Global

Highlights Deep-seated economic and political forces will undermine the trade truce between China and the United States. U.S. economic momentum is strong enough to allow the Fed to deliver more rate hikes next year than what the market is discounting. Global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year as China picks up the pace of stimulus and the dollar peaks. Until then, a cautious stance towards global equities and other risk assets is warranted. Global bond yields will fall further in the near term, but will rise by a faster-than-expected pace over a horizon of 6-to-18 months. Feature Trade War Roller Coaster Investors breathed a short-lived sigh of relief following the G20 summit in Buenos Aires this past weekend. During the course of a two-and-a-half hour dinner on the sidelines of the summit, President Donald Trump agreed to postpone raising tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese imports by two months to March 1st. For his part, President Xi Jinping pledged to engage in substantive talks to open up the Chinese economy to U.S. imports, while addressing U.S. concerns about forced technology transfers and IP theft. In one of the more ironic moments in history, China also agreed to restrict opioid exports to the West. Unfortunately, the euphoria did not last very long. By Tuesday, President Trump was back to his old self, calling himself “Tariff Man” and ominously warning that “We are going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all – at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States.” News reports indicated that the Chinese were “puzzled and irritated” by Trump’s change in tone. The mood brightened on Wednesday. Trump sounded more conciliatory, perhaps reflecting China’s decision to immediately resume importing soybeans and liquefied natural gas from the United States. By Wednesday night, however, global equities were in turmoil again due to revelations that a high-ranking Chinese tech executive had been arrested in Canada at the behest of the U.S. government on suspicion of violating sanctions against Iran. U.S. stocks recouped some of their losses Thursday afternoon, but the S&P 500 still finished down fractionally for the day. Political Stumbling Blocks To A Trade Deal At times like this, it is crucial to focus on the big picture, which is that major hurdles remain to consummating a trade deal that satisfies both sides. As our geopolitical strategists have argued, the trade war is just as much a tech war.1 China wants access to western technology, but the West, fearful of China’s ascent, is reluctant to provide it. The fact that China has had a history of appropriating western technology without due compensation only makes things worse. It is notable that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.2 Domestic U.S. politics will also undermine prospects for a lasting trade war ceasefire. Protectionism against China remains popular in the U.S., especially in the Midwestern swing states. If Trump agrees on a permanent deal to end the trade war, who will he blame if the trade deficit continues to widen? This is not just idle speculation. Trump’s trade goals are inconsistent with his fiscal policy. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a wider trade deficit. This does not mean that Chinese stocks cannot rally for a few weeks. The MSCI China investable index is in oversold territory, trading at less than 11-times forward earnings, compared to 14-times at the start of the year (Chart 1). Given that China represents nearly one-third of EM stock market capitalization, any sentiment-driven rally that pushes up Chinese stocks is likely to give a solid lift to the aggregate EM equity index (Chart 2). However, for EM equities to put in a durable bottom, two things need to happen: Chinese growth needs to stabilize and the dollar needs to peak. We do not see either happening until the middle of next year. Chart 1Chinese Stocks Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 2China Is Large Enough To Give EM A Lift Waiting For A Bottom In Chinese Growth The slowdown in Chinese growth this year has been concentrated in domestic demand rather than in trade. Chinese exports to the U.S. have actually increased by 13% in the first ten months of the year compared to the same period last year. A lull in the trade war, a weaker yuan, and lower energy input costs are all beneficial to Chinese exporters. However, the collapse in the new export order component of the Chinese manufacturing PMI suggests that these positive developments will not be enough to prevent exports from decelerating sharply in the first half of 2019 (Chart 3). Chart 3China: An Ominous Sign For Exports If Chinese growth is to rebound, domestic demand will need to reaccelerate. While the Chinese government has loosened fiscal and monetary policy at the margin, this has not been sufficient to revive animal spirits. Growth continues to sag, as measured by a variety of activity measures (Chart 4). After a brief rebound, credit growth relapsed in October, pushing the year-over-year change to a multi-year low (Chart 5). Chart 4Still Waiting For Growth To Stabilize Chart 5The Chinese Credit Spigot Has Not Been Opened Looking out, there is a risk that undue optimism over the resolution of the trade war will prompt the government to redouble its efforts