Global

Highlights Fed policy is likely to proceed in two stages: An initial stage characterized by a highly accommodative monetary policy, followed by a second stage where the Fed is raising rates aggressively in response to galloping inflation. The first stage, which will end in late 2021, will be heaven for risk assets. The subsequent stage, which will feature a global recession, will be hell. In the end, we expect the fed funds rate to reach 4.75%, representing thirteen more 25-basis point hikes than implied by current market pricing. For the time being, investors should maintain a pro-risk stance: Overweight global equities and high-yield credit relative to government bonds and cash. Regardless of what happens to the trade negotiations, China is stimulating its economy, which will benefit global growth. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will weaken over the next 12 months. Cyclical stocks will outperform defensives. We expect to upgrade European and EM stocks this summer. Feature Dear Client, In lieu of next week’s report, I will be hosting a webcast on Wednesday, July 3rd at 10:00 AM EDT, where I will be discussing the major investment themes and views I see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Macro Outlook Right On Stocks, Wrong On Bonds We turned structurally bullish on global equities following December’s sell-off, having temporarily moved to the sidelines last June. This view has generally played out well. In contrast, our view that bond yields would rise this year as stocks recovered has been one gigantic flop. What went wrong with the bond view? The answer is that central banks are reacting to incoming news and data differently than in the past. As we discuss below, this has monumental implications for investment strategy. A Not So Recessionary Environment If one had been told at the start of the year that investors would be expecting the fed funds rate to fall to 1.5% by mid-2020 – with a 93% chance that the Fed would cut rates at least twice and a 62% chance it will cut rates three times in 2019 – one would probably have assumed that the U.S. had teetered into recession and that the stock market would be down on the year (Chart 1). Instead, the S&P 500 is near an all-time high, while credit spreads have narrowed by 145 bps since the start of the year. Outside the manufacturing sector, the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace and the unemployment rate is below most estimates of full employment. According to the Atlanta Fed, real final domestic demand is set to increase by 2.8% in Q2, up from 1.6% in Q1. Real personal consumption expenditures are tracking to rise at a 3.7% annualized pace (Chart 2). So why is the Fed telegraphing rate cuts when real interest rates are barely above zero? A few reasons stand out: Global growth has slowed (Chart 3). The trade war has heated up again following President Trump’s decision to further increase tariffs on Chinese goods. Inflation expectations have fallen in the U.S. as well as around the world (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Growth Has Slowed Chart 4Inflation Expectations Have Fallen Around The World   There’s More To The Story As important as they are, these three factors, even taken together, would not be enough to justify rate cuts were it not for an additional consideration: The Fed, like most other major central banks, has become increasingly worried that the neutral rate of interest – the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – is extremely low. This has resulted in a major shift in its reaction function. Nobody really knows exactly where the neutral rate is. According to the widely-cited Laubach Williams (L-W) model, the nominal neutral rate stands at 2.2% in the United States. This is close to current policy rates (Chart 5). The range for the longer-term interest rate dot in the Summary of Economic Projections is between 2.4% and 3.3%, which is higher than the L-W estimate. However, the range has trended lower since it was introduced in 2014 (Chart 6). Chart 5The Fed Thinks Rates Are Close To Neutral A Fundamental Asymmetry Given that inflation expectations are quite low and there is considerable uncertainty over the level of the neutral rate, it does make some sense for policymakers to err on the side of being too dovish rather than too hawkish. This is because there is an asymmetry in monetary policy in the current environment. If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than expected and inflation starts to accelerate, central banks can always raise rates. In contrast, if the neutral rate turns out to be very low, the decision to hike rates could plunge the economy into a downward spiral. Historically, the Fed has cut rates by over five percentage points during recessions (Chart 7). At the present rate of inflation, the zero-lower bound on interest rates would be quickly reached, at which point monetary policy would become largely impotent. Chart 7The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound The asymmetry described above argues in favor of letting the economy run hot in order to allow inflation to rise. A higher inflation rate going into a recession would let a central bank push real rates deeper into negative territory before the zero bound is reached. In addition, a higher inflation rate would facilitate wage adjustments in response to economic shocks. Firms typically try to reduce costs when demand for their products and services declines, but employers are often wary of cutting nominal wages. Even though it is not fully rational, workers get more upset when they are told that their wages will fall by 2% when inflation is 1% than when they are told their wages will rise by 1% when inflation is 3%. More controversially, a modestly higher inflation rate could improve financial stability. In a low-inflation, low-nominal-rate environment, risky borrowers are likely to be able to roll over loans for an extended period of time. This could lead to the proliferation of bad debt. Chart 8Higher Underlying Inflation Can Cushion Nominal Asset Price Declines Higher inflation can also cushion the blow from a burst asset bubble. For example, the Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Index fell by 34% between 2006 and 2012, or 41% in real terms. If inflation had averaged 4% over this period and real home prices had fallen by the same amount, nominal home prices would have declined by only 26%, resulting in fewer underwater mortgages (Chart 8). A New Reaction Function It is usually a mistake to base market views on an opinion about what policymakers should do rather than what they will do. On rare occasions, however, the opposite is true. And, where our Fed call is concerned, this seems to be the case. Where we fumbled earlier this year was in assuming the Fed would follow a more traditional, Taylor Rule-based monetary framework, which calls for raising rates as the output gap shrinks. Instead, the Fed has adopted a risk-based approach of the sort described above, reminiscent in many ways of the optimal control framework that Janet Yellen set out in 2012. The New Normal Becomes The New Consensus If one is going to conduct monetary policy in a way that errs on the side of letting the economy overheat, one should not be too surprised if the economy does overheat. Yet, the implied rate path from the futures curve suggests that investors are not taking this risk seriously. Chart 9 shows that investors are assigning a mere 5% chance that U.S. short-term rates will be above 3.5% in mid-2022. Why isn’t the market assigning more of a risk to an inflation overshoot? We suspect that most investors have bought into the consensus view that the real neutral rate is zero. According to this view, U.S. monetary policy had already turned restrictive last year when the 10-year Treasury yield climbed above 3%. If this view is correct, the recent decline in yields may stave off a recession, but it will not be enough to cause the economy to overheat. Many of the same investors also believe that deep-seated structural forces ranging from globalization, automation, demographics, to the waning power of trade unions, will all prevent inflation from rising much over the coming years even if the unemployment rate continues to fall. In other words, the Phillips curve is broken and destined to stay that way. But are these views correct? We think not.  Where Is Neutral? There is a big difference between arguing that the neutral rate may be low – and taking preemptive steps to remedy it – and arguing that it definitely is low. We subscribe to the former view, but not the latter. Our guess is that in the end, we will discover that the neutral rate is lower than in the past, but not nearly as low as investors currently think. Probably closer to 1.5% in real terms than 0%. As we discussed in detail two weeks ago, while a deceleration in trend growth has pushed down the neutral rate, other forces have pushed it up.1 These include looser fiscal policy (especially in the U.S.), a modest revival in private-sector credit demand, and dwindling labor market slack.  Since the neutral rate cannot be observed directly, the best we can do is monitor the more interest rate-sensitive sectors of the economy to see if they are cooling in a way that would be expected if monetary policy had become restrictive. For example, housing is a long-lived asset that is usually financed through debt. Hence, it is highly sensitive to changes in mortgage rates. History suggests that the recent decline in mortgage rates will spur a rebound in home sales and construction later this year (Chart 10). The fact that homebuilder confidence has bounced back this year and purchase mortgage applications have reached a cycle high is encouraging in that regard. The same goes for the fact that the vacancy rate is near an all-time low, housing starts have been running well below the rate of household formation, and the quality of mortgage lending has been quite strong (Chart 11). Chart 10Declining Yields Bode Well For Housing Chart 11U.S. Housing: No Oversupply Problem, While Demand Is Firm     Nevertheless, if the rebound in housing activity fails to materialize, it would provide evidence that other factors, such as job security concerns among potential homebuyers, are overwhelming the palliative effects of lower mortgage rates.  Have Financial Markets “Trapped” Central Banks? An often-heard argument is that central banks can ill-afford to raise rates for fear of unsettling financial markets. Proponents of this argument often mention that the value of all equities, corporate bonds, real estate and other risk assets around the world exceeds $400 trillion, five times greater than global GDP. There are at least two things wrong with this argument. First, an increase in financial wealth should translate into more spending, and hence a higher neutral rate of interest. Second, as we discussed earlier this year, the feedback loop between asset prices and economic activity tends to kick in only when monetary policy has already become restrictive.2  When policy rates are close to or above neutral, further rate hikes threaten to push the economy into recession. Corporate profits inevitably contract during recessions, which hurts risk asset prices. A vicious spiral can develop where falling asset prices lead to less spending throughout the economy, leading to lower profits and even weaker asset prices. In contrast, when interest rates are below their neutral level, as we believe is the case today in the major economies, an increase in policy rates will simply reduce the odds that the economy will overheat, which is ultimately a desirable outcome. U.S. Imbalances Are Modest Chart 12U.S. Corporate Debt (I): No Cause For Alarm Recessions usually occur when rising rates expose some serious imbalances in the economy. In the U.S. at least, the imbalances are fairly modest. As noted above, housing is on solid ground, which means that mortgage rates would need to rise substantially before the sector crumbles. Equities are pricey, but far from bubble territory. Moreover, unlike in the late 1990s, the run-up in stock prices over the past five years has not led to a massive capex overhang. Corporate debt is the weakest link in the financial system, but we should keep things in perspective. Even after the recent run-up, net corporate debt is only modestly higher than it was in the late 1980s, a period where the fed funds rate averaged nearly 10% (Chart 12). Thanks to low interest rates and rapid asset accumulation, the economy-wide interest coverage ratio is above its long-term average, while the ratio of debt-to-assets is below its long-term average (Chart 13). The corporate sector financial balance – the difference between what businesses earn and spend – is still in surplus. Every recession during the past 50 years has begun when the corporate sector financial balance was in deficit (Chart 14). Chart 13U.S. Corporate Debt (II): No Cause For Alarm Chart 14U.S. Corporate Debt (III): No Cause For Alarm     The Dollar, The Neutral Rate, and Global Growth In a globalized economy, capital flows can equalize, at least partially, neutral rates across countries. If any one central bank tries to raise rates – while others are standing pat or even cutting rates – the currency of the economy where rates are rising will shoot up, causing net exports to shrink and growth to slow.  In the case of the U.S. dollar, there is an additional issue to worry about, which is that there is about $12 trillion in overseas dollar-denominated debt. A stronger greenback would make it difficult for external borrowers to service their debts, leading to increased bankruptcies and defaults. Since financial and economic imbalances are arguably larger outside the U.S., a rising dollar would probably pose more of a problem for the rest of the world than for the United States. Although this is a serious risk, it is unlikely to materialize over the next 12-to-18 months, given our assumption that the dollar will weaken over this period. The U.S. dollar trades as a countercyclical currency, which is another way of saying that it tends to weaken whenever global growth strengthens (Chart 15). While the U.S. benefits from faster global growth, the rest of the world benefits even more. This stems from the fact that the U.S. has a smaller manufacturing base and a larger service sector than most other economies, which makes the U.S. a “low beta” economy. Hence, stronger global growth tends to cause capital to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, putting downward pressure on the greenback. Right now, China is stimulating its economy. The stimulus is a reaction to both slowing domestic growth, as well as worries about the potential repercussions of a trade war. It also reflects the fact that Chinese credit growth had sunk to a level only modestly above nominal GDP growth late last year. With the ratio of credit-to-GDP no longer rising quickly, the authorities had the luxury of suspending the deleveraging campaign (Chart 16). Chart 15The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 16Chinese Deleveraging Campaign Has Now Been Put On The Backburner   The combination of Chinese stimulus, the lagged effects from lower bond yields, and a turn in the global manufacturing cycle should all lift global growth in the back half of this year. This should cause the dollar to weaken. Trade War Worries Needless to say, this rosy outlook is predicated on the assumption that the trade war does not get out of hand. Our baseline envisions a “muddle through” scenario, where some sort of deal is hatched that allows the U.S. to bring down existing tariffs over time in exchange for a binding agreement by the Chinese to improve market access for U.S. companies and better secure intellectual property rights. The specifics of the deal are less important than there being a deal – any deal – that avoids a major escalation. Ultimately, the distinction between a “small” trade war and a “moderate” trade war is a function of how high tariffs end up being. Tariffs are taxes, and while no one likes to pay taxes, they are a familiar part of the global capitalist system. What is less familiar, and much more dangerous to global finance, are nontariff barriers that effectively bar countries from accessing critical inputs and technologies. Most global trade is in the form of intermediate goods (Chart 17). If a company cannot access the global supply chain, there is a good chance it may not be able to function at all. The current travails of Huawei is a perfect example of this. A full-blown trade war would create a lot of stranded capital. The stock market represents a claim on the existing capital stock, not the capital stock that would emerge after a trade war has been fought. Stocks would plunge in this scenario, with the U.S. and most other economies succumbing to a recession. Enough voters would blame Donald Trump that he would lose the election. While such an outcome cannot be entirely dismissed, it is precisely its severity that makes it highly unlikely. Inflation: Waiting For Godot? Global monetary policy is highly accommodative at present, and will only become more so if the Fed and some other central banks cut rates. Provided that the trade war does not boil over, global growth should accelerate, putting downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A weaker dollar will further ease global financial conditions. In such a setting, global growth is likely to remain above trend, leading to a further erosion of labor market slack. Among the major economies, the U.S. is the closest to exhausting all remaining spare capacity (Chart 18). The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.6%, the lowest level since 1969. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job as a share of the working-age population is below the level last seen in 2000. The quits and job opening rates remain near record highs. Given the erosion in slack, why has inflation not taken off? To some extent, the answer is that the Phillips curve is “kinked.” A decline in the unemployment rate from say, 8% to 5%, does little to boost inflation because even at 5%, there are enough jobless workers keen to accept what employment offers they get. It is only once the unemployment rate falls well below NAIRU that inflation starts to kick in. In the 1960s, it was not before the unemployment rate fell two percentage points below NAIRU that inflation broke out (Chart 19). Chart 18U.S. Is Back To Full Employment Chart 19Inflation Took Off In The 1960s Amid An Overheated Economy   Wage growth has picked up. However, productivity growth has risen as well. As a result, unit labor costs – the ratio of wages-to-productivity – have actually decelerated over the past 18 months. Unit labor cost inflation tends to lead core inflation by up to one year (Chart 20).  Chart 20No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral As the unemployment rate continues to drop, wage growth is likely to begin outstripping productivity gains. A wage-price spiral could develop. This is not a major risk for the next 12 months, but could become an issue thereafter. Could structural forces related to globalization, automation, demographics, and waning union power prevent inflation from rising even if labor markets tighten significantly further? We think that is unlikely. Globalization Regardless of what happens to the trade war, the period of hyperglobalization, ushered in by the fall of the Berlin Wall and China’s entry into the WTO, is over. As a share of global GDP, trade has been flat for more than ten years (Chart 21).  Chart 21Globalization Has Peaked Granted, it is not just the change in globalization that matters for inflation. The level matters too. In a highly globalized world, excess demand in one economy can be satiated with increased imports from another economy. However, this is only true if other economies have enough spare capacity. Even outside the United States, the unemployment rate in the G7 economies is approaching a record low (Chart 22). Chart 22The Unemployment Rate In The U.S. And Elsewhere Is Near Record Lows In any case, for a fairly closed economy such as the U.S., where imports account for only 15% of GDP, relative prices would need to shift a lot in order to incentivize households and firms to purchase substantially more goods from abroad. In the absence of dollar appreciation, this would require that the prices of U.S. goods increase in relation to the prices of foreign goods. In other words, U.S. inflation would still have to rise above that of the rest of the world. Automation Everyone likes to think that they are living in a special age of technological innovation. Yet, according to the productivity statistics, U.S. productivity has grown at a slower pace over the last decade than during the 1970s (Chart 23). As we argued in a past report, this is unlikely to be the result of measurement error.3  Perhaps the recent pickup in productivity growth will mark the start of a new structural trend. Maybe, but it could also just reflect a temporary cyclical revival. As labor has become less plentiful, companies have started to invest in more capital. Chart 24 shows that productivity growth and capital spending are highly correlated over the business cycle. Chart 24U.S. Productivity Growth And Capex Move In Lock-Step   It is less clear whether total factor productivity (TFP) growth — which reflects such things as technological know-how and business practices – has turned the corner. Over the past two centuries, TFP growth has accounted for over two-thirds of overall productivity growth. Recent data suggests TFP growth in the U.S. and around the world has remained sluggish (Chart 25). Chart 25ATotal Factor Productivity Remains Muted Across Developed Markets Chart 25BTotal Factor Productivity Remains Muted Across Developed Markets     Even if TFP growth does accelerate, it is not obvious that this will end up being deflationary. Increased productivity means more income, but more income means more potential spending. To the extent that stronger productivity growth expands aggregate supply, it also has the potential to raise aggregate demand. Thus, while faster productivity growth in one sector will cause relative prices in that sector to fall, this will not necessarily reduce the overall price level. Chart 26Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening True, faster productivity growth has the ability to shift income from poor workers to rich capitalists. Since the former spend more of their income than the latter, this could slow aggregate demand growth. However, the recent trend has been in the other direction, as a tighter labor market has pushed up labor’s share of income (Chart 26). Among workers, wage growth is now higher at the bottom end of the income distribution than at the top (Chart 27). Demographics For several decades, slower population growth has reduced the incentive for firms to expand capacity. Population aging has also shifted more people into their prime saving years. The combination of lower investment demand and higher desired savings pushed down the neutral rate on interest. Chart 28The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Now that baby boomers are starting to retire, they are moving from being savers to dissavers. Chart 28 shows that ratio of workers-to-consumers globally has begun to decline as the post-war generation leaves the labor force. As more people stop working, aggregate savings will fall. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in the neutral rate, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up. The Waning Power Of Unions The declining influence of trade unions is often cited as a reason for why inflation will remain subdued. There are a number of problems with this argument. First, unionization rates in the U.S. peaked in the mid-1950s, more than a decade before inflation began to accelerate. Second, while the unionization rate continued to decline in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s, it remained elevated in Canada. Yet, this did not prevent Canadian inflation from falling as rapidly as it did in the United States (Chart 29). The widespread use of inflation-linked wage contracts in the 1970s appears mainly to have been a consequence of rising inflation rather than the cause of it (Chart 30). Chart 29Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate Chart 30Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around   Ultimately, the price level cannot increase on a sustained basis independent of other things such as the level of the money supply. Unions have influence over wages, but in the long run, central banks play the decisive role. Alt-Right Or Ctrl-Left, The Result Is Usually Inflation In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations this week, Jay Powell noted that “The Fed is insulated from short-term political pressures – what is often referred to as our ‘independence’.”4 The operative words in his remarks were “short-term”. Powell knows full well that the Fed’s independence is not cast in stone. Even if Trump cannot legally fire or demote him, the President can choose who to nominate to the Fed’s Board of Governors. Early on in his tenure, Trump showed little interest in the workings of the Federal Reserve. He even went so far as to nominate Marvin Goodfriend – definitely no good friend of easy money – to the Fed board. Trump’s last two candidates, Stephen Moore and Herman Cain, were both political flunkies, happy to ditch their previous commitments to hard money in favor of Trump’s desire to see lower interest rates. Neither made it as far as the Senate confirmation process. Recent media reports have suggested that Trump will nominate Judy Shelton, a previously unknown economist whose main claim to fame is the promulgation of a bizarre theory about why the Fed should not pay interest on excess reserves (which, conveniently, would imply that overnight rates would need to fall to zero immediately).5  It is not clear whether Trump’s attempt to stack the Fed with lackeys will succeed. But one thing is clear: Countries with independent central banks tend to end up with lower inflation rates than countries where central banks are not independent (Chart 31). Whether it be Trump-style right-wing populism or left-wing populism (don’t forget, MMT is a product of the left, not the right), the result is usually the same: higher inflation. Investment Recommendations Overall Strategy The discussion above suggests the Fed will proceed along a two-stage path: An initial stage characterized by a highly accommodative monetary policy, followed by a second stage where the Fed is raising rates aggressively in response to galloping inflation. The first stage will be heaven for risk assets. The subsequent stage will be hell. The big question is when the transition from stage one to stage two will occur. Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. It usually does not peak until a recession has begun and does not bottom until a recovery is well under way (Chart 32). While some measures of U.S. core inflation such as the Dallas Fed’s “trimmed mean” have moved back up to 2%, this follows a prolonged period of sub-target inflation. For now, the Fed wants both actual inflation and inflation expectations to increase. Thus, we doubt that inflation will move above the Fed’s comfort zone before 2021, and it will probably not be until 2022 that monetary policy turns contractionary. It will take even longer for inflation to rise meaningfully in the euro area and Japan. Recessions rarely happen if monetary policy is expansionary. Sustained equity bear markets in stocks, in turn, almost never happen outside of recessionary periods (Chart 33). As such, a pro-risk asset allocation, favoring global equities and high-yield credit over safe government bonds and cash, is warranted at least for the next 12 months. Chart 33Recessions And Equity Bear Markets Usually Overlap The key market forecast charts on the first page of this report graphically lay out our baseline forecasts for equities, bonds, currencies, and commodities. Broadly speaking, we expect a risk-on environment to prevail until the end of 2021, followed by a major sell-off in equities and credit. Equities Stocks tend to peak about six months before the onset of a recession. In the 13-to-24 month period prior to the recession, returns tend to be substantially higher than during the rest of the expansion (Table 1). We are approaching that party phase. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Global equities currently trade at 15-times forward earnings. Unlike last year, earning growth estimates are reasonably conservative (Chart 34). Chart 34Global Stocks Are Not That Expensive Outside the U.S., stocks trade at a respectable 13-times forward earnings. Considering that bond yields are negative in real terms in most economies – and negative in nominal terms in Japan and many parts of Europe – this implies a sizable equity risk premium.  We have yet to upgrade EM and European stocks to overweight, but expect to do so some time this summer, once we see some evidence that global growth is accelerating. International stocks should do especially well in common-currency terms over the next 12 months, if the dollar continues to trend lower, as we expect will be the case.  We are less enthusiastic about Japanese equities. First, there is still the risk that the Japanese government will needlessly raise the consumption tax in October. Second, as a risk-off currency, the yen is likely to struggle in an environment of strengthening global growth. Investors looking for exposure to Japanese stocks should favor the larger multinational exporters. At the global sector level, cyclicals should outperform defensives in an environment of stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and ongoing Chinese stimulus. We particularly like industrials and energy. Financials should catch a bid in the second half of this year. According to the forwards, the U.S. yield curve will steepen by 38 bps over the next six months (Chart 35). Worries about an inverted yield curve will taper off. Curves will also likely steepen outside the U.S. as growth prospects improve. A steeper yield curve is manna from heaven for banks. Euro area banks trade at an average dividend yield of 6.4% (Chart 36). We are buying them as part of a tactical trade recommendation. Chart 36Euro Area Banks Are A Buy     Fixed Income The path to higher rates is lined with lower rates. The longer a central bank keeps rates below their neutral level, the more economies will overheat, and the larger the eventual inflation overshoot will be. The Fed’s dovish turn means that rates will stay lower for longer, but will ultimately go higher than we had originally envisioned. As a result, we are increasing our estimate of the terminal fed funds rate for this cycle by 50 bps to 4.75% and initiating a new trade going short the March 2022 Eurodollar futures contract. Our terminal fed funds rate projection assumes a neutral real rate of 1.5% and a peak inflation rate of 2.75%. Rates will rise roughly 50 basis points above neutral in the first half of 2022, enough to generate a recession later that year. The 10-year Treasury yield will peak at 4% this cycle. While the bulk of the increase will happen in 2021/22, yields will still rise over the next 12 months, as U.S. growth surprises on the upside. Thus, a short duration stance is warranted even in the near-to-medium term. The German 10-year yield will peak at 1.5% in 2022. We expect the U.S.-German spread to narrow modestly through to end-2021 and then widen somewhat as U.S. inflation accelerates relative to German inflation. The spread between Italian and German yields will decline in the lead-up to the global recession in 2022 and widen thereafter. U.K. gilt yields are likely to track global bond yields, although Brexit remains a source of downside risk for yields. Our base case is either no Brexit or a very soft Brexit, given that popular opinion has turned away from leaving the EU (Chart 37). Chart 37U.K.: In The Case Of A Do-Over, The Remain Side Would Likely Win Chart 38U.S. Default Losses Will Remain In Check   We expect only a very modest increase in Japanese yields over the next five years. Japanese long-term inflation expectations are much lower than in the other major economies, which will require an extended period of near-zero rates to rectify. We expect corporate credit to outperform government bonds over the next 12 months. While spreads are not likely to narrow much from present levels, the current yield pickup is high enough to compensate for expected bankruptcy risk. Our U.S. fixed-income strategists expect default losses on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index on the order of 1.25%-1.5% over the next 12 months (Chart 38). In that scenario, the junk index offers 224 bps – 249 bps of excess spread, a solid positive return that is only slightly below the historical average of 250 bps.  Currencies And Commodities The two-stage Fed cycle described above will govern the trajectory of the dollar over the next few years. In the initial stage, where global growth is accelerating and the Fed is falling ever further behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, the dollar will depreciate. Dollar weakness will be especially pronounced against the euro and EM currencies. Commodities and commodity currencies will see solid gains. Our commodity strategists are particularly bullish on oil, as they expect crude prices to benefit from both stronger global demand and increasingly tight supply conditions. The Chinese yuan will start strengthening again if a detente is reached in the trade talks. Even if a truce fails to materialize, the Chinese authorities will likely step up the pace of credit stimulus, rather than trying to engineer a significant, and possibly disorderly, devaluation.   In the second stage, where the Fed is desperately hiking rates to prevent inflation expectations from becoming unmoored, the dollar will soar. The combination of higher U.S. rates and a stronger dollar will cause global equities to crash and credit spreads to widen. The resulting tightening in financial conditions will lead to slower global growth, which will further turbocharge the dollar. Only once the Fed starts cutting rates again in late 2022 will the dollar weaken anew. Gold should do well in the first stage of the Fed cycle and at least part of the second stage. In the first stage, gold will benefit from a weaker dollar. In the initial part of the second stage, gold prices will continue to rise as inflation fears escalate. Gold will probably weaken temporarily once real interest rates reach restrictive territory and a recession becomes all but inevitable. We recommended buying gold on April 17, 2019. The trade is up 10.8% since then. Stick with it.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Two-Stage Fed Cycle,” dated June 14, 2019. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Low Odds Of An FCI Doom Loop,” dated January 4, 2019. 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 26, 2016. 4      Please see “Powell Emphasizes Fed’s Independence,” The New York Times, June 25, 2019. 5      Heather Long, “Trump’s potential Fed pick Judy Shelton wants to see ‘lower rates as fast as possible’,” The Washington Post, June 19, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights So What? Economic stimulus will encourage key nations to pursue their self-interest – keeping geopolitical risk high. Why? The U.S. is still experiencing extraordinary strategic tensions with China and Iran … simultaneously. The Trump-Xi summit at the G20 is unlikely to change the fact that the United States is threatening China with total tariffs and a technology embargo. The U.S. conflict with Iran will be hard to keep under wraps. Expect more fireworks and oil volatility, with a large risk of hostilities as long as the U.S. maintains stringent oil sanctions. All of our GeoRisk indicators are falling except for those of Germany, Turkey and Brazil. This suggests the market is too complacent. Maintain tactical safe-haven positioning. Feature “That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed. “It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed. -Joseph Heller, Catch-22 (1961)   One would have to be crazy to go to war. Yet a nation has no interest in filling its military’s ranks with lunatics. This is the original “Catch-22,” a conundrum in which the only way to do what is individually rational (avoid war) is to insist on what is collectively irrational (abandon your country). Or the only way to defend your country is to sacrifice yourself. This is the paradox that U.S. President Donald Trump faces having doubled down on his aggressive foreign policy this year: if he backs away from trade war to remove an economic headwind that could hurt his reelection chances, he sacrifices the immense leverage he has built up on behalf of the United States in its strategic rivalry with China. “Surrender” would be a cogent criticism of him on the campaign trail: a weak deal will cast him as a pluto-populist, rather than a real populist – one who pandered to China to give a sop to Wall Street and the farm lobby just like previous presidents, yet left America vulnerable for the long run. Similarly, if President Trump stops enforcing sanctions against Iranian oil exports to reduce the threat of a conflict-induced oil price shock that disrupts his economy, then he reduces the United States’s ability to contain Iran’s nuclear and strategic advances in the wake of the 2015 nuclear deal that he canceled. The low appetite for American involvement in the region will be on full display for the world to see. Iran will have stared down the Great Satan – and won. In both cases, Trump can back down. Or he can try to change the subject. But with weak polling and yet a strong economy, the point is to direct voters’ attention to foreign policy. He could lose touch with his political base at the very moment that the Democrats reconnect with their own. This is not a good recipe for reelection. More important – for investors – why would he admit defeat just as the Federal Reserve is shifting to countenance the interest rate cuts that he insists are necessary to increase his economic ability to drive a hard bargain with China? Why would he throw in the towel as the stock market soars? And if Trump concludes a China deal, and the market rises higher, will he not be emboldened to put more economic pressure on Mexico over border security … or even on Europe over trade? The paradox facing investors is that the shift toward more accommodative monetary policy (and in some cases fiscal policy) extends the business cycle and encourages political leaders to pursue their interests more intently. China is less likely to cave to Trump’s demands as it stimulates. The EU does not need to fear a U.K. crash Brexit if its economy rebounds. This increases rather than decreases the odds of geopolitical risks materializing as negative catalysts for the market. Similarly, if geopolitical risk falls then the need for stimulus falls and the market will be disappointed. The result is still more volatility – at least in the near term. The G20 And 2020 As we go to press the Democratic Party’s primary election debates are underway. The progressive wave on display highlights the overarching takeaway of the debates: the U.S. election is now an active political (and geopolitical) risk to the equity market. A truly positive surprise at the G20 would be a joint statement by Trump and Xi plus some tariff rollback. Whenever Trump’s odds of losing rise, the U.S. domestic economy faces higher odds of extreme policy discontinuity and uncertainty come 2021, with the potential for a populist-progressive agenda – a negative for financials, energy, and probably health care and tech. Yet whenever Trump’s odds of winning rise, the world faces higher odds of an unconstrained Trump second term focusing on foreign and trade policy – a potentially extreme increase in global policy uncertainty – without the fiscal and deregulatory positives of his first term. We still view Trump as the favored candidate in this race (at 55% chance of reelection), given that U.S. underlying domestic demand is holding up and the labor market has not been confirmed to be crumbling beneath the consumer’s feet. Still Chart 1 highlights that Trump’s shift to more aggressive foreign and trade policy this spring has not won him any additional support – his approval rating has been flat since then. And his polling is weak enough in general that we do not assign him as high of odds of reelection as would normally be afforded to a sitting president on the back of a resilient economy. This raises the question of whether the G20 will mark a turning point. Will Trump attempt to deescalate his foreign conflicts? Yes, and this is a tactical opportunity. But we see no final resolution at hand. With China, Trump’s only reason to sign a weak deal would be to stem a stock market collapse. With Iran, Trump is no longer in the driver’s seat but could be forced to react to Iranian provocations. Bottom Line: Trump’s polling has not improved – highlighting the election risk – but weak polling amid a growing economy and monetary easing is not a recipe for capitulating to foreign powers. The Trump-Xi Summit On China the consensus on the G20 has shifted toward expecting an extension of talks and another temporary tariff truce. If a new timetable is agreed, it may be a short-term boon for equities. But we will view it as unconvincing unless it is accompanied with a substantial softening on Huawei or a Trump-Xi joint statement outlining an agreement in principle along with some commitment of U.S. tariff rollback. Otherwise the structural dynamic is the same: Trump is coercing China with economic warfare amid a secular increase in U.S.-China animosity that is a headwind for trade and investment. Table 1 shows that throughout the modern history of U.S.-China presidential-level summits, the Great Recession marked a turning point: since then, bilateral relations have almost always deteriorated in the months after a summit, even if the optics around the summit were positive. Table 1U.S.-China Leaders Summits: A Chronology The last summit in Buenos Aires was no exception, given that the positive aura was ultimately followed by a tariff hike and technology-company blacklistings. Of course, the market rallied for five months in between. Why should this time be the same? First, the structural factors undermining Sino-American trust are worse, not better, with Trump’s latest threats to tech companies. Second, Trump will ultimately resent any decision to extend the negotiations. China’s economy is rebounding, which in the coming months will deprive Trump of much of the leverage he had in H2 2018 and H1 2019. He will be in a weaker position if they convene in three months to try to finalize a deal. Tariff rollback will be more difficult in that context given that China will be in better shape and that tariffs serve as the guarantee that any structural concessions will be implemented. Bottom Line: Our broader view regarding the “end game” of the talks – on the 2020 election horizon – remains that China has no reason to implement structural changes speedily for the United States until Trump can prove his resilience through reelection. Yet President Trump will suffer on the campaign trail if he accepts a deal that lacks structural concessions. Hence we expect further escalation from where we are today, knowing full well that the G20 could produce a temporary period of improvement just as occurred on December 1, 2018. The Iran Showdown Is Far From Over Disapproval of Trump’s handling of China and Iran is lower than his disapproval rating on trade policy and foreign policy overall, suggesting that despite the lack of a benefit to his polling, he does still have leeway to pursue his aggressive policies to a point. A breakdown of these opinions according to key voting blocs – a proxy for Trump’s ability to generate support in Midwestern swing states – illustrates that his political base is approving on the whole (Chart 2). Yet the conflict with Iran threatens Trump with a hard constraint – an oil price shock – that is fundamentally a threat to his reelection. Hence his decision, as we expected, to back away from the brink of war last week (he supposedly canceled air strikes on radar and missile installations at the last minute on June 21). He appears to be trying to control the damage that his policy has already done to the 2015 U.S.-Iran equilibrium. Trump has insisted he does not want war, has ruled out large deployments of boots on the ground, and has suggested twice this week that his only focus in trying to get Iran back into negotiations is nuclear weapons. This implies a watering down of negotiation demands to downplay Iran’s militant proxies in the region – it is a retreat from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s more sweeping 12 demands on Iran and a sign of Trump’s unwillingness to get embroiled in a regional conflict with a highly likely adverse economic blowback. The Iran confrontation is not over yet – policy-induced oil price volatility will continue. This retreat lacks substance if Trump does not at least secretly relax enforcement of the oil sanctions. Trump’s latest sanctions and reported cyberattacks are a sideshow in the context of an attempted oil embargo that could destabilize Iran’s entire economy (Charts 3 and 4). Similarly, Iran’s downing of a U.S. drone pales in comparison to the tanker attacks in Hormuz that threatened global oil shipments. What matters to investors is the oil: whether Iran is given breathing space or whether it is forced to escalate the conflict to try to win that breathing space. Chart 4Iran’s Rial Depreciated Sharply The latest data suggest that Iran’s exports have fallen to 300,000 barrels per day, a roughly 90% drop from 2018, when Trump walked away from the Iran deal. If this remains the case in the wake of the brinkmanship last week then it is clear that Iran is backed into a corner and could continue to snarl and snap at the U.S. and its regional allies, though it may pause after the tanker attacks. Chart 5More Oil Volatility To Come Tehran also has an incentive to dial up its nuclear program and activate its regional militant proxies in order to build up leverage for any future negotiation. It can continue to refuse entering into negotiations with Trump in order to embarrass him – and it can wait until Trump’s approach is validated by reelection before changing this stance. After all, judging by the first Democratic primary debate, biding time is the best strategy – the Democratic candidates want to restore the 2015 deal and a new Democratic administration would have to plead with Iran, even to get terms less demanding than those in 2015. Other players can also trigger an escalation even if Presidents Trump and Rouhani decide to take a breather in their conflict (which they have not clearly decided to do). The Houthi rebels based in Yemen have launched another missile at Abha airport in Saudi Arabia since Trump’s near-attack on Iran, an action that is provocative, easily replicable, and not necessarily directly under Tehran’s control. Meanwhile OPEC is still dragging its feet on oil production to compensate for the Iranian losses, implying that the cartel will react to price rises rather than preempt them. The Saudis could use production or other means to stoke conflict. Bottom Line: Given our view on the trade war, which dampens global oil demand, we expect still more policy-induced volatility (Chart 5). We do not see oil as a one-way bet … at least not until China’s shift to greater stimulus becomes unmistakable.   North Korea: The Hiccup Is Over Chart 6China Ostensibly Enforces North Korean Sanctions The single clearest reason to expect progress between the U.S. and China at the G20 is the fact that North Korea is getting back onto the diplomatic track. North Korea has consistently been shown to be part of the Trump-Xi negotiations, unlike Taiwan, the South China Sea, Xinjiang, and other points of disagreement. General Secretary Xi Jinping took his first trip to the North on June 20 – the first for a Chinese leader since 2005 – and emphasized the need for historic change, denuclearization, and economic development. Xi is pushing Kim to open up and reform the economy in exchange for a lasting peace process – an approach that is consistent with China’s past policy but also potentially complementary with Trump’s offer of industrialization in exchange for denuclearization. President Trump and Kim Jong Un have exchanged “beautiful” letters this month and re-entered into backchannel discussions. Trump’s visit to South Korea after the G20 will enable him and President Moon Jae-In to coordinate for a possible third summit between Trump and Kim. Progress on North Korea fits our view that the failed summit in Hanoi was merely a setback and that the diplomatic track is robust. Trump’s display of a credible military threat along with Chinese sanctions enforcement (Chart 6) has set in motion a significant process on the peninsula that we largely expect to succeed and go farther than the consensus expects. It is a long-term positive for the Korean peninsula’s economy. It is also a positive factor in the U.S.-China engagement based on China’s interest in ultimately avoiding war and removing U.S. troops from the peninsula. From an investment point of view, an end to a brief hiatus in U.S.-North Korean diplomacy is a very poor substitute for concrete signs of U.S.-China progress on the tech front or opening market access. There has been nothing substantial on these key issues since Trump hiked the tariff rate in May. As a result, it is perfectly possible for the G20 to be a “success” on North Korea but, like the Buenos Aires summit on December 1, for markets to sell the news (Chart 7). Chart 7The Last Trade Truce Didn't Stop The Selloff Chart 8China Needs A Final Deal To Solve This Problem Bottom Line: North Korea is not a basis in itself for tariff rollback, but only as part of a much more extensive U.S.-China agreement. And a final agreement is needed to improve China’s key trade indicators on a lasting basis, such as new export orders and manufacturing employment, which are suffering amid the trade war. We expect economic policy uncertainty to remain elevated given our pessimistic view of U.S.-China trade relations (Chart 8). What About Japan, The G20 Host? Japan faces underrated domestic political risk as Prime Minister Abe Shinzo approaches a critical period in his long premiership, after which he will almost certainly be rendered a “lame duck,” likely by the time of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The question is when will this process begin and what will the market impact be? If Abe loses his supermajority in the July House of Councillors election, then it could begin as early as next month. This is a real risk – because a two-thirds majority is always a tall order – but it is not extreme. Abe’s polling is historically remarkable (Chart 9). The Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner Komeito are also holding strong and remain miles away from competing parties (Chart 10). The economy is also holding up relatively well – real wages and incomes have improved under Abe’s watch (Chart 11). However, the recent global manufacturing slowdown and this year’s impending hike to the consumption tax in October from 8% to 10% are killing consumer confidence. Chart 10Japan's Ruling Coalition Is Strong The collapse in consumer confidence is a contrary indicator to the political opinion polling. The mixed picture suggests that after the election Abe could still backtrack on the tax hike, although it would require driving through surprise legislation. He can pull this off in light of global trade tensions and his main objective of passing a popular referendum to revise the constitution and remilitarize the country. Chart 11Japanese Wages Up, But Consumer Confidence Diving We would not be surprised if Japan secured a trade deal with the U.S. prior to China. Because Abe and the United States need to enhance their alliance, we continue to downplay the risk of a U.S.-Japan trade war. Bloomberg recently reported that President Trump was threatening to downgrade the U.S.-Japan alliance, with a particular grievance over the ever-controversial issue of the relocation of troops on Okinawa. We view this as a transparent Trumpian negotiating tactic that has no applicability – indeed, American military and diplomatic officials quickly rejected the report. We do see a non-trivial risk that Trump’s rhetoric or actions will hurt Japanese equities at some point this year, either as Trump approaches his desired August deadline for a Japan trade deal or if negotiations drag on until closer to his decision about Section 232 tariffs on auto imports on November 14. But our base case is that there will be either no punitive measures or only a short time span before Abe succeeds in negotiating them away. We would not be surprised if the Japanese secured a deal prior to any China deal as a way for the Trump administration to try to pressure China and prove that it can get deals done. This can be done because it could be a thinly modified bilateral renegotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which had the U.S. and Japan at its center. Bottom Line: Given the combination of the upper house election, the tax hike and its possible consequences, a looming constitutional referendum which poses risks to Abe, and the ongoing external threat of trade war and China tensions, we continue to see risk-off sentiment driving Japanese and global investors to hold then yen. We maintain our long JPY/USD recommendation. The risk to this view is that Bank of Japan chief Haruhiko Kuroda follows other central banks and makes a surprisingly dovish move, but this is not warranted at the moment and is not the base case of our Foreign Exchange Strategy. GeoRisk Indicators Update: June 28, 2019 Our GeoRisk indicators are sending a highly complacent message given the above views on China and Iran. All of our risk measures, other than our German, Turkish, and Brazilian indicators, are signaling a decrease geopolitical tensions. Investors should nonetheless remain cautious: Our German indicator, which has proven to be a good measure of U.S.-EU trade tensions, has increased over the first half of June (Chart 12). We expect Germany to continue to be subject to risk because of Trump’s desire to pivot to European trade negotiations in the wake of any China deal. The auto tariff decision was pushed off until November. We assign a 45% subjective probability to auto tariffs on the EU if Trump seals a final China deal. The reason it is not our base case is because of a lack of congressional, corporate, or public support for a trade war with Europe as opposed to China or Mexico, which touch on larger issues of national interest (security, immigration). There is perhaps a 10% probability that Trump could impose car tariffs prior to securing a China deal. Chart 12U.S.-EU Trade Tensions Hit Germany Chart 13German Greens Overtaking Christian Democrats! Germany is also an outlier because it is experiencing an increase in domestic political uncertainty. Social Democrat leader Andrea Nahles’ resignation on June 2 opened the door to a leadership contest among the SPD’s membership. This will begin next week and conclude on October 26, or possibly in December. The result will have consequences for the survivability of Merkel’s Grand Coalition – in case the SPD drops out of it entirely. Both Merkel and her party have been losing support in recent months – for the first time in history the Greens have gained the leading position in the polls (Chart 13). If the coalition falls apart and Merkel cannot put another one together with the Greens and Free Democrats, she may be forced to resign ahead of her scheduled 2021 exit date. The implication of the events with Trump and Merkel is that Germany faces higher political risk this year, particularly in Q4 if tariff threats and coalition strains coincide. Meanwhile, Brazilian pension reform has been delayed due to an inevitable breakdown in the ability to pass major legislation without providing adequate pork barrel spending. As for the rest of Europe, since European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s dovish signal on June 18, all of our European risk indicators have dropped off. Markets rallied on the news of the ECB’s preparedness to launch another round of bond-buying monetary stimulus if needed, easing tensions in the region. Italian bond spreads plummeted, for instance. The Korean and Taiwanese GeoRisk indicators, our proxies for the U.S.-China trade war, are indicating a decrease in risk as the two sides moved to contain the spike in tensions in May. While Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin notes that the deal was 90% complete in May before the breakdown, there is little evidence yet that any of the sticking points have been removed over the past two weeks. These indicators can continue to improve on the back of any short-term trade truce at the G20. The Russian risk indicator has been hovering in the same range for the past two months. We expect this to break out on the back of increasing mutual threats between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. has recently agreed to send an additional 1000 rotating troops to Poland, a move that Russia obviously deems aggressive. The Russian upper chamber has also unanimously supported President Putin’s decree to suspend the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, in the wake of the U.S. decision to do so. This would open the door to developing and deploying 500-5500 km range land-based and ballistic missiles. According to the deputy foreign minister, any U.S. missile deployment in Europe will lead to a crisis on the level of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia has also sided with Iran in the latest U.S.-Iran tension escalation, denouncing U.S. plans to send an additional 1000 troops to the Middle East and claiming that the shot-down U.S. drone was indeed in Iranian airspace. We anticipate the Russian risk indicator to go up as we expect Russia to retaliate in some way to Poland and to take actions to encourage the U.S. to get entangled deeper into the Iranian imbroglio, which is ultimately a drain on the U.S. and a useful distraction that Russia can exploit. In Turkey, both domestic and foreign tensions are rising. First, the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election delivered a big defeat for Turkey’s President Erdogan on his home turf. Opposition representative Ekrem Imamoglu defeated former Prime Minister Binali Yildirim for a second time this year on June 23 – increasing his margin of victory to 9.2% from 0.2% in March. This was a stinging rebuke to Erdogan and his entire political system. It also reinforces the fact that Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) is not as popular as Erdogan himself, frequently falling short of the 50% line in the popular vote for elections not associated directly with Erdogan (Chart 14). This trend combined with his personal rebuke in the power base of Istanbul will leave him even more insecure and unpredictable. Second, the G20 summit is the last occasion for Erdogan and Trump to meet personally before the July 31 deadline on Erdogan’s planned purchase of S-400 missile defenses from Russia. Erdogan has a chance to delay the purchase as he contemplates cabinet and policy changes in the wake of this major domestic defeat. Yet if Erdogan does not back down or delay, the U.S. will remove Turkey from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, and may also impose sanctions over this purchase and possibly also Iranian trade. The result will hit the lira and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Geopolitically, it will create a wedge within NATO that Russia could exploit, creating more opportunities for market-negative surprises in this area. Finally, we expect our U.K. risk indicator to perk up, as the odds of a no-deal Brexit are rising. Boris Johnson will likely assume Conservative Party leadership and the party is moving closer to attempting a no-deal exit. We assign a 21% probability to this kind of Brexit, up from our previous estimate of 14%. It is more likely that Johnson will get a deal similar to Theresa May’s deal passed or that he will be forced to extend negotiations beyond October.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com France: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights U.S. consumption remains robust despite the recent intensification of global growth headwinds. The G-20 meeting will not result in an escalation nor a major resolution of Sino-U.S. tensions. Kicking the can down the road is the most likely outcome. China’s reflationary efforts will intensify, impacting global growth in the second half of 2019. Fearful of collapsing inflation expectations, global central banks are easing policy, which is supporting global liquidity conditions and growth prospects. Bond yields have upside, especially inflation expectations. Equities have some short-term downside, but the cyclical peak still lies ahead. The equity rally will leave stocks vulnerable to the inevitable pick-up in interest rates later this cycle. Gold stocks may provide an attractive hedge for now. A spike in oil prices creates a major risk to our view. Stay overweight oil plays. Feature Global growth has clearly deteriorated this year, and bond yields around the world have cratered. German yields have plunged below -0.3% and U.S. yields briefly dipped below 2%. Even if the S&P 500 remains near all-time highs, the performance of cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones is corroborating the message from the bond market. Bonds and stocks are therefore not as much in disagreement as appears at first glance. To devise an appropriate strategy, now more than ever investors must decide whether or not a recession is on the near-term horizon. Answering yes to this question means bond prices will continue to rise, the dollar will rally further, stocks will weaken, and defensive stocks will keep outperforming cyclical ones. Answering no, one should sell bonds, sell the dollar, buy stocks, and overweight cyclical sectors. The weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy. We stand in the ‘no’ camp: We do not believe a recession is in the offing and, while the current growth slowdown has been painful, it is not the end of the business cycle. Logically, we are selling bonds, selling the dollar and maintaining a positive cyclical stance on stocks. We also expect international equities to outperform U.S. ones, and we are becoming particularly positive on gold stocks. Oil prices should also benefit from the upcoming improvement in global growth. Has The U.S. Economy Met Its Iceberg? Investors betting on a recession often point to the inversion of the 3-month/10-year yield curve and the performance of cyclical stocks. However, we must also remember Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that “markets have predicted nine of the five previous recessions.” In any case, these market moves tell us what we already know: growth has weakened. We must decide whether it will weaken further. A simple probit model based on the yield curve slope and the new orders component of the ISM Manufacturing Index shows that there is a 40% probability of recession over the next 12 months. We need to keep in mind that in 1966 and 1998, this model was flagging a similar message, yet no recession followed over the course of the next year (Chart I-1). This means we must go back and study the fundamentals of U.S. growth. Chart I-1The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer Chart I-2Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment On the purely domestic front, the U.S. economy is not showing major stresses. Last month, we argued that we are not seeing the key symptoms of tight monetary policy: Homebuilders remain confident, mortgage applications for purchases are near cyclical highs, homebuilder stocks have been outperforming the broad market for three quarters, and lumber prices are rebounding.1 Moreover, the previous fall in mortgage yields is already lifting existing home sales, and it is only a matter of time before residential investment follows (Chart I-2). Households remain in fine form. Real consumer spending is growing at a 2.8% pace, and despite rising economic uncertainty, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model expects real household spending to expand at a 3.9% rate in the second quarter (Chart I-3). This is key, as consumers’ spending and investment patterns drive the larger trends in the economy.2 Chart I-3Consumers Are Spending Chart I-4The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... Going forward, we expect consumption to stay the course. Despite its latest dip, consumer confidence remains elevated, household debt levels have fallen from 134% of disposable income in 2007 to 99% today, and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.9% of after-tax income, a multi-generational low. In this context, stronger household income growth should support spending. The May payrolls report is likely to have been an anomaly. Layoffs are still minimal, initial jobless claims continue to flirt near 50-year lows, the Conference Board’s Leading Credit index shows no stress, and the employment components of both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM are at elevated levels (Chart I-4). If these leading indicators of employment are correct, both the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers and salaries have upside (Chart I-5), especially as productivity growth is accelerating. Despite these positives, the weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy, and force the ISM non-manufacturing PMI to converge toward the manufacturing index. If global growth worsens, the dollar will strengthen, quality spreads will widen and stocks will weaken, resulting in tighter financial conditions. Since economic and trade uncertainty is still high, further deterioration in external conditions will cause U.S. capex to collapse. Employment would follow, confidence suffer and consumption fall. Global growth still holds the key to the future. Following The Chinese Impulse As the world’s foremost trading nation, Chinese activity lies at the center of the global growth equation. The China-U.S. trade war remains at the forefront of investors’ minds. The meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping over the next two days is important. It implies a thawing of Sino-U.S. trade negotiations. However, an overall truce is unlikely. An agreement to resume the talks is the most likely outcome. No additional tariffs will be levied on the remaining $300 billion of untaxed Chinese exports to the U.S., but the previous levies will not be meaningfully changed. Removing this $300 billion Damocles sword hanging over global growth is a positive at the margin. However, it also means that the can has been kicked down the road and that trade will remain a source of headline risk, at least until the end of the year. Chart I-6The Rubicon Has Been Crossed Trade uncertainty will nudge Chinese policymakers to ease policy further. In previous speeches, Premier Li Keqiang set the labor market as a line in the sand. If it were to deteriorate, the deleveraging campaign could be put on the backburner. Today, the employment component of the Chinese PMI is at its lowest level since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart I-6). This alone warrants more reflationary efforts by Beijing. Adding trade uncertainty to this mix guarantees additional credit and fiscal stimulus. More Chinese stimulus will be crucial for Chinese and global growth. Historically, it has taken approximatively nine months for previous credit and fiscal expansions to lift economic activity. We therefore expect that over the course of the summer, the imports component of the Chinese PMI should improve further, and the overall EM Manufacturing PMI should begin to rebound (Chart I-7, top and second panel). More generally, this summer should witness the bottom in global trade, as exemplified by Asian or European export growth (Chart I-7, third and fourth panel). The prospect for additional Chinese stimulus means that the associated pick-up in industrial activity should have longevity. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. We are already seeing one traditional signpost that Chinese stimulus is having an impact on growth. Within the real estate investment component of GDP, equipment purchases are growing at a 30% annual rate, a development that normally precedes a rebound in manufacturing activity (Chart I-8, top panel). We are also keeping an eye out for the growth of M1 relative to M2. When Chinese M1 outperforms M2, it implies that demand deposits are growing faster than savings deposits. The inference is that the money injected in the economy is not being saved, but is ready to be deployed. Historically, a rebounding Chinese M1 to M2 ratio accompanies improvements in global trade, commodities prices, and industrial production (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World Chart I-8China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact   To be sure, China is not worry free. Auto sales are still soft, global semiconductor shipments remain weak, and capex has yet to turn the corner. But the turnaround in credit and in the key indicators listed above suggests the slowdown is long in the tooth. In the second half of 2019, China will begin to add to global growth once again. Advanced Economies’ Central Banks: A Brave New World Chart I-9The Inflation Expectations Panic While China is important, it is not the only game in town. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. It seems they have stopped targeting realized inflation and are increasingly focused on inflation expectations. The collapse in inflation expectations is worrying central bankers (Chart I-9). Falling anticipated inflation can anchor actual inflation at lower levels than would have otherwise been the case. It also limits the downside to real rates when growth slows, and therefore, the capacity of monetary policy to support economic activity. Essentially, central banks fear that permanently depressed inflation expectations renders them impotent. The change in policy focus is evident for anyone to see. As recently as January 2019, 52% of global central banks were lifting interest rates. Now that inflation expectations are collapsing, other than the Norges Bank, none are doing so (Chart I-10). Instead, the opposite is happening and the RBA, RBNZ and RBI are cutting rates. Moreover, as investors are pricing in lower policy rates around the world, G-10 bond yields are collapsing, which is easing global liquidity conditions. Indeed, as Chart I-11 illustrates, when the share of economies with falling 2-year forward rates is as high as it is today, the BCA Global Leading Indicator rebounds three months later. Chart I-10Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere The European Central Bank stands at the vanguard of this fight. As we argued two months ago, deflationary pressures in Europe are intact and are likely to be a problem for years to come.3 The ECB is aware of this headwind and knows it needs to act pre-emptively. Four months ago, it announced a new TLRTO-III package to provide plentiful funding for stressed banks in the European periphery. On June 6th, ECB President Mario Draghi unveiled very generous financing terms for the TLTRO-III. Last week, at the ECB’s Sintra conference in Portugal, ECB Vice President Luis de Guindos professed that the ECB could cut rates if inflation expectations weaken. The following day, Draghi himself strongly hinted at an upcoming rate cut in Europe and a potential resumption of the ECB QE program. These measures are starting to ease financial conditions where Europe needs it most: Italy. An important contributor to the contraction in the European credit impulse over the past 21 months was the rapid tightening in Italian financial conditions that followed the surge in BTP yields from May 2018. Now that the ECB is becoming increasingly dovish, Italian yields have fallen to 2.1%, and are finally below the neutral rate of interest for Europe. BTP yields are again at accommodative levels. Chart I-11This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects With financial conditions in Europe easing and exports set to pick up in response to Chinese growth, European loan demand should regain some vigor. Meanwhile, the TLTRO-III measures, which are easing bank funding costs, should boost banks’ willingness to lend. The European credit impulse is therefore set to move back into positive territory this fall. European growth will rebound, and contribute to improving global growth conditions. The Fed’s Patience Is Running Out The Federal Reserve did not cut interest rates last week, but its intentions to do so next month were clear. First, the language of the statement changed drastically. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” Second, the fed funds rate projections from the Summary of Economic Projections were meaningfully revised down. In March, 17 FOMC participants expected the Fed to stay on hold for the remainder of 2019, while six foresaw hikes. Today, eight expect a steady fed funds rate, but seven are calling for two rate cuts this year. Only one member is still penciling in a hike. Moreover, nine out of 17 participants anticipate that rates will be lower in 2020 than today (Chart I-12). The FOMC’s unwillingness to push back very dovish market expectations signals an imminent interest rate cut. Like other advanced economy central banks, the Fed’s sudden dovish turn is aimed at reviving moribund inflation expectations (Chart I-13). In order to do so, the Fed will have to keep real interest rates at low levels, at least relative to real GDP growth. Even if the real policy rate goes up, so long as it increases more slowly than GDP growth, it will signify that money supply is growing faster than money demand.4 TIPS yields are anticipating these dynamics and will likely remain soft relative to nominal interest rates. Chart I-13...As Inflation Expectations Plunge Since the Fed intends to conduct easy monetary policy until inflation expectations have normalized to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, our liquidity gauges will become more supportive of economic activity and asset prices over the coming two to three quarters: Our BCA Monetary indicator has not only clearly hooked up, it is now above the zero line, in expansionary territory (see Section III, page 41). Excess money growth, defined as money-of-zero-maturity over loan growth, is once again accelerating. This cycle, global growth variables such as our Global Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, or worldwide export prices have all reliably followed this variable (Chart I-14). After collapsing through 2018, our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is rebounding sharply, and the imminent end of the Fed’s balance sheet runoff will only solidify this progress. This indicator gauges how cheap and plentiful high-powered money is for global markets. Its recovery suggests that commodities, globally-traded goods prices, and economic activity are all set to improve (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Excess Money Has Turned Up Chart I-15Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up...   The dollar is losing momentum and should soon fall, which will reinforce the improvement in global liquidity conditions. A trough in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is often followed by a weakening dollar (Chart I-16). Moreover, the Greenback’s strength has been turbocharged by exceptional repatriations of funds by U.S. economic agents (Chart I-17). The end of the repatriation holiday along with a more dovish Fed and the completion of the balance sheet runoff will likely weigh on the dollar. Once the Greenback depreciates, the cost of borrowing for foreign issuers of dollar-denominated debt will decline, along with the cost of liquidity, especially if the massive U.S. repatriation flows are staunched. This will further support global growth conditions. Chart I-16...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... Trade relations are unlikely to deteriorate further, China is likely to stimulate more aggressively; and easing central banks around the world, including the Fed, are responding to falling inflation expectations. This backdrop points to a rebound in global growth in the second half of the year. As a corollary, the deflationary patch currently engulfing the world should end soon after. As a result, this growing reflationary mindset should delay any recession until late 2021 if not 2022. However, as the business cycle extends further, greater inflationary pressures will build down the road and force the Fed to lift rates – even more than it would have done prior to this wave of easing. Chart I-17...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow Investment Implications Bonds BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy service relies on the Golden Rule of Treasury Investing. This simple rule states that when the Fed turns out to be more dovish than anticipated by interest rate markets 12 months prior, Treasurys outperform cash. If the Fed is more hawkish than was expected by market participants, Treasurys underperform (Chart I-18). Today, the Treasury market’s outperformance is already consistent with a Fed generating a very dovish surprise over the next 12 months. However, the interest rate market is already pricing in a 98% probability of two rates cuts this year, and the December 2020 fed funds rate futures imply a halving of the policy rate. The Fed is unlikely to clear these very tall dovish hurdles as global growth is set to rebound, the fed funds rate is not meaningfully above neutral and the household sector remains resilient. Chart I-18Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Reflecting elevated pessimism toward global growth, the performance of transport relative to utilities stocks is as oversold as it gets. The likely rebound in this ratio should push yields higher, especially as foreign private investors are already aggressively buying U.S. government securities (Chart I-19). As occurred in 1998, Treasury yields should rebound soon after the Fed begins cutting rates. Moreover, with all the major central banks focusing on keeping rates at accommodative levels, the selloff in bonds should be led by inflation breakevens, also as occurred in 1998 (Chart I-20), especially if the dollar weakens. Chart I-19Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Chart I-201998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting     Equities A global economic rebound should provide support for equities on a cyclical horizon. The tactical picture remains murky as the stock market may have become too optimistic that Osaka will deliver an all-encompassing deal. However, this short-term downside is likely to prove limited compared to the cyclical strength lying ahead. This is particularly true for global equities, where valuations are more attractive than in the U.S. Chart I-21Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Even if the S&P 500 isn’t the prime beneficiary of the recovery in global growth, it should nonetheless generate positive absolute returns on a cyclical horizon. As Chart I-21 illustrates, a pickup in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index often precedes a rally in U.S. stocks. Since the U.S. Financial Liquidity Index has done a superb job of forecasting the weakness in stocks over the past 18 months, it is likely to track the upcoming strength as well. A weaker dollar should provide an additional tailwind to boost profit growth, especially as U.S. productivity is accelerating. This view is problematic for long-term investors. The cheapness of stocks relative to bonds is the only reason why our long-term valuation index is not yet at nosebleed levels Chart I-22). If we are correct that the current global reflationary push will build greater inflationary pressures down the road and will ultimately result in even higher interest rates, this relative undervaluation of equities will vanish. The overall valuation index will then hit near-record highs, leaving the stock market vulnerable to a very sharp pullback. Long-term investors should use this rally to lighten their strategic exposure to stocks, especially when taking into account the risk that populism will force a retrenchment in corporate market power, an issue discussed in Section II. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” In this environment, gold stocks are particularly attractive. Central banks are targeting very accommodative policy settings, which will limit the upside for real rates. Moreover, generous liquidity conditions and a falling dollar should prove to be great friends to gold. These fundamentals are being amplified by a supportive technical backdrop, as gold prices have broken out and the gold A/D line keeps making new highs (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Chart I-23Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold   Structural forces reinforce these positives for gold. EM reserve managers are increasingly diversifying into gold, fearful of growing geopolitical tensions with the U.S. (Chart I-24). Meanwhile, G-10 central banks are not selling the yellow metal anymore. This positive demand backdrop is materializing as global gold producers have been focused on returning cash to shareholders instead of pouring funds into capex. This lack of investment will weigh on output growth going forward. Chart I-24EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold This emphasis on returning cash to shareholders makes gold stocks particularly attractive. Gold producers are trading at a large discount to the market and to gold itself as investors remain concerned by the historical lack of management discipline. However, boosting dividends, curtailing debt levels and only focusing on the most productive projects ultimately creates value for shareholders. A wave of consolidation will only amplify these tailwinds. Our overall investment recommendation is to overweight stocks over bonds on a cyclical horizon while building an overweight position in gold equities. Our inclination to buy gold stocks transcends our long-term concerns for equities, as rising long-term inflation should favor gold as well. The Key Risk: Iran The biggest risk to our view remains the growing stress in the Middle East. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team assigns a less than 40% chance that tensions between the U.S. and Iran will deteriorate into a full-fledged military conflict. The U.S.’s reluctance to respond with force to recent Iranian provocations may even argue that this probability could be too high. Nonetheless, if a military conflict were to happen, it would involve a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a bottleneck through which more than 20% of global oil production transits. In such a scenario, Brent prices could easily cross above US$150/bbl. Chart I-25Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline To mitigate this risk, we recommend overweighting oil plays in global portfolios. Not only would such an allocation benefit in the event of a blow-up in the Persian Gulf, oil is supported by positive supply/demand fundamentals and Brent should end the year $75/bbl. After five years of limited oil capex, Wood Mackenzie estimates that the supply of oil will be close to 5 million barrels per day smaller than would have otherwise been the case. Moreover, OPEC and Russia remain disciplined oil producers, which is limiting growth in crude output today. Meanwhile, in light of the global growth deceleration, demand for oil has proved surprisingly robust. Demand is likely to pick up further when global growth reaccelerates in the second half of the year. As a result, BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy currently expects additional inventory drawdowns that will only push oil prices higher in an environment of growing global reflation (Chart I-25). A falling dollar would accentuate these developments.   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 27, 2019 Next Report: July 25, 2019   II. The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient Productivity growth is experiencing a cyclical rebound, but remains structurally weak. The end of the deepening of globalization, statistical hurdles, and the possibility that today’s technological advances may not be as revolutionary as past ones all hamper productivity. On the back of rising market power and concentration, companies are increasing markups instead of production. This is depressing productivity and lowering the neutral rate of interest. For now, investors can generate alpha by focusing on consolidating industries. Growing market power cannot last forever and will meet a political wall. Structurally, this will hurt asset prices.   “We don’t have a free market; don’t kid yourself. (…) Businesspeople are enemies of free markets, not friends (…) businesspeople are all in favor of freedom for everybody else (…) but when it comes to their own business, they want to go to Washington to protect their businesses.” Milton Friedman, January 1991. Despite the explosion of applications of growing computing power, U.S. productivity growth has been lacking this cycle. This incapacity to do more with less has weighed on trend growth and on the neutral rate of interest, and has been a powerful force behind the low level of yields at home and abroad. In this report, we look at the different factors and theories advanced to explain the structural decline in productivity. Among them, a steady increase in corporate market power not only goes a long way in explaining the lack of productivity in the U.S., but also the high level of profit margins along with the depressed level of investment and real neutral rates. A Simple Cyclical Explanation The decline in productivity growth is both a structural and cyclical story. Historically, productivity growth has followed economic activity. When demand is strong, businesses can generate more revenue and therefore produce more. The historical correlation between U.S. nonfarm business productivity and the ISM manufacturing index illustrates this relationship (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity Chart II-2Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Since 2008, as households worked off their previous over-indebtedness, the U.S. private sector has experienced its longest deleveraging period since the Great Depression. This frugality has depressed demand and contributed to lower growth this cycle. Since productivity is measured as output generated by unit of input, weak demand growth has depressed productivity statistics. On this dimension, the brief deleveraging experience of the early 1990s is instructive: productivity picked up only after 1993, once the private sector began to accumulate debt faster than the pace of GDP growth (Chart II-2). The recent pick-up in productivity reflects these debt dynamics. Since 2009, the U.S. non-financial private sector has stopped deleveraging, removing one anchor on demand, allowing productivity to blossom. Moreover, the pick-up in capex from 2017 to present is also helping productivity by raising the capital-to-workers ratio. While this is a positive development for the U.S. economy, the decline in productivity nonetheless seems structural, as the five-year moving average of labor productivity growth remains near its early 1980s nadir (Chart II-3). Something else is at play. The Usual Suspects Three major forces are often used to explain why observed productivity growth is currently in decline: A slowdown in global trade penetration, the fact that statisticians do not have a good grasp on productivity growth in a service-based economy, and innovation that simply isn’t what it used to be. Slowdown In Global Trade Penetration Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo argued that due to competitive advantages, countries should always engage in trade to increase their economic welfare. This insight has laid the foundation of the argument that exchanges between nations maximizes the utilization of resources domestically and around the world. Rarely was this argument more relevant than over the past 40 years. On the heels of the supply-side revolution of the early 1980s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization took off. The share of the world's population participating in the global capitalist system rose from 30% in 1985 to nearly 100% today. The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development. Generating elevated productivity gains is simpler when a country’s capital stock is underdeveloped: each unit of investment grows the capital-to-labor ratio by a greater proportion. As a result, productivity – which reflects the capital-to-worker ratio – can grow quickly. As more poor countries have joined the global economy and benefitted from FDI and other capital inflows, their productivity has flourished. Consequently, even if productivity growth has been poor in advanced economies over the past 10 years, global productivity has remained high and has tracked the share of exports in global GDP (Chart II-4). Chart II-4The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth This globalization tailwind to global productivity growth is dissipating. First, following an investment boom where poor decisions were made, EM productivity growth has been declining. Second, with nearly 100% of the world’s labor supply already participating in the global economy, it is increasingly difficult to expand the share of global trade in global GDP and increase the benefit of cross-border specialization. Finally, the popular backlash in advanced economies against globalization could force global trade into reverse. As economic nationalism takes hold, cross-border investments could decline, moving the world economy further away from an optimal allocation of capital. These forces may explain why global productivity peaked earlier this decade. Productivity Is Mismeasured Recently deceased luminary Martin Feldstein argued that the structural decline in productivity is an illusion. As the argument goes, productivity is not weak; it is only underestimated. This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity. A parallel with the introduction of electricity in the late 19th century often comes to mind. Back then, U.S. statistical agencies found it difficult to disentangle price changes from quantity changes in the quickly growing revenues of electrical utilities. As a result, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics overestimated price changes in the early 20th century, which depressed the estimated output growth of utilities by a similar factor. Since productivity is measured as output per unit of labor, this also understated actual productivity growth – not just for utilities but for the economy as a whole. Ultimately, overall productivity growth was revised upward. Chart II-5Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth In today’s economy, this could be a larger problem, as 70% of output is generated in the service sector. Estimating productivity growth is much harder in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector, as there is no actual countable output to measure. Thus, distinguishing price increases from quantity or quality improvements is challenging. Adding to this difficulty, the service sector is one of the main beneficiaries of the increase in computational power currently disrupting industries around the world. The growing share of components of the consumer price index subject to hedonic adjustments highlight this challenge (Chart II-5). Estimating quality changes is hard and may bias the increase in prices in the economy. If prices are unreliably measured, so will output and productivity. Chart II-6A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity Pushing The Production Frontier Is Increasingly Hard Another school of thought simply accepts that productivity growth has declined in a structural fashion. It is far from clear that the current technological revolution is much more productivity-enhancing than the introduction of electricity 140 years ago, the development of the internal combustion engine in the late 19th century, the adoption of indoor plumbing, or the discovery of penicillin in 1928. It is easy to overestimate the economic impact of new technologies. At first, like their predecessors, the microprocessor and the internet created entirely new industries. But this is not the case anymore. For all its virtues, e-commerce is only a new method of selling goods and services. Cloud computing is mainly a way to outsource hardware spending. Social media’s main economic value has been to gather more information on consumers, allowing sellers to reach potential buyers in a more targeted way. Without creating entirely new industries, spending on new technologies often ends up cannibalizing spending on older technologies. For example, while Google captures 32.4% of global ad revenues, similar revenues for the print industry have fallen by 70% since their apex in 2000. If new technologies are not as accretive to production as the introduction of previous ones were, productivity growth remains constrained by the same old economic forces of capex, human capital growth and resource utilization. And as Chart II-6 shows, labor input, the utilization of capital and multifactor productivity have all weakened. Some key drivers help understand why productivity growth has downshifted structurally. Chart II-8Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Let’s look at human capital. It is much easier to grow human capital when very few people have a high-school diploma: just make a larger share of your population finish high school, or even better, complete a university degree. But once the share of university-educated citizens has risen, building human capital further becomes increasingly difficult. Chart II-7 illustrates this problem. Growth in educational achievement has been slowing since 1995 in both advanced and developing economies. This means that the growth of human capital is slowing. This is without even wading into whether or not the quality of education has remained constant. Human capital is also negatively impacted by demographic trends. Workers in their forties tend to be at the peak of their careers, with the highest accumulated job know-how. Problematically, these workers represent a shrinking share of the labor force, which is hurting productivity trends (Chart II-8). The capital stock too is experiencing its own headwinds. While Moore’s Law seems more or less intact, the decline in the cost of storing information is clearly decelerating (Chart II-9). Today, quality adjusted IT prices are contracting at a pace of 2.3% per annum, compared to annual declines of 14% at the turn of the millennium. Thus, even if nominal spending in IT investment had remained constant, real investment growth would have sharply decelerated (Chart II-10). But since nominal spending has decelerated greatly from its late 1990s pace, real investment in IT has fallen substantially. The growth of the capital stock is therefore lagging its previous pace, which is hurting productivity growth. Chart II-10The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation Chart II-11A Dearth Of New Businesses   The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development (Chart II-11). New businesses are a large source of productivity gains. Ultimately, 20% of productivity gains have come from small businesses becoming large ones. Think Apple in 1977 versus Apple today. A large decline in the pace of new business formation suggests that fewer seeds have been planted over the past 20 years to generate those enormous productivity explosions than was the case in the previous 50 years. The X Factor: Growing Market Concentration Chart II-12Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor The three aforementioned explanations for the decline in productivity are all appealing, but they generally leave investors looking for more. Why are companies investing less, especially when profit margins are near record highs? Why is inflation low? Why has the pace of new business formation collapsed? These are all somewhat paradoxical. This is where a growing body of works comes in. Our economy is moving away from the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Industry concentration has progressively risen, and few companies dominate their line of business and control both their selling prices and input costs. They behave as monopolies and monopsonies, all at once.1 This helps explain why selling prices have been able to rise relative to unit labor costs, raising margins in the process (Chart II-12). Let’s start by looking at the concept of market concentration. According to Grullon, Larkin and Michaely, sales of the median publicly traded firms, expressed in constant dollars, have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, while real GDP has only increased 70% (Chart II-13).2 The escalation in market concentration is also vividly demonstrated in Chart II-14. The top panel shows that since 1997, most U.S. industries have experienced sharp increases in their Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI),3 a measure of concentration. In fact, more than half of U.S. industries have experienced concentration increases of more than 40%, and as a corollary, more than 75% of industries have seen the number of firms decline by more than 40%. The last panel of the chart also highlights that this increase in concentration has been top-heavy, with a third of industries seeing the market share of their four biggest players rise by more than 40%. Rising market concentration is therefore a broad phenomenon – not one unique to the tech sector.     This rising market concentration has also happened on the employment front. In 1995, less than 24% of U.S. private sector employees worked for firms with 10,000 or more employees, versus nearly 28% today. This does not seem particularly dramatic. However, at the local level, the number of regions where employment is concentrated with one or two large employers has risen. Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum developed Map II-1, which shows that 75% of non-metropolitan areas now have high or extreme levels of employment concentration.4 Chart II-15The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains This growing market power of companies on employment can have a large impact on wages. Chart II-15 shows that real wages have lagged productivity since the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, Chart II-16 plots real wages on the y-axis versus the HHI of applications (top panel) and vacancies (bottom panel). This chart shows that for any given industry, if applicants in a geographical area do not have many options where to apply – i.e. a few dominant employers provide most of the jobs in the region – real wages lag the national average. The more concentrated vacancies as well as applications are with one employer, the greater the discount to national wages in that industry.5 This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity as well as the widening gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan household incomes. Growing market power and concentration do not only compress labor costs, they also result in higher prices for consumers. This seems paradoxical in a world of low inflation. But inflation could have been even lower if market concentration had remained at pre-2000s levels. In 2009, Matthew Weinberg showed that over the previous 22 years, horizontal mergers within an industry resulted in higher prices.6 In a 2014 meta-study conducted by Weinberg along with Orley Ashenfelter and Daniel Hosken, the authors showed that across 49 studies ranging across 21 industries, 36 showed that horizontal mergers resulted in higher prices for consumers.7 While today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins. In a low-inflation environment, the only way for companies to garner pricing power is to decrease competition, and M&As are the quickest way to achieve this goal. After examining nearly 50 merger and antitrust studies spanning more than 3,000 merger cases, John Kwoka found that, following mergers that augmented an industry’s concentration, prices increased in 95% of cases, and on average by 4.5%.8 In no industry is this effect more vividly demonstrated than in the healthcare field, an industry that has undergone a massive wave of consolidation – from hospitals, to pharmacies to drug manufacturers. As Chart II-17 illustrates, between 1980 and 2016, healthcare costs have increased at a much faster pace in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. However, life expectancy increased much less than in other advanced economies. In this context of growing market concentration, it is easy to see why, as De Loecker and Eeckhout have argued, markups have been rising steadily since the 1980s (Chart II-18, top panel) and have tracked M&A activity (Chart II-18, bottom panel).9 In essence, mergers and acquisitions have been the main tool used by firms to increase their concentration. Another tool at their disposal has been the increase in patents. The top panel of Chart II-19 shows that the total number of patent applications in the U.S. has increased by 3.6-fold since the 1980s, but most interestingly, the share of patents coming from large, dominant players within each industry has risen by 10% over the same timeframe (Chart II-19, bottom panel). To use Warren Buffet’s terminology, M&A and patents have been how firms build large “moats” to limit competition and protect their businesses. Chart II-18Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Chart II-19How To Build A Moat?   Why is this rise in market concentration affecting productivity? First, from an empirical perspective, rising markups and concentration tend to lead to lower levels of capex. A recent IMF study shows that the more concentrated industries become, the higher the corporate savings rate goes (Chart II-20, top panel).10 These elevated savings reflect wider markups, but also firms with markups in the top decile of the distribution display significantly lower investment rates (Chart II-20, bottom panel). If more of the U.S. output is generated by larger, more concentrated firms, this leads to a lower pace of increase in the capital stock, which hurts productivity.   Second, downward pressure on real wages is also linked to a drag on productivity. Monopolies and oligopolies are not incentivized to maximize output. In fact, for any market, a monopoly should lead to lower production than perfect competition would. Diagram II-I from De Loecker and Eeckhout shows that moving from perfect competition to a monopoly results in a steeper labor demand curve as the monopolist produces less. As a result, real wages move downward and the labor participation force declines. Does this sound familiar? The rise of market power might mean that in some way Martin Feldstein was right about productivity being mismeasured – just not the way he anticipated. In a June 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, Peter Berezin showed that labor-saving technologies like AI and robotics, which are increasingly being deployed today, could lead to lower wages (Chart II-21).11 For a given level of technology in the economy, productivity is positively linked to real wages but inversely linked to markups – especially if the technology is of the labor-saving kind. So, if markups rise on the back of firms’ growing market power, the ensuing labor savings will not be used to increase actual input. Rather, corporate savings will rise. Thus, while today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins.12 Unsurprisingly, return on assets and market concentration are positively correlated (Chart II-22).     Finally, market power and concentration weighing on capex, wages and productivity are fully consistent with higher returns of cash to shareholders and lower interest rates. The higher profits and lower capex liberate cash flows available to be redistributed to shareholders. Moreover, lower capex also depresses demand for savings in the economy, while weak wages depress middle-class incomes, which hurts aggregate demand. Additionally, higher corporate savings increases the wealth of the richest households, who have a high marginal propensity to save. This results in higher savings for the economy. With a greater supply of savings and lower demand for those savings, the neutral rate of interest has been depressed. Investment Implications First, in an environment of low inflation, investors should continue to favor businesses that can generate higher markups via pricing power. Equity investors should therefore continue to prefer industries where horizontal mergers are still increasing market concentration. Second, so long as the status quo continues, wages will have a natural cap, and so will the neutral rate of interest. This does not mean that wage growth cannot increase further on a cyclical basis, but it means that wages are unlikely to blossom as they did in the late 1960s, even within a very tight labor market. Without too-severe an inflation push from wages, the business cycle could remain intact even longer, keeping a window open for risk assets to rise further on a cyclical basis. Third, long-term investors need to keep a keen eye on the political sphere. A much more laissez-faire approach to regulation, a push toward self-regulation, and a much laxer enforcement of antitrust laws and merger rules were behind the rise in market power and concentration.13 The particularly sharp ascent of populism in Anglo-Saxon economies, where market power increased by the greatest extent, is not surprising. So far, populists have not blamed the corporate sector, but if the recent antitrust noise toward the Silicon Valley behemoths is any indication, the clock is ticking. On a structural basis, this could be very negative for asset prices. An end to this rise in market power would force profit margins to mean-revert toward their long-term trend, which is 4.7 percentage-points below current levels. This will require discounting much lower cash flows in the future. Additionally, by raising wages and capex, more competition would increase aggregate demand and lift real interest rates. Higher wages and aggregate demand could also structurally lift inflation. Thus, not only will investors need to discount lower cash flows, they will have to do so at higher discount rates. As a result, this cycle will likely witness both a generational peak in equity valuations as well as structural lows in bond yields. As we mentioned, these changes are political in nature. We will look forward to studying the political angle of this thesis to get a better handle on when these turning points will likely emerge. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Over the past two weeks, the ECB has made a dovish pivot, President Trump announced he would meet President Xi, and the Fed telegraphed a rate cut for July. In response, the S&P 500 made marginal new highs before softening anew. This lack of continuation after such an incredible alignment of stars shows that the bulls lack conviction. These dynamics increase the probability that the market sells off after the G-20 meeting, as we saw last December following the supposed truce in Buenos Aires. The short-term outlook remains dangerous. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) confirms this intuition. 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 readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if stong market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Cheaper valuations, a pick-up in global growth or an actual policy easing is required before stocks can resume their ascent. The cyclical outlook is brighter than the tactical one. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan continues to improve. However, it remains flat in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. In aggregate, the WTP currently suggests that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Hence, we expect global investors will continue to buy the dips. Our Monetary Indicator is moving deeper into stimulative territory, supporting our cyclically constructive equity view. The Fed and the ECB are set to cut rates while other global central banks have been opening the monetary spigots. This will support global monetary conditions. The BCA Composite Valuation Indicator, an amalgamation of 11 measures, is in overvalued territory, but it is not high enough to negate the positive message from our Monetary Indicator, especially as our Composite Technical Indicator remains above its 9-month moving average. These dynamics confirm that despite the near-term downside, equities have more cyclical upside. According to our model, 10-year Treasurys are now expensive. Moreover, our technical indicator is increasingly overbought while the CRB Raw Industrials is oversold, a combination that often heralds the end of bond rallies. Additionally, duration surveys show that investors have very elevated portfolio duration, and both the term premium and Fed expectations are very depressed. Considering this technical backdrop, BCA’s economic view implies minimal short-term downside for yields, but significant downside for Treasury prices over the upcoming year. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar remains very expensive. Additionally, after forming a negative divergence with prices, our Composite Technical Indicator is falling quickly. Being a momentum currency, the dollar could suffer significant downside if this indicator falls below zero. Monitor these developments closely. 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 ComponentsChart 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   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Give Credit Where Credit Is Due," dated November 27, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Europe: Here I Am, Stuck In A Liquidity Trap," dated April 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4       Money demand is mostly driven by the level of activity and wealth. If the price of money – interest rates – is growing more slowly than money demand, the most likely cause is that money supply is increasing faster than money demand and policy is accommodative. 5       A monopsony is a firm that controls the price of its input because it is the dominant, if not unique, buyer of said input. 6       G. Grullon, Y. Larkin and R. Michaely, “Are Us Industries Becoming More Concentrated?,” April 2017. 7       The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is calculated by taking the market share of each firm in the industry, squaring them, and summing the result. Consider a hypothetical industry with four total firm where firm1, firm2, firm3 and firm4 has 40%, 30%, 15% and 15% of market share, respectively. Then HHI is 402+302+152+152 = 2,950. 8       J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 9     J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 10     M. Weinberg, “The Price Effects Of Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 433–447. 11     O. Ashenfelter, D. Hosken, M. Weinberg, "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages S67 - S100. 12    J. Kwoka, “Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: A Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Policy,” MIT Press, 2015. 13     J. De Loecker, J. Eeckhout, G. Unger, "The Rise Of Market Power And The Macroeconomic Implications," Mimeo 2018. 14     “Chapter 2: The Rise of Corporate Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Effects,” World Economic Outlook, April 2019. 15     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?"dated May 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16     Productivity can be written as: 17     J. Tepper, D. Hearn, “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Wiley, November 2018. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights A rare market trifecta – propelled by investors seeking safe-haven assets, inflation hedges in the wake of the Fed’s dovish turn this past week, and portfolio diversification – will continue to keep gold well bid. It would only be natural for gold to have an episode of profit taking in the short term, following its 6.4% jump from ~ $1,340/oz beginning in mid-June. That said, we would use any profit-taking episode to get long gold, following its decisive break through resistance at $1,365/oz to a six-year high of $1,423.44/oz in New York spot trading on Tuesday, according to Bloomberg. The next significant resistance we see is at $1,790/oz. Energy: Overweight. Iran’s oil exports have fallen to ~ 300k b/d so far in June, according to Refinitiv Eikon, a data provider owned by Blackrock and Thomson Reuters. In mid-2018, exports exceeded 2.5mm b/d. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) re-assured markets its spare capacity allows it to meet customer demand. Separately, the U.S. EIA reported commercial crude oil inventories in the fell 12.8mm bbl, during the week ended June 21, 2019. This likely reflects the end of the longer-than-usual refinery turn-around season in the U.S. Base Metals: Neutral. Reduced copper concentrate supplies on the back of strike action at Codelco’s Chuquicamata mine in Chile have clobbered the Fastmarkets MB Asia – Pacific treatment and refining index, which stood at $53.50/MT June 21, its lowest level since 2013. A low index level indicates tight physical supplies. We are taking profits on our long September $3.00/lb COMEX copper calls vs. short September $3.30/lb COMEX copper calls at tonight's close. The position was up 192% at Tuesday's close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Markets await a possible re-start of Sino – U.S. trade talks at this weekend’s meeting in Osaka between presidents Xi and Trump at the G20. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA Crop Progress again showed corn planting behind schedule, clocking in at 96% vs. 100% on average this time of year. Corn emergence also is behind schedule, at 89% vs. an average 99% at this time of year. Only 56% of the crop was reported to be in good or excellent condition, vs. 77% last year at this time. We expect corn to remain well bid. Feature The three main drivers of gold demand – safe-haven buying, inflation hedging and portfolio diversification – will continue to sustain the metal’s powerful rally. Safe-haven demand propelled gold toward long-term resistance at $1,365/oz in mid-June, as the U.S. – Iran showdown in the Persian Gulf intensified. As U.S. messaging becomes more internally inconsistent – particularly the resolve of America to continue to safeguard freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz – uncertainty as to how the showdown will resolve increases. In response to recent attacks on commercial oil-product tankers near the Strait of Hormuz – where close to 20% of the world’s oil supply transits daily – the U.S. has deployed close to 30,000 military personnel to the Persian Gulf region, the highest level of sailors deployed anywhere in the world. However, President Trump has said he is willing to leave the U.S.’s resolve to defend freedom of navigation through the Strait “a question mark.”1 This will continue to keep a safe-haven bid under gold, until markets receive clarity on the U.S.’s commitment to its historical role, and resolution in one form or another on the showdown in the Gulf. Fed’s Dovish Turn Bullish For Gold As unnerving to markets as the showdown in the Gulf is, it was the Fed’s unexpectedly dovish turn this past week that really turbo-charged gold prices, pushing them through $1,400/oz. Although inflation does not appear to be a huge risk to the U.S. economy, we do expect the U.S. CPI to move higher in 2H19. With the U.S. economy remaining at or close to full employment, investors realized the “insurance cut” telegraphed by the U.S. central bank for next month’s Board of Governors meeting stands a very good chance of finally goosing inflation higher, and re-anchoring inflation expectations later this year, which have been moving lower since 2H18 (Chart of the Week). Indeed, as Peter Berezin notes, “The fact that market-based inflation expectations have dropped sharply since last autumn has clearly influenced the Fed’s thinking.”2 The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge (UIG) already is registering a build-up in U.S. inflationary pressures (Chart 2). Although inflation does not appear to be a huge risk to the U.S. economy, we do expect the U.S. CPI to move higher in 2H19, something we believe investors already are embedding in gold prices. Chart of the WeekThe Fed Wants Inflation Expectations Higher Chart 2Underlying Inflation Trends Indicate Higher U.S. Inflation   USD Weakness Will Support Gold Chart 3Weaker USD Will Boost Gold Prices The Fed’s more accommodative policy also will push the broad USD trade-weighted index (TWI) lower, which will be bullish for gold as well (Chart 3). U.S. CPI and the broad USD TWI are two of the strongest explanatory variables for gold prices we have found in our modeling, along with real U.S. interest rates.3 Expect Profit-Taking Technically, the sharp rally in gold prices over the short term is pushing gold prices toward “overbought” territory, which is why we are expecting a round of profit-taking in the near term (Chart 4). Our Gold Composite Indicator moved up half a standard deviation since the start of the year, thanks to the above-mentioned trifecta. This move took the metal from a neutral position at the beginning of the year into a relatively mild overbought level. With the sharp rally over the past two weeks, gold now appears to be mildly overbought.4 Gold’s price performance is outstripping our equity risk-premium indicator, which measures the difference between the S&P 500 earnings yield (i.e., the inverse of the forward price/earnings ratio) and real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 5). This is not unexpected, and may be something of a catch-up following the strong gains put up by the equity index relative to gold last year. Chart 4Short-Term Profit-Taking Likely In Gold Market Chart 5Gold Price Gain Outstrips Equity Risk Premium Gold’s price performance is outstripping our equity risk-premium indicator. Bottom Line: Gold prices to remain well supported by a rare market trifecta – investors seeking safe-haven assets, inflation hedges following the Fed’s dovish turn this past week, and portfolio diversification. We are expecting a round of profit taking in gold over the short term. We would use these brief selloffs to get long gold. The next significant resistance we see is at $1,790/oz.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the June 20, 2019 Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices" – particularly the section entitled “Will The U.S. Defend Gulf Sea Lanes?” beginning on p. 3. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also More U.S. Navy Personnel Deployed to Middle East Than Anywhere Else published by usni.org June 24, 2019. 2 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Gentle Jay," for BCA Research’s appraisal of last week Fed board of governors meeting. Published June 21, 2019. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. In it, our Chief Global Investment strategist Peter Berezin notes, “Right now, rising inflation is not much of a risk. However, the Fed’s dovish turn almost guarantees that the U.S. economy will overheat.” See also “The Fed’s Got Your Back,” published by BCA Research’s U.S. Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy June 25, 2019. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 We have found inflation and U.S. financial variables – particularly the USD broad trade-weighted index, and real U.S. interest rates – are the chief variables explaining gold prices. Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold,” published by October 12, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Our Gold Composite Indicator combines sentiment, speculative-position levels, relative strength, and momentum gauges to characterize overbought and oversold conditions. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights We update our long-range forecasts of returns from a range of asset classes – equities, bonds, alternatives, and currencies – and make some refinements to the methodologies we used in our last report in November 2017. We add coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, and include Emerging Markets debt, gold, and global Real Estate in our analysis for the first time. Generally, our forecasts are slightly higher than 18 months ago: we expect an annual return in nominal terms over the next 10-year years of 1.7% from global bonds, and 5.9% from global equities – up from 1.5% and 4.6% respectively in the last edition. Cheaper valuations in a number of equity markets, especially Japan, the euro zone, and Emerging Markets explain the higher return assumptions. Nonetheless, a balanced global portfolio is likely to return only 4.7% a year in the long run, compared to 6.3% over the past 20 years. That is lower than many investors are banking on. Feature Since we published our first attempt at projecting long-term returns for a range of asset classes in November 2017, clients have shown enormous interest in this work. They have also made numerous suggestions on how we could improve our methodologies and asked us to include additional asset classes. This Special Report updates the data, refines some of our assumptions, and adds coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, as well as gold, global Real Estate, and global REITs. Our basic philosophy has not changed. Many of the methodologies are carried over from the November 2017 edition, and clients interested in more detailed explanations should also refer to that report.1 Our forecast time horizon is 10-15 years. We deliberately keep this vague, and avoid trying to forecast over a 3-7 year time horizon, as is common in many capital market assumptions reports. The reason is that we want to avoid predicting the timing and gravity of the next recession, but rather aim to forecast long-term trend growth irrespective of cycles. This type of analysis is, by nature, as much art as science. We start from the basis that historical returns, at least those from the past 10 or 20 years, are not very useful. Asset allocators should not use historical returns data in mean variance optimizers and other portfolio-construction models. For example, over the past 20 years global bonds have returned 5.3% a year. With many long-term government bonds currently yielding zero or less, it is mathematically almost impossible that returns will be this high over the coming decade or so. Our analysis points to a likely annual return from global bonds of only 1.7%. Our approach is based on building-blocks. There are some factors we know with a high degree of certainly: such as the return on U.S. 10-year Treasury yields over the next 10 years (to all intents and purposes, it is the current yield). Many fundamental drivers of return (credit spreads, the small-cap premium, the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, stock price multiples etc.) are either steady on average over the cycle, or mean revert. For less certain factors, such as economic growth, inflation, or equilibrium short-term interest rates, we can make sensible assumptions. Most of the analysis in this report is based on the 20-year history of these factors. We used 20 years because data is available for almost all the asset classes we cover for this length of time (there are some exceptions, for example corporate bond data for Australia and Emerging Markets go back only to 2004-5, and global REITs start only in 2008). The period from May 1999 to April 2019 is also reasonable since it covers two recessions and two expansions, and started at a point in the cycle that is arguably similar to where we are today. Some will argue that it includes the Technology bubble of 1999-2000, when stock valuations were high, and that we should use a longer period. But the lack of data for many assets classes before the 1990s (though admittedly not for equities) makes this problematic. Also, note that the historical returns data for the 20 years starting in May 1999 are quite low – 5.8% for U.S. equities, for example. This is because the starting-point was quite late in the cycle, as we probably also are now.   We make the following additions and refinements to our analysis: Add coverage of the U.K., Australia, and Canada for both fixed income and equities. Add coverage of Emerging Markets debt: U.S. dollar and local-currency sovereign bonds, and dollar-denominated corporate credit. Among alternative assets, add coverage of gold, global Direct Real Estate, and global REITs. Improve the methodology for many alt asset classes, shifting from reliance on historical returns to an approach based on building blocks – for example, current yield plus an estimation of future capital appreciation – similar to our analysis of other asset classes. In our discussion of currencies, add for easy reference of readers a table of assumed returns for all the main asset classes expressed in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD (using our forecasts of long-run movements in these currencies). Added Sharpe ratios to our main table of assumptions. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in U.S. dollars). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of this exercise, our return projections have in general not moved much compared to those in November 2017. Indeed, markets look rather similar today to 18 months ago: the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% at end-April (our data cut-off point), compared to 2.3%, and the trailing PE for U.S. stocks 21.0, compared to 21.6. If anything, the overall assumption for a balanced portfolio (of 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% equal-weighted alts) has risen slightly compared to the 2017 edition: to 4.7% from 4.1% for a global portfolio, and to 4.9% from 4.6% for a purely U.S. one. That is partly because we include specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia, and Canada, where returns are expected to be slightly higher than for the markets we limited our forecasts to previously, the U.S, euro zone, Japan, and Emerging Markets (EM). Equity returns are also forecast to be higher than 18 months ago, mainly because several markets now are cheaper: trailing PE for Japan has fallen to 13.1x from 17.6x, for the euro zone to 15.5x from 18.0x, and for Emerging Markets to 13.6x from 15.4x (and more sophisticated valuation measures show the same trend). The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, based on our analysis, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. We include Sharpe ratios in Table 1 for the first time. We calculate them as expected return/expected volatility to allow for comparison between different asset classes, rather than as excess return over cash/volatility as is strictly correct, and as should be used in mean variance optimizers. Chart 1Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns For volatility assumptions, we mostly use the 20-year average volatility of each asset class. As discussed above, historical returns should not be used to forecast future returns. But volatility does not trend much over the long-term (Chart 1). We looked carefully at volatility trends for all the asset classes we cover, but did not find a strong example of a trend decline or rise in any. We do, however, adjust the historic volatility of the illiquid, appraisal-based alternative assets, such as Private Equity, Real Estate, and Farmland. The reported volatility is too low, for example 2.6% in the case of U.S. Direct Real Estate. Even using statistical techniques to desmooth the return produces a volatility of only around 7%. We choose, therefore, to be conservative, and use the historic volatility on REITs (21%) and apply this to Direct Real Estate too. For Private Equity (historic volatility 5.9%), we use the volatility on U.S. listed small-cap stocks (18.6%). Looking at the forecast Sharpe ratios, the risk-adjusted return on global bonds (0.55) is somewhat higher than that of global equities (0.33). Credit continues to look better than equities: Sharpe ratio of 0.70 for U.S. investment grade debt and 0.62 for high-yield bonds. Nonetheless, our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. Over the past 20 years a global balanced portfolio (defined as above) returned 6.3% and a similar U.S. portfolio 7.0%. We expect 4.7% and 4.9% respectively in future. Investors working on the assumption of a 7-8% nominal return – as is typical among U.S. pension funds, for example – need to become realistic. Below follow detailed descriptions of how we came up with our assumptions for each asset class (fixed income, equities, and alternatives), followed by our forecasts of long-term currency movements, and a brief discussion of correlations. 1. Fixed Income We carry over from the previous edition our building-block approach to estimating returns from fixed income. One element we know with a relatively high degree of certainty is the return over the next 10 years from 10-year government bonds in developed economies: one can safely assume that it will be the same as the current 10-year yield. It is not mathematical identical, of course, since this calculation does not take into account reinvestment of coupons, or default risk, but it is a fair assumption. We can make some reasonable assumptions for returns from cash, based on likely inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate in different countries. After this, our methodology is to assume that other historic relationships (corporate bond spreads, default and recovery rates, the shape of the yield curve etc.) hold over the long run and that, therefore, the current level reverts to its historic mean. The results of our analysis, and the assumptions we use, are shown in Table 2. Full details of the methodology follow below. Table 2Fixed Income Return Calculations Projected returns have not changed significantly from the 2017 edition of this report. In the U.S., for the current 10-year Treasury bond yield we used 2.4% (the three-month average to end-April), very similar to the 2.3% on which we based our analysis in 2017. In the euro zone and Japan, yields have fallen a little since then, with the 10-year German Bund now yielding roughly 0%, compared to 0.5% in 2017, and the Japanese Government Bond -0.1% compared to zero. Overall, we expect the Bloomberg Barclays Global Index to give an annual nominal return of 1.7% over the coming 10-15 years, slightly up from the assumption of 1.5% in the previous edition. This small rise is due to the slight increase in the U.S. long-term risk-free rate, and to the inclusion for the first time of specific estimates for returns in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Fixed Income Methodologies Cash. We forecast the long-run rate on 3-month government bills by generating assumptions for inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate. For inflation, in most countries we use the 20-year average of CPI inflation, for example 2.2% in the U.S. and 1.7% in the euro zone. This suggests that both the Fed and the ECB will slightly miss their inflation targets on the downside over the coming decade (the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but the PCE measure is on average about 0.5% below CPI inflation). Of course, this assumes that the current inflation environment will continue. BCA’s view is that inflation risks are significantly higher than this, driven by structural factors such as demographics, populism, and the advent of ultra-unorthodox monetary policy.2 But we see this as an alternative scenario rather than one that we should use in our return assumptions for now. Japan’s inflation has averaged 0.1% over the past 20 years, but we used 1% on the grounds that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) should eventually see some success from its quantitative easing. For the equilibrium real rate we use the New York Fed’s calculation based on the Laubach-Williams model for the U.S., euro zone, U.K., and Canada. For Japan, we use the BoJ’s estimate, and for Australia (in the absence of an official forecast of the equilibrium rate) we take the average real cash rate over the past 20 years. Finally, we assume that the cash yield will move from its current level to the equilibrium over 10 years. Government Bonds. Using the 10-year bond yield as an anchor, we calculate the return for the government bond index by assuming that the spread between 7- and 10-year bonds, and between 3-month bills and 10-year bonds will average the same over the next 10 years as over the past 20. While the shape of the yield curve swings around significantly over the cycle, there is no sign that is has trended in either direction (Chart 2). The average maturity of government bonds included in the index varies between countries: we use the five-year historic average for each, for example, 5.8 years for the U.S., and 10.2 years for Japan. Spread Product. Like government bonds, spreads and default rates are highly cyclical, but fairly stable in the long run (Chart 3). We use the 20-year average of these to derive the returns for investment-grade bonds, high-yield (HY) bonds, government-related securities (e.g. bonds issued by state-owned entities, or provincial governments), and securitized bonds (e.g. asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities). For example, for U.S. high-yield we use the average spread of 550 basis points over Treasuries, default rate of 3.8%, and recovery rate of 45%. For many countries, default and recovery rates are not available and so we, for example, use the data from the U.S. (but local spreads) to calculate the return for high-yield bonds in the euro zone and the U.K. Inflation-Linked Bonds. We use the average yield over the past 10 years (not 20, since for many countries data does not go back that far and, moreover, TIPs and their equivalents have been widely used for only a relatively short period.) We calculate the return as the average real yield plus forecast inflation. Chart 2Yield Curves Chart 3Credit Spreads & Default Rates     Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Indexes. We use the weights of each category and country (from among those we forecast) to derive the likely return from the index. The composition of each country’s index varies widely: for example, in the euro zone (27% of the global bond index), government bonds comprise 66% of the index, but in the U.S. only 37%. Only the U.S. and Canada have significant weightings in corporate bonds: 29% and 50% respectively. This can influence the overall return for each country’s index. Table 3Emerging Market Debt Emerging Market Debt. We add coverage of EMD: sovereign bonds in both local currency and U.S. dollars, and USD-denominated EM corporate debt. Again, we take the 20-year average spread over 10-year U.S. Treasuries for each category. A detailed history of default and recovery is not available, so for EM corporate debt we assume similar rates to those for U.S. HY bonds. For sovereign bonds, we make a simple assumption of 0.5% of losses per year – although in practice this is likely to be very lumpy, with few defaults for years, followed by a rush during an EM crisis. For EM local currency debt, we assume that EM currencies will depreciate on average each year in line with the difference between U.S. inflation and EM inflation (using the IMF forecast for both – please see the Currency section below for further discussion on this). After these calculations, we conclude that EM USD sovereign bonds will produce an annual return of 4.7%, and EM USD corporate bonds 4.5% – in both cases a little below the 5.6% return assumption we have for U.S. high-yield debt (Table 3).   2. Equities Our equity methodologies are largely unchanged from the previous edition. We continue to use the return forecast from six different methodologies to produce an average assumed return. Table 4 shows the results and a summary of the calculation for each methodology. The explanation for the six methodologies follows below. Table 4Equity Return Calculations The results suggest slightly higher returns than our projections in 2017. We forecast global equities to produce a nominal annual total return in USD of 5.9%, compared to 4.6% previously. The difference is partly due to the inclusion for the first time of specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia and Canada, which are projected to see 8.0%, 7.4% and 6.0% returns respectively. The projection for the U.S. is fairly similar to 2017, rising slightly to 5.6% from 5.0% (mainly due to a slightly higher assumption for productivity growth in future, which boosts the nominal GDP growth assumption). Japan, however, does come out looking significantly more attractive than previously, with an assumed return of 6.2%, compared to 3.5% previously. This is mostly due to cheaper valuations, since the growth outlook has not improved meaningfully. Japan now trades on a trailing PE of 13.1x, compared to 17.6x in 2017. This helps improve the return indicated by a number of the methodologies, including earnings yield and Shiller PE. The forecast for euro zone equities remains stable at 4.7%. EM assumptions range more widely, depending on the methodology used, than do those for DM. On valuation-based measures (Shiller PE, earnings yield etc.), EM generally shows strong return assumptions. However, on a growth-based model it looks less attractive. We continue to use two different assumptions for GDP growth in EM. Growth Model (1) is based on structural reform taking place in Emerging Markets, which would allow productivity growth to rebound from its current level of 3.2% to the 20-year average of 4.1%; Growth Model (2) assumes no reform and that productivity growth will continue to decline, converging with the DM average, 1.1%, over the next 10 years. In both cases, the return assumption is dragged down by net issuance, which we assume will continue at the 10-year average of 4.9% a year. Our composite projection for EM equity returns (in local currencies) comes out at 6.6%, a touch higher than 6.0% in 2017. Equity Methodologies Equity Risk Premium (ERP). This is the simplest methodology, based on the concept that equities in the long run outperform the long-term risk-free rate (we use the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield) by a margin that is fairly stable over time. We continue to use 3.5% as the ERP for the U.S., based on analysis by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of the average ERP for developed markets since 1900. We have, however, tweaked the methodology this time to take into account the differing volatility of equity markets, which should translate into higher returns over time. Thus we use a beta of 1.2 for the euro zone, 0.8 for Japan, 0.9 for the U.K., 1.1 for both Australia and Canada, and 1.3 for Emerging Markets. The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. Growth Model. This is based on a Gordon growth model framework that postulates that equity returns are a function of dividend yield at the starting point, plus the growth of earnings in future (we assume that the dividend payout ratio stays constant). We base earnings growth off assumptions of nominal GDP growth (see Box 1 for how we calculate these). But historically there is strong evidence that large listed company earnings underperform nominal GDP growth by around 1 percentage point a year (largely because small, unlisted companies tend to show stronger growth than the mature companies that dominate the index) and so we deduct this 1% to reach the earnings growth forecast. We also need to adjust dividend yield for share buybacks which in the U.S., for tax reasons, have added 0.5% to shareholder returns over the past 10 years (net of new share issuance). In other countries, however, equity issuance is significantly larger than buybacks; this directly impacts shareholders’ returns via dilution. For developed markets, the impact of net equity issuance deducts 0.7%-2.7% from shareholder returns annually. But the impact is much bigger in Emerging Markets, where dilution has reduced returns by an average of 4.9% over the past 10 years. Table 5 shows that China is by far the biggest culprit, especially Chinese banks. Table 5Dilution In Emerging Markets BOX 1 Estimating GDP Growth We estimate nominal GDP growth for the countries and regions in our analysis as the sum of: annual growth in the working-age population, productivity growth, and inflation (we assume that capital deepening remains stable over the period). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth For population growth, we use the United Nations’ median scenario for annual growth in the population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030. This shows that the euro zone and Japan will see significant declines in the working population. The U.S. and U.K. look slightly better, with the working population projected to grow by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively. There are some uncertainties in these estimates. Stricter immigration policies would reduce the growth. Conversely, greater female participation, a later retirement age, longer working hours, or a rise in the participation rate would increase it. For emerging markets we used the UN estimate for “less developed regions, excluding least developed countries”. These countries have, on average, better demographics. However, the average number hides the decline in the working-age population in a number of important EM countries, for example China (where the working-age population is set to shrink by 0.2% a year), Korea (-0.4%), and Russia (-1.1%). By contrast, working population will grow by 1.7% a year in Mexico and 1.6% in India. For productivity growth, we assume – perhaps somewhat optimistically – that the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis will reverse and that each country will return to the average annual productivity growth of the past 20 years (Chart 4). Our argument is that the cyclical factors that depressed productivity since the GFC (for example, companies’ reluctance to spend on capex, and shareholders’ preference for companies to pay out profits rather than to invest) should eventually fade, and that structural and technical factors (tight labor markets, increasing automation, technological breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics) should boost productivity. Based on this assumption, U.S. productivity growth would average 2.0% over the next 10-15 years, compared to 0.5% since 1999. Note that this is a little higher than the Congressional Budgetary Office’s assumption for labor productivity growth of 1.8% a year. Chart 4AProductivity Growth (I) Chart 4BProductivity Growth (II) Our assumptions for inflation are as described above in the section on Fixed Income. The overall results suggest that Japan will see the lowest nominal GDP growth, at 0.9% a year, with the U.S. growing at 4.4%. The U.K. and Australia come out only a little lower than the U.S. For emerging markets, as described in the main text, we use two scenarios: one where productivity grow continues to slow in the absence of reforms, especially in China, from the current 3.2% to converge with the average in DM (1.1%) over the next 10-15 years; and an alternative scenario where reforms boost productivity back to the 20-year average of 4.1%.   Growth Plus Reversion To Mean For Margins And Profits. There is logic in arguing that profit margins and multiples tend to revert to the mean over the long term. If margins are particularly high currently, profit growth will be significantly lower than the above methodology would suggest; multiple contraction would also lower returns. Here we add to the Growth Model above an assumption that net profit margin and trailing PE will steadily revert to the 20-year average for each country over the 10-15 years. For most countries, margins are quite high currently compared to history: 9.2% in the U.S., for example, compared to a 20-year average of 7.7%. Multiples, however, are not especially high. Even in the U.S. the trailing PE of 21.0x, compares to a 20-year average of 20.8x (although that admittedly is skewed by the ultra-high valuations in 1999-2000, and coming out of the 2007-9 recession – we would get a rather lower number if we used the 40-year average). Indeed, in all the other countries and regions, the PE is currently lower than the 20-year average. Note that for Japan, we assumed that the PE would revert to the 20-year average of the U.S. and the euro zone (19.2), rather than that of Japan itself (distorted by long periods of negative earnings, and periods of PE above 50x in the 1990s and 2000s).  Earnings Yield. This is intuitively a neat way of thinking about future returns. Investors are rewarded for owning equity, either by the company paying a dividend, or by reinvesting its earnings and paying a dividend in future. If one assumes that future return on capital will be similar to ROC today (admittedly a rash assumption in the case of fast-growing companies which might be tempted to invest too aggressively in the belief that they can continue to generate rapid growth) it should be immaterial to the investor which the company chooses. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between the earnings yield (the inverse of the trailing PE) and subsequent equity returns, although in the past two decades the return has been somewhat higher that the EY suggested, and so in future might be somewhat lower. This methodology produces an assumed return for U.S. equities of 4.8% a year. Shiller PE. BCA’s longstanding view is that valuation is not a good timing tool for equity investment, but that it is crucial to forecasting long-term returns. Chart 5 shows that there is a good correlation in most markets between the Shiller PE (current share price divided by 10-year average inflation-adjusted earnings) and subsequent 10-year equity returns. We use a regression of these two series to derive the assumptions. This points to returns ranging from 5.4% in the case of the U.S. to 12.5% for the U.K. Composite Valuation Indicator. There are some issues that make the Shiller PE problematical. It uses a fixed 10-year period, whereas cycles vary in length. It tends to make countries look cheap when they have experienced a trend decline in earnings (which may continue, and not mean revert) and vice versa. So we also use a proprietary valuation indicator comprising a range of standard parameters (including price/book, price/cash, market cap/GDP, Tobin’s Q etc.), and regress this against 10-year returns. The results are generally similar to those using the Shiller PE, except that Japan shows significantly higher assumed returns, and the U.K. and EM significantly lower ones (Chart 6). Chart 5Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Chart 6Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return     3. Alternative Investments We continue to forecast each illiquid alternative investment separately, but we have made a number of changes to our methodologies. Mostly these involve moving away from using historical returns as a basis for our forecasts, and shifting to an approach based on current yield plus projected future capital appreciation. In direct real estate, for example, in 2017 we relied on a regression of historical returns against U.S. nominal GDP growth. We move in this edition to an approach based on the current cap rate, plus capital appreciation (based on forecasts of nominal GDP growth), and taking into account maintenance costs (details below). We also add coverage of some additional asset classes: global ex-U.S. direct real estate, global ex-U.S. REITs, and gold. Table 7 summarizes our assumptions, and provides details of historic returns and volatility. Table 7Alternatives Return Calculations It is worth emphasizing here that manager selection is far more important for many alternative investment classes than it is for public securities (Chart 7). There is likely to be, therefore, much greater dispersion of returns around our assumptions than would be the case for, say, large-cap U.S. equities. Chart 7For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key Hedge Funds Chart 8Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 8). Long gone is the period when hedge funds returned over 20% per year (as they did in the early 1990s). Over the past 10 years, the Composite Hedge Fund Index has returned annually 3.3% more than 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. But that was entirely during an economic expansion and so we think it is prudent to cut last edition’s assumption of future returns of cash-plus-3.5%, to cash-plus-3% going forward. Direct Real Estate Our new methodology for real estate breaks down the return, in a similar way to equities, into the current cash yield (cap rate) plus an assumption of future capital growth. For the cap rate, we use the average, weighted by transaction volumes, of the cap rates for apartments, office buildings, retail, industrial real estate, and hotels in major cities (for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, and San Francisco for the U.S., or Osaka and Tokyo for Japan). We assume that capital values grow in line with each’s country’s nominal GDP growth (using the IMF’s five-year forecasts for this). We deduct a 0.5% annual charge for maintenance, in line with industry practice. Results are shown in Table 8. Our assumptions point to better returns from real estate in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Not only is the cap rate in the U.S. higher, but nominal GDP growth is projected to be higher too. Table 8Direct Real Estate Return Calculations REITs We switch to a similar approach for REITs. Previously we used a regression of REITs against U.S. equity returns (since REITs tend to be more closely correlated with equities than with direct real estate). This produced a rather high assumption for U.S. REITs of 10.1%. We now use the current dividend yield on REITs plus an assumption that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth forecasts. REITs’ dividend yields range fairly narrowly from 2.9% in Japan to 4.7% in Canada. We do not exclude maintenance costs since these should already be subtracted from dividends. The result of using this methodology is that the assumed return for U.S. REITs falls to a more plausible 8.5%, and for global REITs is 6.2%. Private Equity & Venture Capital Chart 9Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around It makes sense that Private Equity returns are correlated with returns from listed equities. Most academic studies have shown a premium over time for PE of 5-6 percentage points (due to leverage, a tilt towards small-cap stocks, management intervention, and other factors). However, this premium has swung around dramatically over time (Chart 9). Over the past 10 years, for example, annual returns from Private Equity and listed U.S. equities have been identical: 12%. However, there appears to be no constant downtrend and so we think it advisable to use the 30-year average premium: 3.4%. This produces a return assumption for U.S. Private Equity of 8.9% per year. Over the same period, Venture Capital has returned around 0.5% more than PE (albeit with much higher volatility) and we assume the same will happen going forward.   Structured Products In the context of alternative asset classes, Structured Products refers to mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We use the projected return on U.S. Treasuries plus the average 20-year spread of 60 basis points. Assumed return is 2.7%. Farmland & Timberland Chart 10Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP As with Real Estate and REITs, we move to a methodology using current cash yield (after costs) plus an assumption for capital appreciation linked to nominal GDP forecasts. The yield on U.S. Farmland is currently 4.4% and on Timberland 3.2%. Both have seen long-run prices grow significantly more slowly than nominal GDP growth. Since 1980, for example, farm prices have risen at a compound rate of 3.9% per acre, compared to U.S. nominal GDP growth of 5.2% and global GDP growth of 5.5% (Chart 10). We assume that this trend will continue, and so project farm prices to grow 1.5 percentage points a year more slowly than global GDP (using global, not U.S., economic growth makes sense since demand for food is driven by global factors). This produces a total return assumption of 6%. For timberland, we did not find a consistent relationship with nominal GDP growth and so assumed that prices would continue to grow at their historic rate over the past 20 years (the longest period for which data is available). We project timberland to produce an annual return of 4.8%. Commodities & Gold For commodities we use a very different methodology (which we also used in the previous edition): the concept that commodities prices consistently over time have gone through supercycles, lasting around 10 years, followed by bear markets that have lasted an average of 17 years (Chart 11). The most recent super-cycle was 2002-2012. In the period since the supercycle ended, the CRB Index has fallen by 42%. Comparing that to the average drop in the past three bear markets, we conclude that there is about 8% left to fall over the next nine years, implying an annual decline of about 1%. Our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. We add gold to our assumptions, since it is an asset often held by investors. However, it is not easy to project long-term returns for the metal. Since the U.S. dollar was depegged from gold in 1968, gold too has gone through supercycles, in the 1970s and 2002-11 (Chart 12). We find that change in real long-term interest rates negatively affects gold (logically since higher rates increase the opportunity cost of owning a non-income-generating asset). We use, therefore, a regression incorporating global nominal GDP growth and a projection of the annual change in real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average spread between 10-year yields and cash). This produces an assumption of an annual return from gold of 4.7% a year. We continue to see this asset class more as a hedge in a portfolio (it has historically had a correlation of only 0.1 with global equities and 0.24 with global bonds) rather than a source of return per se.  Chart 11Commodities Still In A Bear Market Chart 12Gold Also Has Supercycles   4. Currencies Chart 13Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP All the return projections in this report are in local currency terms. That is a problem for investors who need an assumption for returns in their home currency. It is also close to impossible to hedge FX exposure over as long a period as 10-15 years. Even for investors capable of putting in place rolling currency hedges, GAA has shown previously that the optimal hedge ratio varies enormously depending on the home currency, and that dynamic hedges (i.e. using a simple currency forecasting model) produce better risk-adjust returns than a static hedge.3  Fortunately, there is an answer: it turns out that long-term currency forecasting is relatively easy due to the consistent tendency of currencies, in developed economies at least, to revert to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over the long-run, even though they can diverge from it for periods as long as five years or more (Chart 13). We calculate likely currency movements relative to the U.S. dollar based on: 1) the current divergence of the currency from PPP, using IMF estimates of the latter; 2) the likely change in PPP over the next 10 years, based on inflation differentials between the country and the U.S. going forward (using IMF estimates of average CPI inflation for 2019-2024 and assuming the same for the rest of the period). The results are shown in Table 9. All DM currencies, except the Australian dollar, look cheap relative to the U.S. dollar, and all of them, again excluding Australia, are forecast to run lower inflation that the U.S. implying that their PPPs will rise further. This means that both the euro and Japanese yen would be expected to appreciate by a little more than 1% a year against the U.S. dollar over the next 10 years or so. Table 9Currency Return Calculations PPP does not work, however, for EM currencies. They are all very cheap relative to PPP, but show no clear trend of moving towards it. The example of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that reversion to PPP happens only when an economy becomes fully developed (and is pressured by trading partners to allow its currency to appreciate). One could imagine that happening to China over the next 10-20 years, but the RMB is currently 48% undervalued relative to PPP, not so different from its undervaluation 15 years ago. For EM currencies, therefore, we use a different methodology: a regression of inflation relative to the U.S. against historic currency movements. This implies that EM currencies are driven by the relative inflation, but that they do not trend towards PPP. Based on IMF inflation forecasts, many Emerging Markets are expected to experience higher inflation than the U.S. (Table 10). On this basis, the Turkish lira would be expected to decline by 7% a year against the U.S. dollar and the Brazilian real by 2% a year. However, the average for EM, which we calculated based on weights in the MSCI EM equity index, is pulled down by China (29% of that index), Korea (15%) and Taiwan (12%). China’s inflation is forecast to be barely above that in the U.S, and Korean and Taiwanese inflation significantly below it. MSCI-weighted EM currencies, consequently, are forecast to move roughly in line with the USD over the forecast horizon. One warning, though: the IMF’s inflation forecasts in some Emerging Markets look rather optimistic compared to history: will Mexico, for example, see only 3.2% inflation in future, compared to an average of 5.7% over the past 20 years? Higher inflation than the IMF forecasts would translate into weaker currency performance. Table 10EM Currencies In Table 11, we have restated the main return assumptions from this report in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD terms for the convenience of clients with different home currencies. As one would expect from covered interest-rate parity theory, the returns cluster more closely together when expressed in the individual currencies. For example, U.S. government bonds are expected to return only 0.8% a year in EUR terms (versus 2.1% in USD terms) bringing their return closer to that expected from euro zone government bonds, -0.4%. Convergence to PPP does not, however, explain all the difference between the yields in different countries. Table 11Returns In Different Base Currencies 5. Correlations Chart 14Correlations Are Hard To Forecast We have not tried to forecast correlations in this Special Report. As discussed, historical returns from different asset classes are not a reliable guide to future returns, but it is possible to come up with sensible assumptions about the likely long-run returns going forward. Volatility does not trend much over the long term, so we think it is not unreasonable to use historic volatility data in an optimizer. But correlation is a different matter. As is well known, the correlation of equities and bonds has moved from positive to negative over the past 40 years (mainly driven by a shift in the inflation environment). But the correlation between major equity markets has also swung around (Chart 14). Asset allocators should preferably use rough, conservative assumptions for correlations – for example, 0.1 or 0.2 for the equity/bond correlation, rather than the average -0.1 of the past 20 years. We plan to do further work to forecast correlations in a future edition of this report.  But for readers who would like to see – and perhaps use – historic correlation data, we publish below a simplified correlation matrix of the main asset classes that we cover in this report (Table 12). We would be happy to provide any client with the full spreadsheet of all asset classes . Table 12Correlation Matrix Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Returns Can You Expect?”, dated 15 November 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated 22 May 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see GAA Special Report, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated 29 September 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com  

