, the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is forecasting that U.S. real GDP will rise by 2.2% in Q3. Real final domestic demand, which excludes the contribution from net exports and inventories, is set to grow by an even-healthier 3% (Chart 1). Given the still reasonably firm U.S. data, why are so many pundits and market participants fretting about a recession? One key reason is that the yield curve has inverted. An inverted yield curve has historically been a reliable predictor of recessions (Chart 2). Chart 2The U.S. Yield Curve: Still Prescient? Yield Curve Angst President Trump wasted little time on Wednesday sarcastically thanking “clueless” Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve for the “CRAZY INVERTED YIELD CURVE” (emphasis his). Trump and the investment community should relax a bit. In contrast to the consensus view, we see flatter yield curves around the world as a “glass half full” story, mainly reflecting the shift to an ultra-dovish stance by most central banks. Not only has the Fed turned more dovish, but other central banks have cranked up monetary stimulus. A Wall Street Journal story published earlier today quoted Olli Rehn, the current governor of the Finnish central bank and member of the ECB’s rate-setting committee, as saying that the ECB is looking to unveil a “significant and impactful policy package” in September, adding that “When you’re working with financial markets, it’s often better to overshoot than undershoot.”1 Since short-term rates in the euro area and in a number of other countries cannot fall much from current levels, the only way for the ECB to ease financial conditions is to signal that short-term rates will stay lower for longer and to buy up long-term bonds through large-scale asset purchase programs. This naturally leads to lower bond yields and flatter yield curves. Falling bond yields in Europe and around the world have, in turn, dragged down U.S. yields. Unlike in the past, term premia are negative across the major economies. This means that investors today can expect to earn more by rolling over a short-term government security than by buying a long-term government bond. In addition to central bank asset purchases, rising demand for bonds from institutional investors has depressed term premia. Desperate to match their long-duration liabilities with equally long-duration assets, insurance companies and pension funds have been forced to purchase bonds with low (and sometimes even negative) yields. Term premia have also come down as investors have grown accustomed to seeing bonds as a good hedge against equity risk in particular, and recession risk in general (Chart 3). Chart 3Owning Long-Term Bonds Is A Good Hedge Against Equity Risk As such, one should take the purported recessionary signal from an inverted yield curve with a grain of salt. Today, the U.S. 10-year term premium stands at -1.2%. In late 1994, when the yield curve almost inverted, the term premium was 1.9%. Had the U.S. term premium in the mid-1990s been anywhere close to present levels, the yield curve would have surely inverted, causing yield curve-obsessed investors to miss out on the biggest equity bull market in history. TINA’s Siren Song For investors, the collapse in bond yields increasingly means that There Is No Alternative to equities. We will have much more to say about “TINA” in a forthcoming special report; but for now, suffice it to say that ultra-low bond yields have improved the relative attractiveness of stocks. The S&P 500 dividend yield is currently 2.03%, 51 bps above the yield on 10-year Treasury notes (Chart 4). To put things in perspective, even if S&P 500 companies did not increase cash dividends at all for the next ten years, the real value of the index would still have to fall by 28% (assuming 2% inflation) for bonds to outperform stocks. Chart 4S&P 500 Dividend Yield Is Above The Treasury Yield All this means that global growth is probably close to a bottom. This, in turn, implies that the meltdown in bond yields is likely to end soon. Investors should favor stocks over bonds over the next 12-to-18 months. Chart 5 shows that the equity risk premium in the U.S. remains well above its historic norm. The equity risk premium is even higher outside the U.S., reflecting both the fact that valuations are cheaper abroad and that interest rates are generally lower. Chart 5AEquity Risk Premia Remain Well Above Their Historic Norms (I) Chart 5BEquity Risk Premia Remain Well Above Their Historic Norms (II) It is useful to contrast today’s high equity risk premia with the fact that global cash allocations in the latest BofA Merrill Lynch survey stood at 5.1% in August (1.5 standard deviations above their long-term average). Bond allocations were also 1.1 standard deviations above their long-term average. On the flipside, asset allocators were net 12% underweight stocks (1.7 standard deviations below their long-term average). In fact, aside from June of this year, this represents the biggest equity underweight since March 2009. Given this backdrop, stocks are likely to continue to climb the proverbial wall of worry. Investment Conclusions We argued in our August 2nd report that risk assets are likely to face some near-term pressure.2  That pressure has been realized. At this point, we would not be chasing stocks lower. Yes, global growth, at least outside the U.S., remains weak. Encouragingly, however, the slowdown has been largely confined to the manufacturing sector. Unlike in 2008, the service sector has remained fairly resilient (Chart  6). Even in Germany, the service PMI has actually risen since late last year. Chart 6AThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 6BThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) Global manufacturing cycles tend to last three years – 18 months up, 18 months down (Chart 7). The last downleg began in early 2018. Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, we are due for another upturn in manufacturing activity. Chart 7The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom Chart 8Looser Fiscal Policy In The Euro Area   A bit more fiscal stimulus should help. Chinese credit growth came in much weaker-than-expected in July. With growth still soggy there, we expect the Chinese authorities to redouble stimulus efforts over the coming months. Fiscal policy in the euro area is also being loosened (Chart 8). Further easing is likely in Germany, where support for a German version of a “Green New Deal” is gaining traction.  All this means that global growth is probably close to a bottom. This, in turn, implies that the meltdown in bond yields is likely to end soon. Investors should favor stocks over bonds over the next 12-to-18 months. We expect to upgrade EM and European equities during the next few months.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com     1      Tom Fairless, “ECB Has Big Bazooka Primed for September, Top Official Says,” The Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2019. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A One-Two Punch,” dated August 2, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades