Inflation/Deflation

Highlights Duration: The Fed will need to see further significant tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions before backing away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. With only 54 bps of rate hikes priced into the curve for the next 12 months, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Credit Spreads: A likely deceleration in U.S. economic growth during the next few quarters is a near-term risk for credit spreads, while waning demand for C&I loans could signal that the market's default outlook is too benign. We see a high risk of spread widening during the next few months, and would advocate only a neutral allocation to spread product on a 6-12 month horizon. TIPS: Breakeven inflation rates remain low because investors are much less fearful of high inflation than in the past. This will change over time as inflation continues to print near the Fed's target and expectations slowly shift to price more two-way risk into the inflation market. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Feature More Pain Required Fed Chairman Jerome Powell spoke at the Dallas Fed last week, amidst some expectation that he might try to assuage financial market concerns about the pace of monetary tightening. Instead, the Chairman struck a balanced tone that the market took as slightly dovish. A rate hike next month remains fully discounted, but investors are now split on whether the Fed will move again in March (Chart 1). The April 2019 fed funds futures contract implies a funds rate of 2.525% by next April, just barely above the lower-end of the 2.5% - 2.75% target band consistent with two more rate hikes. Chart 1Markets Doubt The Gradual Pace Of Hikes Chairman Powell's remarks did not alter our view of the Fed's reaction function, which we expect will result in continued quarterly rate hikes until a preponderance of evidence is consistent with a significant slow-down in U.S. economic activity. As we discussed in last week's report, it is highly likely that the combination of a waning fiscal impulse and a stronger U.S. dollar will cause U.S. growth to slow during the next few quarters.1 What remains uncertain is whether the slow-down will be severe enough for the Fed to pause its +25 bps per quarter tightening cycle. With only 54 bps of rate hikes priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, we do not anticipate a significant move higher in yields during the next few months. We also think credit spreads can widen further in the near-term as growth slows, and we recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon, given the less attractive risk/reward trade-off in corporate credit. Another reason to get defensive on credit spreads before increasing portfolio duration is that further spread widening and tighter financial conditions are likely a necessary pre-condition for the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes. Chairman Powell noted last week that financial conditions are an important input to the Fed's assessment of future economic growth, and also stressed that the Fed takes a broad view of financial conditions - encompassing not just the stock market but also the level of rates, credit spreads and other factors. With that in mind, we observe that there has been very little tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions during the past few months. In fact, the Chicago Fed's National Financial Conditions Index shows that financial conditions remain far more accommodative than when the Fed started hiking rates in December 2015 (Chart 2). Chart 2More Pain Needed For The Fed To Pause We conclude that much more financial market pain will be required before the Fed takes a dovish turn. As such, we are inclined to get more defensive with respect to credit, but to remain bearish on rates for now. Last week's release of the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey provided one more negative datapoint for corporate credit. While banks continue to ease standards on commercial & industrial loans, respondents reported that demand for such loans waned during the past three months (Chart 3). If the demand slow-down continues, then lending standards will eventually start to tighten and we will see more corporate defaults. For now, the slow-down in loan demand is a tentative signal that could be reversed next quarter, but it bears close monitoring as a potential warning that we are moving into the late stages of the credit cycle. Stay tuned. Chart 3Tighter Lending Standards Ahead? Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth will decelerate from a high level during the next few quarters, but the Fed will need to see further significant tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions before backing away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Investors should get more defensive on credit spreads, but maintain below-benchmark duration. Stick With TIPS We have been recommending overweight positions in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for some time, targeting a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. This range is consistent with prior periods when core inflation was well-anchored around the Fed's target.2 This recommendation suffered a set-back last week when long-maturity breakevens finally capitulated to the trend in other financial market indicators that have been pointing to weakness in global demand for several months (Chart 4). In fact, for most of this year falling commodity prices and a strengthening dollar have been signaling that global demand is on the decline. But until last week, TIPS breakevens had mostly bucked the trend. Chart 4Held Down By Global Demand The reason is that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain under the influence of two competing forces. Signals of waning global demand on the one hand, and rapidly rising U.S. inflation on the other. Last December, the 12-month rate of change in core PCE inflation stood at 1.64%. As of September it stands at 1.97%, within a hair of the Fed's 2% target. Likewise, year-over-year core CPI inflation has increased from 1.76% as of last December to 2.15% as of October. Survey measures of realized and expected price changes have similarly strengthened (Chart 5). Chart 5Pulled Up By U.S. Inflation The combination of strong U.S. inflation and waning global growth has left long-dated breakevens relatively trendless for most of the year. And although we think year-over-year U.S. core inflation will flatten-off during the next few months (see Box), we would remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month investment horizon. BOX Core Inflation: Grappling With Base Effects Year-over-year core CPI inflation was 2.15% in October, down slightly from 2.17% in September. Meanwhile, our Base Effects Indicator ticked up from 3 to 4 but it remains below the critical 5.5 level (Chart 6). Chart 6Expect Year-Over-Year Core CPI To Flatten-Off In our Weekly Report from September 4, 2018, we showed that when our Base Effects Indicator - an indicator derived from near-term rates of change in core CPI - is below 5.5, 12-month core inflation is