Highlights The unifying chorus among global central banks is currently for more monetary stimulus. In the race towards lower interest rates, the ultimate winners will be pro-cyclical currencies. Italian 10-year real government bond yields are rapidly joining those in Spain and Portugal in being below the neutral rate of interest for the entire euro zone. This is hugely reflationary. That said, growth barometers remain in freefall, suggesting some patience is still warranted.  We are watching like hawks a few key crosses that are sitting at critical technical levels. A break below will signal we are entering a deflationary bust. A bounce could be a prologue to a reflationary rally. Watch the bond-to-gold ratio to gauge where the balance of forces are shifting for the U.S. dollar. Tepid action by the BoJ this week reinforces our view that the path towards additional stimulus will be lined by a stronger yen. Stay short USD/JPY. We were a few pips away from our stop loss on long GBP/USD this week. Stand aside if triggered. The Norges Bank has emerged as the most hawkish G10 central bank. Hold long NOK/SEK and short CAD/NOK positions. Feature As early as 1625, Hugo De Groot, then a Dutch philosopher, saw the act of pre-emptively striking an enemy as a move of self-defense. With a mandate of self-preservation, it made sense for a country to wage war for injury not yet done, if sufficient evidence pointed to colossal damage from no action. So faced with some important central bank meetings this week, and European manufacturing data well into freefall, the European Central Bank pulled a trick out of an old playbook. At an ECB forum in Sintra, Portugal, President Mario Draghi highlighted that if the inflation outlook failed to improve, the central bank had considerable headroom to launch a fresh expansion of its balance sheet. With its next policy meeting not until July 25th, it sure did feel like the ECB was cornered. What followed was as expected, a more dovish Federal Reserve, Bank Of Japan and Bank of England. Paradoxically, those two words might have opened a reflationary window and triggered one of the necessary catalysts for a sharp selloff in the U.S. dollar (Chart I-1). Time Lags The key question today is whether central banks have sufficiently eased policy to stem the decline in manufacturing data. Obviously, the trade war remains a key risk to whatever direction indicators might be pointing to today, but a few key observations are in order. Chart I-1A Countertrend Rally Underway Chart I-2Dovish Central Banks Should Help Growth Our global monetary policy barometer tends to lead the PMI by about six months. It tracks 29 central banks, gauging which have tightened policy over the last three months and which have not. Since the global financial crisis, whenever the measure has hit the critical threshold of 15-20%, it has correctly signaled that the pace of manufacturing activity is likely to slow. It is entirely another debate whether or not the world we live in today can tolerate higher interest rates, but our barometer has clearly plunged into reflationary territory – below the 20% threshold. This has usually been followed by a pick-up in manufacturing activity (Chart I-2). Data out of Singapore has been a timely tracker of global trade and warrants monitoring. Most real-time measures of economic activity remain weak, especially in the export sector, but it appears shipping activity may have been picking up pace over the past few months. Both the Harpex Shipping Index and the Baltic Dry Index have been perking up. Similarly, vessel arrivals into Singapore that tend to lead exports have stopped their pace of deceleration. It is still too early to read much into this data, since it could be a reflection of re-stocking ahead of possible tariffs. That said, data out of Singapore has been a timely tracker of global trade and warrants monitoring (Chart I-3). Chart I-3ASigns Of Life Along Shipping Lanes Chart I-3BWatch Activity At Singaporean Ports Chinese money growth, especially forward-looking liquidity indicators such as M2 relative to GDP, has bottomed. Historically, this has lit a fire under cyclical stocks, and by extension pro-cyclical currencies. This is also consistent with the fall in Chinese bond yields that has historically tended to be supportive for money growth in the ensuing months (Chart I-4). Overall industrial production remains weak, but the production of electricity and steel, inputs into the overall manufacturing value chain, are inflecting higher. Intuitively, these tend to lead overall industrial production. In recent weeks, both steel and iron ore prices have been soaring. Many commentators have attributed these increases to supply bottlenecks and/or seasonal demand. However, it is evident from both the manufacturing data and the trend in prices that demand is also playing a role. Overall residential property sales remain soft, but the evidence from tier-1 and even tier-2 cities is that this may be behind us. A revival in the property market will support construction activity, investment and imports (Chart I-5). Chart I-4A Bullish Signal For Chinese Liquidity Finally, high-beta currencies such as the RUB/USD, ZAR/USD and BRL/USD have stopped falling and are off their lows of the year. These currencies are usually good at sniffing out a change in the investment landscape, specifically one becoming more favorable to carry trades. The message so far is that the drop in U.S. bond yields may have been sufficient to make these currencies attractive again (Chart I-6). On a similar note, if currencies in emerging Asia that sit closer to the epicenter of Chinese stimulus can rally from here, it would indicate that policy stimulus is sufficient, and that the transmission mechanism is working. Chart I-6High-Beta Currencies Have Stopped Falling Chart I-7AUD/JPY Near A Critical Level Importantly, the AUD/JPY cross is sitting at an important technical level. Ever since the financial crisis, 72.5 has proven to be formidable intra-day resistance, with the cross failing to break below both during the euro area debt crisis in 2011-2012 and the China slowdown of 2015-2016. Speculators are neutral on the cross, suggesting any move in either direction could be powerful and significant. A break below will signal we are entering a deflationary bust. A bounce could be a prologue to a reflationary rally (Chart I-7). Bottom Line: We are watching a few key reflationary indicators to gauge whether it pays to be contrarian. The message is tipping in favor of pro-cyclical currencies, and further improvement will give us the green light to adopt a more pro-cyclical stance.  The Message From The U.S. Dollar The market interpreted the Fed’s latest monetary policy announcement as dovish, even though the central bank kept rates on hold. What transpired during the conference was the market increasing its bets for more aggressive rate cuts. The swaps market is currently pricing in 94 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months, versus 76 basis points a fortnight ago. This shift has pushed down the dollar, lifting other currencies and gold in the process. U.S. bond yields have also punched below 2%. Interest rate differentials are moving against the dollar, but our important takeaway – that gold continues to outperform Treasurys – is an ominous sign. Even before the financial crisis, a long-standing benchmark for gauging ultimate downside in the dollar was the bond-to-gold ratio. This is because gold has stood as a viable threat to dollar liabilities, capturing the ebbs and flows of investor confidence in the greenback tick for tick. Any sign that the balance of forces are moving away from the U.S. dollar will favor a breakout in the bond-to-gold ratio. Chart I-8Major Peak In The Bond-To-Gold Ratio? The rationale is pretty simple. Investors who are worried about U.S. twin deficits and the crowded trade of being long Treasurys will shift into gold, since pretty much every other major bond market (Germany, Switzerland, Japan) have negative yields. That favors gold at the expense of the dollar. The reverse is true if investors consider Treasurys more of a safe haven. The bond-to-gold ratio and dollar tend to move tick for tick, so a breakout in one can be a signal for what will happen to the other. This is why we are watching this ratio like hawks, and the breakdown this week is a bad omen for the U.S. dollar (Chart I-8). The euro might be the biggest beneficiary from the fall in the dollar. The standard dilemma for the euro zone is that interest rates have always been too low for the most productive nation, Germany, but too expensive for others such as Spain and Italy.1 As such, the euro has typically been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising equilibrium rate of interest for Germany, but a very low neutral rate for the peripheral countries. The silver lining is that the ECB may now have finally lowered domestic interest rates and eased policy to the point where they are accommodative for almost all euro zone countries: 10-year government bond yields in France, Spain, Portugal and even Italy now sit close to or below the neutral rate (Chart I-9). The ECB may now have finally lowered domestic interest rates and eased policy to the point where they are accommodative for almost all euro zone countries. Chart I-9The ECB May Have Won The Euro Battle The drop in the euro since 2018 has also eased financial conditions and made euro zone companies more competitive. This is a tailwind for European stocks. Fortunately for investors, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, given they are trading at some of the cheapest cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings multiples in the developed world. Analysts began aggressively revising up their earnings estimates for euro zone equities earlier this year, relative to the U.S. If they are right, this could lead into powerful inflows into the euro over the next nine to 12 months (Chart I-10).  Chart I-10The Euro May Be On The Verge Of A Major Pop Bottom Line: Falling rate expectations relative to policy action have historically been bearish for the dollar with a lag of about nine to 12 months. The dollar has been relatively resilient, despite interest rate differentials are moving against it, but has started to converge towards lower rates. One winner will be EUR/USD. Stay Short USD/JPY The BoJ kept monetary policy on hold this week, but the message was cautious, even encouraging fiscal support. It looks like the end of the Heisei era2 has brought forward a well-known quandary for the central bank, which is that additional monetary policy options are hard to come by, since there have been diminishing economic returns to additional stimulus. This puts short USD/JPY bets in an enviable “heads I win, tails I do not lose too much” position. Chart I-11Stealth Tapering By The BoJ The BoJ maintained Yield Curve Control (YCC), stating it will continue to “conduct purchases of JGBs in a flexible manner so that their amount outstanding will increase at an annual pace of about 80 trillion yen.”3 But with the BoJ owning 46% of outstanding JGBs, about 75% of ETFs and almost 5% of JREITs, this will be a tall order (Chart I-11). The supply side obviously puts a serious limitation on how much more stimulus the central bank can provide. Total annual asset purchases by the BoJ are currently running at about ¥27 trillion, while JGBs purchases are running at ¥20 trillion. This is a far cry from the central bank’s soft target of ¥80 trillion, and unlikely to change anytime soon, given bond yields closing in on the -20 basis-point floor. This means interest rate differentials are likely to move in favor of a stronger yen short term (Chart I-12). The BoJ targets an inflation rate of 2%, but it is an open question as to whether it can actually achieve this. The overarching theme for prices in Japan is a rapidly falling (and ageing) population leading to deficient demand. More importantly, almost 40% of the Japanese consumption basket is in tradeable goods, meaning domestic inflation is as much driven by the influence of the BoJ as it is by globalization. Even for prices within the BoJ’s control, an ageing demographic that has a strong preference for falling prices is a powerful conflicting force. For example, transportation and telecommunications make up 17% of the core consumption basket in Japan, a non-negligible weight. This is and will remain a powerful drag on CPI, making it very difficult for the BoJ to re-anchor inflation expectations upward. The risk to short USD/JPY positions is that the BoJ will eventually act, but it may first require a riot point. On the other side of the coin, YCC and negative interest rates have been an anathema for Japanese net interest margins and share prices. This, together with QE, has pushed banks to search for yield down the credit spectrum. Any policy shift that is increasingly negative for banks could easily tip them over.  Chart I-12Can Japan Drop Rates Further? Chart I-13MMT Might Be What The Doctor Ordered Bottom Line: Inflation expectations remain at rock-bottom levels in Japan, at a time when the BoJ may be running out of policy bullets. Meanwhile, the margin of error for the BoJ is non-trivial, since a small external shock could tip the economy back into deflation. The risk to short USD/JPY positions is that the BoJ will eventually act, but it may first require a riot point (Chart I-13). A Final Note On The Pound A new conservative leadership is at the margin more negative for the pound (the assessment of our geopolitical strategists is that the odds of a hard Brexit have risen from 14% to 21%). However, our simple observation is that the pound is below where it was after the 2016 referendum results, yet more people are now in favor of staying in the union (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Support For Brexit Is Low, But Has Risen Chart I-15Low Rates Could Help British Capex   The BoE kept rates on hold following its latest policy meeting and will continue to err on the side of caution until the Brexit imbroglio is resolved. The reality is that the pound and U.K. gilt yields should be much higher solely on the basis of hard incoming data. Yes, the data has softened, but employment growth has been holding up very well, wages are inflecting higher and the average U.K. consumer appears in decent shape. Investment and construction have been the weak spot in the U.K. economy but may marginally improve on low rates (Chart I-15). We remain long the pound, given lower overall odds of a no-deal Brexit. That said, our long GBP/USD position was a few pips from being stopped out this week. Stand aside if triggered. Housekeeping Our stop-loss on long EUR/CHF was triggered at 1.11 yesterday. Stand aside for now, but we will be looking for opportunities to put this trade back on. Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest,” dated June 14, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 The Heisei era refers to the period of Japanese history corresponding to the reign of Emperor Akihito from 8 January 1989 until his abdication on 30 April 2019. 3  Please refer to the Bank of Japan “Minutes of The Monetary Policy Meeting,” dated June 20, 2019, page 1. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been mostly negative: Retail sales grew by 0.5% month-on-month in May. University of Michigan consumer sentiment and expectation indices both fell to 97.9 and 88.6 in June. However, current conditions index increased to 112.5. NY empire state manufacturing index came in at -8.6 in June, falling below 0 for the first time since October 2016. NAHB housing market index fell to 64 in June. Housing starts contracted by 0.9% month-on-month in May, while building permits increased by 0.3% month-on-month. Current account deficit decreased to $130.4 billion in Q1. Philadelphia Fed Business Outlook survey index fell to 0.3 in June. DXY index fell by 1% this week. This Wednesday, the Fed has kept interest rates steady at 2.5%, but left the door open for rate cuts in the future as Powell stated that “Many participants now see the case for somewhat more accommodative policy has strengthened.” The dollar has weakened in response to the dovish pivot. Report Links: EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 President Trump And The Dollar - May 9, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been negative with muted inflation: Trade surplus narrowed to €15.3 billion in April. Headline and core inflation fell to 1.2% and 0.8% year-on-year respectively in May. ZEW survey expectations index fell to -20.2 in June. Current account surplus decreased to €20.9 billion in April. Construction output growth fell to 3.9% year-on-year in April. Consumer confidence fell further to -7.2 in June.  EUR/USD increased by 0.7% this week. The cross fell initially on Draghi’s dovish message that ECB would ease policy again should inflation fail to accelerate, then rebounded on broad dollar weakness this Wednesday following the Fed’s dovish pivot. However, the euro has weakened further against other currency pairs. Our EUR/CHF trade was stopped out at 1.11 on Thursday morning. Report Links: EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Reading The Tea Leaves From China - April 12, 2019 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mostly negative: Industrial production was unchanged at -1.1% year-on-year in April. Total adjusted trade balance decreased to -¥609.1 billion in May. Imports fell by 1.5% year-on-year, while exports contracted by 7.8% year-on-year. All industry activity index increased by 0.9% month-on-month in April. Machine tool orders continued to contract by 27.3% year-on-year in May. USD/JPY fell by 1.1% this week. BoJ kept the interest rate unchanged at -0.1% this week. In the monetary statement, the BoJ stated that the Japanese economy would likely continue expanding at a moderate rate, despite exogenous shocks. The current policy rates will be maintained at least through the spring of 2020. Report Links: Short USD/JPY: Heads I Win, Tails I Don’t Lose Too Much - May 31, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Tug OF War, With Gold As Umpire - March 29, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been mixed: Retail price index increased by 3% year-on-year in May. Headline and core inflation fell to 2% and 1.7% year-on-year respectively in May. Total retail sales growth fell to 2.3% year-on-year in May. GBP/USD increased by 0.9% this week. The MPC voted unanimously to keep the interest rate unchanged at 0.75% this week. However, some policymakers have suggested that borrowing costs should be higher. The BoE however cut its growth forecast in the second quarter of 2019 amid rising global trade tensions and a fear of “no-deal” Brexit. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 There is little data from Australia this week: House price index contracted by 7.4% year-on-year in Q1. Westpac leading index fell by 0.08% month-on-month in May. AUD/USD rose by 0.7% this week. Our long AUD/USD came close to the stop-loss at 0.68 this Tuesday, then rebounded on dollar weakness and is now trading around 0.69. RBA governor Philip Lowe said that it was unrealistic to think that the single quarter-point cut to 1.25% would work to achieve its growth target, signaling more rate cuts and fiscal stimulus in the future. We are holding on to the long AUD/USD position from a contrarian perspective, and believe that the Aussie dollar will benefit as a pro-cyclical currency if the global growth outlook turns positive. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been mixed: REINZ house sales keep contracting by 7.8% year-on-year in May. Business Manufacturing PMI fell to 50.2 in May.  Westpac consumer confidence fell to 103.5 in Q2. Current account surplus widened to N$0.675 billion in Q1. GDP growth was unchanged at 0.6% in Q1 on a quarter-on-quarter basis. However, it increased to 2.5% on a year-on-year basis.  NZD/USD increased by 1.1% this week. Our bias remains that the New Zealand dollar has less room to rise compared to other pro-cyclical currencies if global growth picks up. Our SEK/NZD position is 1.3% in the money since initiated. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mixed: Foreign portfolio investment in Canadian securities fell by C$12.8 billion in April. Bloomberg Nanos confidence increased to 56.9 in June. Manufacturing sales fell by 0.6% month-on-month in April. Headline and core inflation both increased to 2.4% and 2.1% year-on-year respectively in May, surprising to the upside. USD/CAD fell by 1.6% this week. The surprising Canadian inflation print, and oil price recovery are all underpinning the Canadian dollar in the short term. This Thursday, Iran shot down a the U.S. drone in Gulf, and fears have been rising of a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, which is bullish for oil prices and the Canadian dollar. Report Links: Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been positive: Exports and imports increased to CHF 21.5 billion and CHF 18.1 billion respectively in May, resulting in a higher trade surplus of CHF 3.4 billion. USD/CHF fell by 1.7% this week. The Swiss franc has strengthened significantly against the U.S. dollar and the euro following the more-than-expected dovish shifts by the ECB and the Fed this week. Our bias remains that the SNB will use the currency as a weapon to defend the economy. Report Links: What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: The trade surplus narrowed to 11.3 billion NOK in May. USD/NOK fell by 1.6% this week. The Norges bank raised interest rates from 1% to 1.25%, the third rate hike during the past 12 months, and the Bank is also signaling more to come in the future. The Norges Bank remains the only hawkish central bank among all the G10 countries at this moment. The widening interest rate differentials and bullish oil outlook have been pushing the Norwegian krone higher. Our long NOK/SEK position is now 4.5% in the money. Report Links: Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been neutral: Headline and core inflation increased to 2.2% and 2.1 year-on-year respectively in May. Consumer confidence increased to 93.8 in June, while manufacturing confidence fell to 100.2. Unemployment rate increased to 6.8% in May. USD/SEK fell by 0.7% this week. Easing financial conditions worldwide remain a tailwind for global growth. Risk assets are rebounding with higher hopes of a trade deal as Trump will meet Xi at the G20 summit. We believe that the Swedish krona will benefit if global growth picks up in the second half of this year. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Global smartphone sales, which drive 29% of global semiconductor revenues, are currently contracting. According to the International Data Corporation (IDC), in Q1/2019 global smartphone shipments declined 6.6% year-on-year (yoy) in volume terms. The slowdown is also picking up pace, as last year’s drop was 4.4% (see chart). We also expect smartphone shipments to continue contracting in the second half of this year. Major markets such as mainland China and advanced economies have entered the saturation phase of mobile-phone demand. For example, U.S. shipments were down 15% yoy in Q1 due to near-full market penetration. Investors are also mistakenly betting on 5G technology. Although Samsung, Huawei, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Motorola, LG, and ZTE have either released or will release their 5G phones this year, the sales growth from 5G phones will not be able to offset the loss in 2G, 3G and 4G phone sales, at least not in 2019. IDC estimated that 5G phones would only reach 0.5% of the global mobile-phone market share this year. 5G phones will likely only begin boosting overall semiconductor demand next year, when they will garner a larger slice of the global smartphone market. Bottom Line: Global semiconductor stocks are still facing considerable downside. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service remains negative on Asian semiconductor share prices in absolute terms. A continued contraction in global semiconductor sales will further squeeze their profits. For additional details, please see this past Monday’s Special Report authored by Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President of Emerging Markets Strategy. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​