on its reform agenda. This agenda has been focused on reducing debt-financed investment spending – exactly the sort of expenditure commodity producers and capital goods exporters around the world rely on. Ultimately, China will be forced to pick up the pace of stimulus, as it becomes increasingly clear that the economy needs it. However, this is likely to be a story only for the second or third quarter of 2019, suggesting Chinese growth may continue to disappoint until then. No Help From The Fed The equity sell-off on Tuesday was exacerbated by comments by New York Fed President John Williams who noted that the Fed should continue raising rates “over the next year or so.”3 Williams is regarded as one of the thought-leaders at the Federal Reserve. He is also generally seen as a centrist on monetary policy. As such, his words often echo the views of the majority of FOMC members.  Williams said that the U.S. economy was “on a very strong path with a lot of momentum.” We tend to agree with this assessment. Despite weakness in a few areas such as housing, the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. The Atlanta Fed’s GDP tracker is pointing to growth of 2.7% in the fourth quarter. Personal consumption is set to rise by 3.4%, one full percentage point above the average during the recovery. The manufacturing sector remains robust. The ISM manufacturing index rose to 59.3 in November from 57.7 the prior month. The all-important new orders component jumped 4.7 points to a three-month high of 62.1. The non-manufacturing ISM index also surprised on the upside. Strong wage growth, lower gasoline prices, and a declining savings rate will boost consumer spending next year. High levels of capacity utilization, easing lending standards, and rising labor costs will also support business investment. Residential investment should stabilize as well, given the recent decline in bond yields (Chart 6). We see the fed funds rate rising by 125 basis points through to end-2019. This stands in sharp contrast to current market pricing, which foresees only 40 basis points of hikes during this period (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Residential Investment Should Stabilize Chart 7The Market Is Ignoring The Fed Dots Don’t Fear A Flatter Yield Curve… Yet The flattening of the yield curve would seem like a major rebuke to our positive U.S. economic outlook. The 10-year/2-year Treasury spread has declined to 14 basis points. The 5-year/2-year spread has fallen into negative territory, marking the first notable inversion of any part of the Treasury curve.  How worried should we be? Some concern is clearly warranted. Policymakers have been too quick to downplay the signal from the yield curve in the past. In 2006, they blamed the “global savings glut” for dragging down long-term yields. In 2000, they argued that the U.S. federal government’s budget surplus was reducing the supply of long-term bonds. In both cases, the bond market turned out to be seeing something more ominous than they were. Nevertheless, one should keep two points in mind. First, part of the recent decline in long-term bond yields reflects a fall in inflation expectations stemming from lower oil prices (Chart 8). As we discussed last week, lower oil prices should give consumers more spending power without hurting energy capex to the degree that they did in 2015.4 Chart 8Oil Price Decline Is Dragging Down Inflation Expectations Second, the term premium – the extra compensation that investors demand for buying long-term bonds compared to rolling over short-term bills – is currently negative (Chart 9). This partly stems from the fact that investors see long-term Treasurys as a good hedge against recession risk (i.e., bond prices tend to go up when the economy weakens). Chart 9The U.S. Term Premium Is Negative Partly Because Bonds Are A Good Hedge Against A Weaker Economy Quantitative easing has also driven down the term premium. While this effect has diminished as the Fed’s balance sheet has shrunk, estimates by the New York Fed indicate that the 10-year yield is still 65 points lower than it would have been in the absence of asset purchases.5 If the term premium were 84 basis points – the average between 2004 and 2007 – the 10-year/3-month slope would be 195 basis points. Empirically, the 10-year/3-month slope is the best recession predictor of any yield curve measure. It still stands at 50 basis points. If long-term yields stay put and the Fed raises rates once per quarter, this part of the yield curve will not invert until the second half of next year. It usually takes about 12-to-18 months for an inversion in the 10-year/3-month slope to culminate in a recession (Chart 10). In the last downturn, the slope fell into negative territory in February 2006, 22 months before the start of the recession. This suggests that the next recession will not occur until late 2020 at the earliest. Chart 10The U.S. Yield Curve: An Admirable Track Record In Forecasting Recessions Investment Conclusions The signal for global equities from our tactical MacroQuant model has improved since early October, mainly because the sell-off has gone a long way towards discounting some of the negative macro developments that have occurred. Nevertheless, the model continues to signal downside risks for global stocks stretching into early 2019 (Chart 11). Chart 11The MacroQuant Equity Score Has Improved, But Is Still In Bearish Territory The model utilizes a “what you see is what you get” approach, meaning that it only relies on observable data rather than estimates of unobservable variables like the neutral rate of interest. Right now, global growth is decelerating and financial conditions have tightened, which has caused the model to turn bearish on the near-term outlook for stocks. If we are correct that China will be forced to step up the pace of stimulus; that worries over Italian debt will fade, at least temporarily, with an agreement over next year’s budget; and that U.S. growth will remain buoyant even in the face of higher rates (implying that the neutral rate is higher than widely believed), then global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year. The dollar tends to weaken whenever global growth accelerates, which should provide a further reflationary impulse to the world economy (Chart 12). Chart 12Accelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bearish For The Dollar Equity bull markets typically end about six months before the onset of a recession (Table 1). If the next global recession does not occur for at least another two years, this will provide enough time for a blow-off rally in stocks starting in mid-2019. Hence, investors should stay tactically cautious towards global equities over a 3-month horizon, but be prepared to turn cyclically opportunistic over a 6-to-18 month horizon. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Over the past few months, we have argued that bond yields will temporarily decline due to slower global growth amid widespread bearish bond sentiment. This has indeed happened. Yields are likely to remain under downward pressure into early 2019, but should then begin to stabilize and move higher, ultimately rising much more than expected as global inflation accelerates. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift?” dated December 3, 2018; and “Trump’s Demands On China,” dated April 4, 2018. 2      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 3      Jonathan Spicer, “Fed's Williams says rate hikes 'over next year or so' still make sense,” Reuters, December 4, 2019. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018. 5      Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, “The Effect of the Federal Reserve’s Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates,” FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Dear Commodity & Energy Strategy clients, We went into the G20 meeting this past weekend expecting the leaders of OPEC 2.0 to instruct their ministers to cut oil output by 1.0mm – 1.4mm b/d at their upcoming meeting in Vienna. However, we could see higher cuts: News reports suggest OPEC 2.0 – the OPEC/non-OPEC coalition lead by Saudi Arabia and Russia – could agree to re-instate its original production-management accord agreed in November 2016, under which 1.8mm b/d of output was taken off the market. In addition to the G20 news, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley served notice an 8.7% production cut – 325k b/d of crude and oil-sands output in the province – will commence January 1. The province also intends to secure rail transport to move 120k b/d. In this update, we reprise the events that led to the price collapse of the past month, and present what we consider the most likely outcome of the OPEC 2.0 Vienna meeting on December 6. As was the case in 2015, this agreement will be one of the critical determinants of oil prices next year. First a brief review of the price collapse of the past month. Toward end-October, the Trump administration – likely the State Department – realized the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran could remove as much as 1.7mm b/d of exports from the market. Our own estimate had 1.25mm b/d of Iranian exports being lost to the market under the re-imposition of the Iran sanctions. At the upper end of market estimates, the amount of crude removed from the market could have exceeded total global spare capacity to meet any unplanned oil-production outage. Such an outage – e.g., losing 500k b/d from Iraq, Libya or Nigeria, or the total collapse of Venezuela, which would take ~ 1mm b/d off the market – would have produced a supply shock. In such a scenario, prices would rally through $100/bbl, and likely would push even higher if a large unplanned outage occurred while Iranian exports were falling. With U.S. shale supplies growing 1.3mm b/d, and demand growing 1.45mm b/d next year, per our modeling, demand destruction would have ensued, with higher prices required to allocate increasingly scarce supply, if such an outage hit the market. Following what appears to have been a lengthy internal debate on the sanctions at the end of October and beginning of November, the Trump administration ended up granting waivers on the sanctions to Iran’s eight (8) largest importers. In so doing, a potential supply shock that almost surely would have resulted in a price spike was transformed into a short-term supply glut, which collapsed prices. The waivers, in other words, were a supply shock to the downside.  Little if any detail has been made available regarding the waivers by the Trump administration. Markets literally were left to scramble to calibrate new supply-demand balances in the dark (Chart 1). Chart 1Waivers Were A Downside Supply Shock to Markets ... Following the waivers, longer-dated futures followed the front of the curve lower and backwardated markets – reflecting increasingly tight supply-demand balances – became contango to flat markets (Chart 2). The immediate shock of the waivers likely was compounded by speculative liquidation along the curve, not just at the front (Chart 3). The vertical jump in implied volatilities suggests the entire market – hedgers and speculators – was caught off guard by the waivers (Chart 4). The waivers likely prompted producers to accelerate hedging programs, as speculators unwound long positions. In addition, upward revisions of U.S. production – following the addition of more than 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity from the Permian Basin by the end of 2019 – likely played a role in accelerating longer-dated hedging programs. It is worthwhile noting the backwardation in Brent returns to the forward curve in 2H19 then flattens, while for WTI, the curve carries slightly month-on-month to the end of 2020, then pretty much flattens out thereafter (Chart 5). It also is worthwhile noting the back of the curve fell less than the front of the curve, as the graphs above show. Chart 2... And Backwardations Disappeared, As Supply Suddenly Increased Chart 3Speculators Exited Oil Chart 4Volatility Surged Following Waivers Chart 5Waivers Flatten Forward Curves Markets Still Are In The Dark OPEC 2.0 member states – having access to their customers’ demand schedules – have some idea of what the waivers entail, and are adjusting their supply schedules accordingly. We went into the G20 meeting expecting production cuts of between 1.0mm and 1.4mm b/d. All the same, we could see higher cuts: News reports suggest OPEC 2.0 could re-instate its original production-management accord agreed in November 2016, under which 1.8mm b/d of output was taken off the market. Nonetheless, we continue to expect cuts to come in on either side of 1.2mm b/d from OPEC 2.0 following its Vienna meeting. In Alberta, as we discussed in last week’s CES, the government’s action was undertaken to narrow the sometimes-massive basis differentials between WTI, the U.S. benchmark, and WCS, the Canadian benchmark for crude-oil pricing. The WTI – WCS spread has been under persistent pressure due to a lack of storage and takeaway capacity. According to the CBC, the government is losing $80mm per day due to the takeaway and storage constraints. The 8.7% cuts will remain in place until some 35mm barrels of oil in storage is shipped to refining markets, most likely in the Spring, according to the CBC. By the end of next year, the production cuts are expected to fall to 95k b/d, following the opening of new takeaway pipeline capacity. There are a few caveats to keep in mind going forward: Production cuts from OPEC 2.0 could be larger than the upper estimate we are working with (1.4mm b/d). The Iranian import waivers are expected to expire in 2H19. However, the Trump administration could unilaterally extend them, given the expansion of Permian takeaway capacity will not be fully completed till 4Q19. Also, U.S. crude oil export capacity will not be sufficient to move surplus crude from the U.S. to global markets for a couple of years at best. This likely is what underlies the forward market’s flattening post-2020. Venezuela is still subject to larger-than-expected decrease in production: We attach a 33% probability to the total collapse of Venezuela over the next year, which could remove ~ 800k b/d of exports from the market, and severely test OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity. On the demand-side, the market (and BCA Research) expect a slowdown in global growth next year. However, the Trump – Xi talks at the G20 this past weekend pointing toward a greater willingness to resolve trade differences could revive global trade and commodity demand, particularly for oil and base metals. This is not a given, however, and we are not adjusting our demand expectation of 1.46mm b/’d of growth next year because of it.       Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of November 30, 2018.  The quant model further downgraded U.S. in favor of the non-U.S. block, especially Germany, the Netherlands, Swiss, Spain and Canada as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1 -  3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI world benchmark by 1 bp in November, with a 27 bps of outperformance from Level 2 model offset by a 10 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 46 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 156 bps and level 1 underperforming by 12 bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %)   Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World   Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model   Dear Client, As advised in our October 2018 Special Alert, we have suspended the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model due to the significant changes in the GICS sector classifications, implemented at the end of September. We will rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors once full back data is available from MSCI, which we understand will be in December. We thank you for your understanding.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com