much more likely to fall than rise during the next six months. While pipeline inflation measures and the tightness of the labor market both suggest that the uptrend in core inflation will remain intact, we expect that year-over-year core inflation will flatten-off during the next six months, at levels close to the Fed's target. Our view is that as long as inflation remains sufficiently close to the Fed's target, over time, investors will start to price two-way risk back into the inflation market. It simply takes time for expectations to fully adapt to the new economic reality. Expectations Are Slow To Adapt To illustrate why we remain optimistic that TIPS breakevens have further upside, we created what we call our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year breakeven rate (Chart 7). The model combines both forward-looking and backward-looking measures of inflation, and is premised on the idea that investors are slow to fully adapt their expectations to a changing environment. Chart 7Adaptive Expectations Model For example, even though core inflation is now close to the Fed's target on a 12-month rate of change basis, investors remain scarred by the past decade when it was stubbornly low. The long period of low inflation makes it much more difficult for investors to believe that the regime is finally shifting. Our Adaptive Expectations Model includes three variables: The 120-month rate of change in core CPI inflation (annualized) The 12-month rate of change in headline CPI inflation The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (full data set measure) The 120-month rate of change is included to capture the impact from investors' long memories when it comes to inflation. The 12-month rate of change is included to capture the more recent trend in prices and the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge is included to provide a forward-looking measure of inflationary pressures in the economy. Notice in Table 1 that the 120-month rate of change in core CPI carries much greater importance in our model than the other two variables. Table 1Adaptive Expectations Model Regression Output (2003 To Present) Turning back to Chart 7, we see that the current 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is more or less in line with our model's fair value. We also see that two of the model's three variables (12-month headline CPI and the Underlying Inflation Gauge) have returned to pre-crisis levels. It is only the 120-month rate of change in core CPI that is preventing breakevens from reaching our target range. In other words, even though inflation is more or less back to target levels, investors still doubt whether we have transitioned out of the prior low-inflation regime. The Fear Of High Inflation Is Missing Digging further into the data, we see that the real difference between today and the pre-crisis period is that investors are now much less worried about significantly higher inflation. A break-down of individual responses from the Survey of Professional Forecasters shows that, as in 2004, most forecasters think inflation will average between 2.01% and 2.5% during the next 10 years. But today, only 7% of forecasters think inflation will average above 2.51%. In 2004, 32% of forecasters thought inflation would average above 2.51% over the next 10 years (Chart 8). Chart 8High Inflation Is Less Of A Worry This assessment of likely inflation outcomes is backed-up by the economic data. The St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure is a macro model designed to output the probability that inflation falls into different ranges over the next year.3 Here again, we see that the probability of inflation being between 1.5% and 2.5% is similar to its pre-crisis level, but the probability of inflation exceeding 2.5% is much lower (Chart 9). Chart 9Price Pressures Even looking at only the post-crisis period shows that it is the upper-tail of the inflation expectations distribution that is lagging. The Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers has been asking respondents to place probabilities on different long-run inflation outcomes since 2011. Chart 10 shows how the most recent responses - from September - compare to the post-2011 range. It shows that respondents are more certain than at any time since 2011 that inflation will be between 2.01% and 2.5% on average during the next 10 years, but are also more doubtful that inflation will be 2.51% or higher. Chart 10Primary Dealer Inflation Expectations Bottom Line: Even though 12-month inflation has more or less returned to the Fed's target, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below levels that have been historically consistent with that target. Breakevens remain low because investors are much less fearful of elevated inflation (> 2.5%) than in the past. This will change over time as inflation continues to print near the Fed's target and expectations slowly adapt to the new regime. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Sweet Spot On The Yield Curve", dated November 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we arrive at that range please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/introducing-the-st-louis-fed-price-pressures-measure/   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Equities had a wild ride in October, ... : The S&P 500 has bounced smartly off of its October 29th lows, but the decline that preceded the bounce was unusually severe. ... that unsettled a lot of investors, and made us reconsider our constructive take on risk assets: To judge by the November 5th Barron's, and some client conversations, several technically-minded investors are unconvinced by the bounce. Nothing has changed with our equity downgrade checklist, however, ... : The fundamental picture hasn't changed at all - neither corporate revenues nor margins appear to be in any immediate difficulty; though we still expect inflation to surprise to the upside, the latest data will not push the Fed to speed up its gradual rate-hike pace; and the combination of blockbuster third-quarter earnings and October's selloff made valuations more reasonable. ... so we see no reason to downgrade equities now, though we do have the admonition of a Wall Street legend ringing in our ears: If the fundamental backdrop remained unchanged, we would be inclined to upgrade equities if the S&P 500 got back to the 2,600-2,640 range, even though we are operating with a heightened sense of vigilance befitting the lateness of the hour. Feature It has been just four weeks since we rolled out our equity downgrade checklist. We would not ordinarily devote an entire Weekly Report to reviewing all of its components, but the last four weeks have hardly been ordinary. The swiftness of the decline, and the apparent lateness of the cycle, have unsettled investors enough to make several of them reconsider just how long they want to stay at the bull-market party. At times when market action provokes emotional gut checks, it is essential for investors to have a process to fall back on. Process provides a rational, objective haven from noise and emotion, and should help foster better decision-making. Our commitment to process underpins our fondness for checklists. They will never be comprehensive - as usual, we have our minds on other important inputs - but they help to ground our thinking, and we're happy to have them when markets make wild swings. Has The Recession Timetable Speeded Up? We are not interested in recessions for their own sake - we'll let the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee tell us when recessions begin and end, several months after the fact - but they're poison for risk assets. Any asset allocator who can recognize them in a timely fashion has a leg up on outperforming the competition. We therefore have been repeatedly monitoring the individual components of our recession indicator (Table 1). They do not betray any more concern than they did four weeks ago. Table 1Equity Downgrade Checklist The yield curve is clearly flattening, just as one would expect as the Fed gets further into a rate-hiking campaign, but it is still a comfortable distance from inverting (Chart 1). We think yields at the long end have a way to go before they stop rising, so we expect the fed funds rate will have to get well into the 3's before the 3-month bill rate can overtake the 10-year Treasury yield. The Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator is still expanding at a robust clip (Chart 2). Finally, we estimate the fed funds rate is about a year away from exceeding the equilibrium rate, thus signaling that policy has turned restrictive. Chart 1The Yield Curve Is Flattening, But It's Not About To Invert ... Chart 2... And Leading Economic Indicators Are Still Surging The unemployment rate continues to fall. Reversing the trend so that the three-month moving average could back up by the third of a percentage point that has unfailingly accompanied recessions (Chart 3) would require net monthly payroll additions to crater. Assuming annual population growth of 1%, and a constant labor force participation rate, net monthly job gains would have to fall to 100,000 for the three-month moving average to back up to 4% in 2020; if the pace of gains merely held at 120,000, the unemployment recession signal wouldn't be issued until 2021 (Chart 4). We applied the same conditions to the Atlanta Fed's online unemployment calculator to see what it would take for the unemployment rate to cross into the danger zone in 2019 (Table 2). Since the seven-year trend of 200,000 monthly net payroll additions would have to reverse on a dime for unemployment to issue a near-term warning, we do not foresee checking this box anytime soon. Chart 3Investors Should Beware An Uptick In The Unemployment Rate ... Chart 4... But None Is Forthcoming ... Table 2... Unless Hiring Falls Off A Cliff Are Corporate Earnings Coming Under Pressure? As we mentioned last week, we view the labor market as tight and getting tighter. We thereby expect that wages are on their way to rising enough to crimp corporate margins, albeit slowly. The composite employment cost index has been in an uptrend since 2016, but it ticked lower last month, and remains well below its cyclical highs ahead of the last two recessions (Chart 5). Chart 5Snails, Godot, Molasses And Wages October's global upheaval was good for the safe-haven dollar, which surged to a new year-to-date high (Chart 6). The DXY dollar index is now within 3% of the 100 level that would lead us to check the dollar strength box. Even though we're not checking the box yet, the dollar's 10% advance since mid-February will exert a modest drag on S&P 500 earnings for the next few quarters. Triple-B corporate yields have ticked a little higher since we rolled out the checklist, extending their six-year highs (Chart 7), though we still view them as manageable. Chart 6A Gentle Headwind (For Now) Chart 7Higher Yields Aren't Biting Yet A rising savings rate would cancel out some of the top-line benefits from employment gains. It fell pretty sharply in the third quarter, however, amplifying the self-reinforcing effect of new hiring. It's at the bottom of the range that's prevailed since 2014 (Chart 8), but could go still lower if consumption tracks the robust consumer confidence readings, as it consistently has in the past. Chart 8Consumers Are Well-Fortified EM economies have become considerably more indebted since the crisis, as developed-world savings sought an outlet; corporate profits are falling; and a stronger dollar makes it harder for EM borrowers to service their USD-denominated debt. A credit crisis (or multiple credit crises) could slow global activity enough to pressure multinationals' earnings, even if the U.S. economy is mostly insulated from EM wobbles. EM equities have gotten a respite since global equities put in their year-to-date lows, and Chinese stimulus could extend EM economies a lifeline, though BCA expects that Beijing will disappoint investors hoping for a meaningful boost. We remain bearish on emerging markets as a firm, but EM distress is not anywhere near acute enough to justify ticking the box. Is Inflation Starting To Make The Fed Uneasy? There are two channels by which inflation could pose a problem for equities. The first is the Fed: if it is discomfited by what it sees in realized inflation, or perceives that inflation expectations could become unanchored, it is likely to move forcefully to quash upward pressure on prices. A forceful pace is considerably faster than a gradual pace, and would bring forward a monetary policy inflection. If policy flips from accommodative to restrictive sooner than we expect, the window for risk-asset outperformance will shrink. With all of its talk about symmetric inflation targets, the FOMC has made it clear that it will not make any attempt to defend its 2% core PCE inflation target. It is comfortable with an overshoot, and has indeed openly wished for one for much of the post-crisis era. There are limits to its indulgence, however, and we suspect that the Fed would not be comfortable if core PCE inflation were to make a new 20-year high above 2.5%. With that red line far off (Chart 9), inflation is not yet likely to encourage the Fed to quicken the pace at which it removes accommodation. Chart 9Turtles, Sloths And Inflation Inflation expectations aren't yet pressing the Fed to speed things up, either. Long-maturity TIPS break-evens have retreated slightly since mid-October, and have yet to enter the range consistent with the 2% inflation target (Chart 10). The media and the broad mass of investors don't bother with symmetric targets, or implied break-evens; they take their cues from consumer prices. A multiple haircut driven by popular inflation fears is the second channel by which inflation could halt the equity advance, but CPI remains well below the mid-3% levels that would provoke concern (Chart 11). Chart 10Stubbornly Well-Anchored Chart 11No Reason To Trim Multiples Yet So What's To Worry About? Irrational exuberance is always a concern after an extended period of gains, but there's no sign of it in broad market measures right now. Blockbuster earnings gains have pulled the S&P 500's forward P/E multiple back down to the 15s from its January peak above 18. Secondary measures like price-to-sales, price-to-book, and price-to-cash-flow are well below extreme levels in the aggregate. If the S&P 500 is going to get silly, it will have to surge first. That said, the latter stages of bull markets and expansions can be perilous, and we are on high alert. We continue to actively seek out any evidence that challenges our broadly constructive take on risk assets and the U.S. economy. Though we have yet to find anything compelling, an admonition from legendary technical analyst and strategist Bob Farrell has lodged in our mind. Rule number nine of Farrell's ten market rules to remember states, "When all the experts and forecasts agree - something else is going to happen." It's much more fun to bring novel views and analysis to our clients, but we don't get overly concerned about agreeing with investor consensus. It's inevitable that a lot of people will agree in the middle of extended cycles; we simply strive to be among the first to recognize the major macro inflection points and determine the optimal asset-allocation framework to benefit from them. We get a little antsy, though, when everyone knows that something is either certain to happen, or cannot happen by any stretch of the imagination. The near-unanimity with which the investment community believes that a recession cannot begin in 2019 is increasingly eating at us. We have been checking and re-checking the data, and checking and re-checking our colleagues' various models, in search of trouble, but to no avail. Even though recessions begin at economic peaks, and the economy nearly always appears to be in fine fettle when the downturn asserts itself, the sizable fiscal thrust on tap for 2019 seems to obviate the possibility of a contraction. When discussing potential risks in face-to-face meetings with clients this week, we most often cited trade tensions, as any material rollback of globalization would erode corporate profit margins and would strike at global trade, on which much of the rest of world's economies rely. A dramatic worsening of the trade picture is not our base case, but we do expect upside surprises in inflation, and an attendant upside surprise in the terminal fed funds rate. We have been considering that view mainly from the perspective of fixed-income positioning: underweight Treasuries and maintain below-benchmark duration. We also have been assuming that the FOMC would lift the fed funds rate to 3.5% at the end of 2019 via four quarter-point rate hikes, and possibly take it all the way to 4% in the first half of 2020. If it were to speed up its pace, and take the fed funds rate to 3.5% by the middle of next year, and 4% by the end, we believe financial conditions would tighten enough to choke off the expansion. Monetary policy impacts the economy with a lag, so a recession may still not begin until 2020 in that scenario, but we'd bet that an equity bear market would begin in 2019. Investment Implications Balanced investors should maintain at least an equal weight position in equities. Although our checklist is a downgrade checklist, we're alert to opportunities to upgrade as well as downgrade. As we first wrote one week before the October selloff ended, we would look to overweight equities if the S&P 500 were to dip back into the 2,600-2,640 range (Chart 12). If U.S. equities wobble again in line with our Global Investment Strategy team's MacroQuant model's near-term discomfort, investors may get another opportunity before the year is out. Chart 12Only One Chance To Upgrade So Far, But There May Be More Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights The End Of APP?: Economic growth in the euro area has lost momentum, but it is not clear that an extended period of below-trend growth is unfolding. With most measures of spare capacity showing a lack of it, the ECB must still move forward with its plans to begin removing policy accommodation. Policy Choices: If the ECB downgrades its growth and inflation forecasts next month, delaying the end of the APP into 2019 is unlikely, as is altering the country weightings within the APP portfolio. More plausible options include pushing out forward guidance on future rate hikes, extending the maturity of the existing bond holdings, or introducing a new TLTRO to support lending. Impact On European Bonds & The Euro: The ECB is most likely to take a less hawkish slant in December, but will not signal any rapid move to begin hiking rates. This outcome will be bearish for the euro, but only neutral at best for overvalued European government bonds. Feature For the European Central Bank (ECB), the countdown is on to the December policy meeting, when a final decision will have to be made on the end of the Asset Purchase Program (APP). The central bank has been signaling throughout 2018 that net new APP bond purchases will stop at the end of the year, with a potential interest rate increase coming in September 2019 at the earliest. That decision on APP, however, will be conditional on the ECB remaining confident in its forecast that inflation will sustainably return to the target of "just below" 2%. Slumping European economic growth in 2018 means that the ECB's forecasts may prove to be too optimistic. This is especially true given the risks to growth and financial stability stemming from Italy's fiscal policy debate with the European Union, softening Chinese demand for European exports, and the uncertainties related to U.S. trade protectionism and the final U.K.-E.U. Brexit deal. Some pundits are even suggesting that the ECB may be forced to extend the APP program beyond December - or look for other ways to prevent a tightening of monetary conditions - even with headline inflation and wage growth having picked up across most countries. Against this increasingly muddled backdrop, what can the ECB credibly announce in December? In this Special Report, jointly published by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy services, we discuss the state of the euro area economy and then consider the ECB's next potential policy moves, with ramifications for European bond yields and the euro. Our conclusion is that there are a few policy tools available to the ECB in case of a prolonged slump in growth, without having to bring on the operational difficulties from extending the APP beyond December. Such a "dovish" shift would be bearish for the euro but neutral, at best, for European government bonds which remain deeply overvalued. ECB Policy Dilemma: Slowing Growth Vs. Accelerating Inflation At last month's monetary policy meeting, ECB President Mario Draghi noted that the slowing economy was merely returning to trend (or potential) growth from an unsustainably fast pace in 2017 that was fueled by strong export demand. Looking at the broad swath of euro area economic data, Draghi's relatively optimistic assessment is not far off the mark. The euro zone has seen a clear loss of economic growth momentum since the start of the year (Chart 1). The initial read on real GDP for the third quarter, released last week, showed a deceleration to a below-potential quarterly growth pace of 1.7%. The manufacturing purchasing managers index (PMI) has fallen from a peak of 61 in December 2017 to 52 in October, mirroring a -1% decline in the OECD's leading economic indicator for the region. Chart 1A European Growth Slump, Not Yet A Downtrend Yet not all the economic news has been that weak. Both consumer and business confidence remain at elevated levels according to the European Commission (EC) surveys, consistent with above-trend real GDP growth (bottom two panels). Even though exports have weakened substantially from the booming pace in 2017 - largely due to China's slowing growth - the EC survey on firms' export order books remains at robust levels and overall export growth has rebounded of late (Chart 2). The current conditions component of the euro area ZEW index has also ticked higher (top panel), as has the bank credit impulse (bottom panel). Chart 2Not All The Economic News Is Bad The bigger issue for the ECB is that the recent cooling of growth comes at a time when, by almost all measures, there is little economic slack in the euro area. Capacity utilization is running at an 11-year high of 84%, while the output gap is effectively closed according to estimates from the IMF (Chart 3). Chart 3No Spare Capacity In Europe With that gap projected to turn positive in 2019, core inflation in the euro zone should be expected to drift higher. Yet core inflation now remains stuck around 1%, well below the headline inflation figure of 2% that has been heavily influenced by past increases in energy prices (bottom panel). The labor market is sending signals that the current period of low euro area inflation may be turning around. The unemployment rate for the entire region fell to a 10-year low of 8.1% in September, well below both the ECB's latest 2018 forecast and the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU (Chart 4). This tightening labor market is a broad-based phenomenon across the euro area, with nearly 80% of countries in the region having an unemployment rate below NAIRU (middle panel).1 The last two times there was such a broad-based decline in unemployment in the region, in 2001-02 and 2006-07, a significant tightening of monetary policy was required as measured by a simple Taylor Rule. Chart 4Broad-Based Labor Market Strength Already, the tightening labor market is starting to put upward pressure on labor costs. The annual growth in wages & salaries accelerated to just over 2% in the second quarter of 2018. Similar to the fall in unemployment rates, the faster wage growth has also been widely seen throughout the region, with nearly three-quarters of euro area countries showing faster wage growth from one year ago (bottom panel). The mix of slowing growth momentum with some inflationary pressures can be seen in our ECB Monitor, which measures the cyclical pressures to tighten or ease monetary policy in the euro area. The Monitor had been signaling a need for tighter policy for most of the past two years, but has now fallen back to levels consistent with no change in policy (Chart 5). When breaking down the Monitor into its inflation and growth components, the latter has fallen the most. The inflation components remain in the "tight money required" zone above the zero line. Chart 5Our ECB Monitor Says 'Do Nothing' Looking across the balance of the euro area data, President Draghi's assessment that the recent economic weakness is not the beginning of a sustained move to below-trend growth is justified. Given the broad evidence pointing to a lack of excess capacity across the euro area economy, it will take a much bigger growth slump before the ECB can shift to a more dovish policy bias. The critical series to monitor will be business confidence, capital spending and export orders. All are at risk of downshifting due to slowing global trade activity and sluggish Chinese demand. BCA's China experts continue to have doubts that the Chinese government will undertake any typical initiatives to stimulate demand, like interest rate cuts or fiscal spending, given worries about high domestic debt levels. Without the impetus from strong Chinese import demand boosting euro area exports, the current tightness of euro area labor markets, and uptrend in wage growth, may be at risk of a reversal, as we discussed in a recent Special Report.2 Bottom Line: Economic growth in the euro area has lost momentum, but it is not clear that an extended period of below-trend growth is unfolding. With most measures of spare capacity showing a lack of it, the ECB must still move forward with its plans to begin removing policy accommodation. What Tools Are Available For The ECB? Net-net, when looking at the broad balance of growth and inflation data at the moment, there is not yet enough evidence to suggest that the ECB needs to back away from its current plans to end net new APP purchases in December. That does not mean that the ECB would not consider changes to its total mix of monetary policy measures. The ECB has treated the APP, which began in 2015, as a "deflation fighting tool" during a period when there was excess capacity and very low inflation in the euro area. That is no longer the case, so it will be difficult for the ECB Governing Council to argue in December that new APP purchases are still necessary. It would take a substantial downward adjustment to the ECB growth and inflation forecasts, with a subsequent upward revision to the expectations for the unemployment rate, for the ECB to reconsider the plans to stop new bond purchases at year-end. Yet the ECB has also made it clear that interest rate hikes will not happen soon after the APP purchases end. Going back over the entire 20-year history of the ECB, there have only been three tightening episodes through rate hikes: 1999-2000, 2003-07 and 2011. In all three cases, what prompted the rate hikes was a period of broad-based increases in euro zone inflation that followed a period of equally broad-based euro zone economic growth. This can be seen in Chart 6, which shows "diffusion indices", or breadth across countries, for euro area real GDP and inflation. A higher number means that a greater percentage of individual nations is experiencing faster growth or inflation, and vice versa. During those three previous tightening cycles, the diffusion indices all reached elevated levels for growth and, more importantly, inflation. With more countries enjoying the upturn, the ECB could be more confident in seeing the need for interest rate increases to cool off demand to prevent an inflation overshoot. Chart 6No Need For ECB Rate Hikes Anytime Soon At the moment, the diffusion indices are quite low, suggesting that few countries are witnessing accelerating growth or inflation. This means that there is no pressure for the ECB to move up its current dovish guidance to the markets about the timing of the first rate hike in late 2019. That also means that there is a risk that the ECB is forced to consider options for providing additional monetary accommodation if there was a large enough downgrade to its growth and inflation forecasts. If the ECB were to indeed lower its growth forecasts in December and consider additional easing options, there are only four plausible options at their disposal: 1) Extending the APP purchases beyond December, either at the current pace of €15bn/month or a slower pace between €5-10bn/month Extending the APP into 2019 is the least likely choice because the ECB is already close to some of the self-imposed constraints on its government bond holdings. The ECB has set a limit of owning no more than 33% of an individual country's allowable government bonds, with maturities of between 1-31 years. Right now, the ECB owns about 31% of all eligible German government debt (Chart 7), and would breach that 33% level sometime in the first half of 2019 if the current pace of buying was maintained without any increase in German bond issuance (i.e. smaller budget surpluses).3 A similar outcome would also occur for smaller bond markets, like the Netherlands and Finland (bottom panel). Chart 7ECB Will Hit Country Issuer Limits If Current APP Is Maintained Of course, this is a self-imposed rule by the ECB that can easily be changed. That already occurred back in 2016 when the ECB allowed the purchase of bonds below the deposit rate as part of its APP operations. This meant that the ECB would buy bonds with negative yields, essentially guaranteeing a loss assuming that the bonds were held to maturity. Yet given how much emphasis the ECB has placed on abiding by the issuer limits, we think the ECB would consider other policy choices before raising them. 2) Changing the composition of the APP portfolio Changing the mix of bonds within the APP portfolio is a more likely option, but even this has its limits. The ECB could choose to buy more corporate bonds or covered bonds, but those are less liquid markets where there is arguably more evidence that ECB buying has impacted market functionality. The ECB may be reluctant to take on more credit risk in its bond portfolio, as well. At the country level, the ECB could choose to move away from using its Capital Key weightings to determine the allocation of its bond purchases by country. In the current heated political atmosphere in Europe, however, with the populist Italian government in a very public battle with the E.U. over its 2019 budget, the ECB will not want to be seen as favoring any country more than another by buying more government bonds in places like Italy or Spain over Germany and France. That can already be seen in how bond purchases have been allocated in 2018, with purchases sticking closer to the Capital Key weightings in Italy and France from the larger weightings seen in 2017 (Charts 8 & 9). Chart 8The ECB Capital Key ... Chart 9... Is Not Always Adhered To A more likely reallocation of bond holdings could occur within each country by adjusting the maturities held within the ECB's portfolio. Following the template of the Fed's 2012 "Operation Twist", the ECB could aim to sell shorter-dated bonds in exchange for longer-maturity debt, thereby exacting a flattening influence on government yield curves. There is scope for that in Germany, where the weighted-average-maturity (WAM) of the ECB's bond holdings has decline by 18 months since peaking in late 2015 (Chart 10). Large declines in WAW have also occurred for Spanish, Italian and Portuguese bonds owned by the ECB, if policymakers were willing to take on more duration risk in the Periphery. Chart 10The ECB Has Room To Extend Its APP Maturities 3) Extend forward guidance on the first rate hike The easiest option for the ECB in the event of a downgrade of its growth/inflation projections is to simply extend the forward guidance on the timing of the first interest rate hike. Right now, our Months-to-Hike indicators, which measure the time until a full rate hike is discounted in the European Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve, are discounting a hike of 10bps by November 2019 and a hike of 25bps by May 2020 (Chart 11). The ECB could easily signal that any rate hike, of any size, would not occur before the latter half of 2020 if an additional easing move was required. This would mostly likely result in lower bond yields and a weaker euro, all else equal, helping easy monetary conditions in the euro area. Chart 11Extending Forward Guidance Is An Option 4) Introduce a new Targeted Long-Term Lending Operation (TLTRO) One final intriguing option for an ECB policy ease would be the introduction of another TLTRO. The last such targeted lending program occurred in 2016, but the first wave of the much larger program that began in 2014 has already started to run off the ECB's balance sheet. This is the most effective way to get European banks to extend credit to borrowers at lower interest rates, since the banks would be able to fund that borrowing via the TLTRO at a rate lower than market rates. President Draghi did note last month that some members of the Governing Council brought up the idea of a new TLTRO at the ECB's policy meeting, and some well-known investment banks have recently discussed the implications of a new operation. In our view, a new TLTRO is the most effective way for the ECB to provide stimulus via lower private borrowing rates. It would also help offset any negative ramifications of the reduction of the ECB's balance sheet from the expiration of prior TLTROs. This would likely only happen, though, if there was evidence that the credit channel was impaired in the euro area. The previous TLTROs occurred after a period when banks were tightening credit standards, corporate borrowing rates and credit spreads were widening, European bank stocks were falling and European bank lending standards were becoming more restrictive (Chart 12). Chart 12A New TLTRO? Watch Lending Standards Today, bank stocks are falling and corporate bond yields/spreads are low but slowly rising, while European banks are actually easing lending standards according to the ECB's Q3 Bank Lending Survey. If the latter were to flip into the "tightening standards" zone, without any rebound in European bank shares or decline in corporate borrowing rates, the ECB could be tempted to go down the TLTRO route once again. Bottom Line: If the ECB downgrades its growth and inflation forecasts next month, delaying the end of the APP into 2019 is unlikely, as is altering the country weightings within the APP portfolio. More plausible options include pushing out forward guidance on future rate hikes, extending the maturity of the existing bond holdings, or introducing a new TLTRO to support lending. Likely ECB Options & Investment Implications In our view, the most realistic outcomes for the December ECB meeting can be boiled down to two decisions, conditional on how the ECB's economic forecasts are presented: 1) Unchanged growth & inflation forecasts: The ECB will signal the end of new APP bond purchases at the end of December, while maintaining the current forward guidance on rate hikes that no move will occur until at least September 2019. 2) Downgraded growth & inflation forecasts: The ECB will signal the end of new APP bond purchases at the end of December, but will also push out forward guidance on the first rate hike to at least sometime in mid-2020. In the latter scenario, the ECB could also consider two other options: extending maturities within its German bond holdings, or announcing a new TLTRO. We think that the ECB will wait to see how financial markets absorb the end of new APP buying before considering any move on maturity extension. At the same time, the ECB would signal that a TLTRO is a possibility if lending standards deteriorate and borrowing rates climb higher. While the ECB has talked a lot about how they will continue to reinvest the proceeds of maturing bonds in its portfolio, similar to what the Federal Reserve did after it ended its QE buying, the bigger impact on bond yields will come from a worsening of the supply/demand balance for European bonds. The ECB has been buying amounts greater than the entire net bond issuance of all euro area governments since the APP started in 2015, which has created a scarcity of risk-free sovereign debt for private investors. The result: extremely low bond yields, with a negative term premium (Chart 13). Reduced ECB buying will result in more bonds that have to be purchased by private investors, and a less negative term premium, going forward. Chart 13Bund Term Premium Unwind? How high euro area bond yields eventually go will then be determined by more traditional factors, like inflation expectations and the expected path of ECB rate hikes. Going back to the ECB's previous tightening cycles over its existence, actual rate hikes did now occur before inflation expectations - as measured by 5-year CPI swaps, 5-years forward - rose above 2% (Chart 14). Those inflation expectations are now 32bps below that level, and the ECB will not begin to shift to less dovish forward guidance unless the markets begin to discount more stable inflation close to the ECB's "near 2%" target. Chart 14Not Enough Inflation (Yet) To Justify Rate Hikes Dovish guidance on future ECB rate hikes will continue to widen the U.S.-Europe interest rate differentials that have helped weaken the euro versus the U.S. dollar in 2018 (Chart 15). This will continue to put downward pressure on EUR/USD cross, particularly with neutral momentum and positioning indicators suggesting that the euro is not yet oversold (bottom panel). Chart 15Likely ECB Actions Are Euro-Bearish Bottom Line: The ECB is most likely to take a less hawkish slant in December, but will not signal any rapid move to begin hiking rates. This outcome will be bearish for the euro, but only neutral at best for overvalued European government bonds. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Since not every country in the euro area is also part of the OECD, we could only use 14 of the 19 countries in the euro area in the indicator shown in the middle panel of Chart 5. 2 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan?, dated October 6th 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The ECB does allow the purchase of both federal government bonds, as well as the debt of government agencies and supranationals, as part of its APP. For our projections, we have assumed that of the €15bn in net new bonds that the ECB buys each month, 82% are debt issued by government-related entities (i.e. 18% goes to credit instruments like corporate bonds and covered bonds), with 10% of those government purchases going to supras. From that reduced number, we assume anywhere from 10-30% of purchases go to agencies, depending on the country. For the sake of simplicity, we also assume a pace of net government bond issuance in line with that seen over the past year, rather than make specific assumptions on changes in individual country budget deficits.

Highlights Did October's equity rout ... : Before bouncing back in its final two sessions, October was the S&P 500's 12th-worst month of the postwar era. ... represent a watershed for financial markets?: Shaken investors have begun asking if the equity bull market is finally over, and if Treasury yields are in the process of making their cyclical highs. Not according to the macro backdrop, which still supports risk assets, ... : There is no recession in sight. An earnings contraction sufficient to induce an equity bear market, or a meaningful pickup in defaults, isn't imminent. ... or our rates checklist, which still supports a bearish take: Inflation may be taking its time, but nothing on our rates checklist calls for increasing duration in a bond portfolio. Feature U.S. equity investors were relieved to close the books on October, which was a notably bad month for the S&P 500. Its 7% loss was good for 33rd-worst in the postwar record books, and just missed being a -2 standard-deviation event. Had the month ended before its robust bounce in the final two sessions, it would have been the 12th-worst, two-and-a-half standard deviations below the mean (Chart 1). At its lowest point, a half-hour before the October 29th close, the index was down a whopping 10.5% for the month. Chart 1Standing Out From The Crowd The price action understandably unnerved investors. Monthly declines of this magnitude are almost always associated with bear markets; just seven of the thirty-two larger declines occurred outside of bear markets, two of them by the skin of their teeth. Decomposing the equity returns into changes in earnings estimates and changes in forward multiples shows that sharp multiple contraction is a feature of nearly every bad month (Table 1). Table 1Worst Postwar Monthly Declines It is estimate growth - a robust 0.8% - that makes October something of an outlier among the S&P 500's worst months, and we expect growing forward earnings will keep the S&P out of a bear market for another year, especially now that its multiple is more than 15% off its peak. Earnings growth should also keep spread product out of trouble for the time being. Although we recommend no more than an equal weight in corporate bonds, modest spread widening has boosted their total return prospects. Too Legit To Quit We expect that earnings will keep growing because they rarely contract in a meaningful way outside of recessions. With monetary accommodation likely reinforcing certain fiscal stimulus over the coming year, it is hard to see how the next U.S. recession will occur before 2020. As our U.S. bond strategists pointed out last week, the ongoing market implications of last month's equity decline depend on what precipitated it.1 Was it a simple correction sparked by a valuation reset, or has the market begun to sniff out an economic slowdown? With forward four-quarter earnings growing by an annualized 9.5% in October, it appears that the selloff was nothing more than a valuation reset. As our bond strategists point out, the picture was much different when the S&P 500 corrected in the summer of 2015 and the winter of 2015-16. Those corrections unfolded against the backdrop of a global manufacturing recession (Chart 2). The U.S. economy is not bulletproof, and slowing global growth and tighter financial conditions will eventually bring it to heel, but we think the next recession is still too far down the line for markets to begin selling off in advance of it. Chart 2The Fundamentals Are Much Improved From 2015-16 Checking In With Our Rates Checklist If macro conditions really did change for the worse last month, our bearish rates view may no longer apply, and we would have to rethink our underweight Treasury and below-benchmark-duration calls. We introduced our rates checklist in September to identify and track the key series that could trigger a view change. We review it now to see if perceptions of the Fed, inflation measures, labor-market developments, or financial-market excesses suggest that rates may be at a turning point (Table 2). Table 2Rates View Checklist Market Perceptions Of The Fed We continue to scratch our head over markets' refusal to take the FOMC's terminal-rate projections seriously. The overnight index swap (OIS) curves are calling for a measly two hikes over the next 12 months ... and the next 18 months ... and the next 24 as well (Chart 3). That would leave the terminal fed funds rate for this tightening cycle at a mere 2.75%. The median projection among FOMC voters is 3 1/8%, and we're looking for anywhere from 3.5 to 4%. We will have to start backing off once the gap between our expectations and the market's expectations begins to close, but it's only widened since we established the checklist. Chart 3Stubbornly Staying Behind The Curve We get to our 3.5-4% estimate on the premise that measured inflation will pick up enough to force the Fed to keep hiking beyond its own expectations in a bid to keep inflation from getting out of hand. Client meetings suggest that investors find our inflation call hard to swallow. Some eye-rolling when we mention the Phillips Curve is understandable, but our view is ultimately based on capacity constraints. Tepid investment in the years following the crisis have left the economy's productive potential ill-suited to meet the surge in aggregate demand provoked by tax cuts and fiscal stimulus. An inverted curve would indicate that the bond market has begun to anticipate that rate hikes will soon stifle the economy's momentum. For all the hand-wringing in the media about flattening over the 2-year/10-year segment of the curve, our preferred 3-month/10-year measure remains nowhere near inverting (Chart 4). The yield curve tends to invert way ahead of a recession, so we would look for other indicators to corroborate its message before we changed our big-picture take. We also note that a bear flattening would support below-benchmark-duration positioning. Chart 4The Fed Hasn't Gone Too Far Yet Bottom Line: The bond market remains well behind the Fed, and the Fed may well wind up behind the economy. A broad repricing of the Treasury curve awaits. Inflation Measures Inflation's slow creep has gotten a little slower since we initially rolled out the checklist. Headline PCE and CPI have hooked downward, though their uptrends remain intact (Chart 5). Looking forward, continued tightening of the output gap should boost inflation (Chart 6), though long-term expectations have stalled for now (Chart 7). Inflation is the only section of the checklist that has backslid since September, but not by nearly enough to justify checking any of the boxes. Chart 5Two Steps Forward, One Step Back Chart 6An Economy Running Hot ... Chart 7... Will Eventually Produce Inflation Labor Market Indicators The first item on our list of labor-market indicators is the unemployment gap, the difference between the unemployment rate and NAIRU. NAIRU (the Non-Accelerating-Inflation Rate of Unemployment), is the estimate of the lowest sustainable unemployment rate. The actual rate fell below NAIRU in early 2017, and the gap has been getting steadily more negative ever since (Chart 8, top panel). A negative gap is associated with higher compensation, but the wage response has been muted so far (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8Supply And Demand Friday's October employment report pointed to further downward pressure on the unemployment gap. The three-month moving average of net payroll additions came in at 218,000, keeping job growth for the last seven years at around 200,000/month (Chart 9). If the trend were to continue for another twelve months, and population growth and the labor force participation rate (Chart 10, middle panel) were to remain constant, the Atlanta Fed Jobs Calculator2 projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 3%. Chart 9A Steady, Job-Rich Recovery Chart 10As 'Hidden' Unemployment Shrinks ... We understand investors' impatience with the Phillips Curve. We admit to being surprised that compensation growth hasn't shown more life to this point (Chart 11). Just because wage gains have been sluggish out of the gate, however, doesn't mean they won't speed up in the future. Ancillary indicators like the broader definition of unemployment that includes discouraged and involuntary part-time workers (Chart 10, top panel), and the ratio of workers voluntarily leaving their jobs (Chart 10, bottom panel), reinforce the unemployment rate's signal that the labor market is on its way to becoming as tight as a drum. Chart 11... Wages Should Rise Broader Indications Of Instability The final three items on our checklist are meant to flag factors that could bump the Fed off its gradual rate-hiking pace. Overheating would encourage the Fed to move more quickly, but there is nothing in the main cyclical elements of the economy that stirs concern (Chart 12). The Fed might move faster if its third mandate - preserving financial stability - dictated it, but the Fed has been quiet about financial-sector imbalances since Governor Brainard expressed concern about corporate lending two months ago. Finally, the Fed is not oblivious to economic strain in the rest of the world, but conditions in even the most vulnerable emerging markets are far from triggering some sort of "EM put." Chart 12No Sign Of Overheating Yet Investment Implications We remain constructive on the economy and markets in the absence of a near-term catalyst to cut off the expansion, the credit cycle and/or the equity bull market. Like our bond strategists, we simply think the U.S. economy is too healthy to merit revising our bearish view on rates. The implication for investors with a balanced mandate is to continue to underweight Treasuries. Within fixed-income portfolios, investors should continue to maintain below-benchmark duration. No investment stance is forever, and we are counting on our checklist to help keep us alert to an approaching inflection point in rates, but the coast is clear for now. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "What Kind Of Correction Is This?," published October 30, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx?panel=1

Highlights Four high conviction long-term investment views: The Italy versus Spain sovereign yield spread will compress. The yen will go up. The yield shortfall on German bunds versus U.S. T-bonds will compress. Swedish real estate prices will face strong headwinds. Chart of the WeekThe Italy Versus Spain Sovereign Yield Spread Is At An All-Time Wide Feature This week's report focusses on 'must-read' recent commentaries from two giants of central banking: Mario Draghi, President of the ECB 2011-19; and Paul Volcker, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve 1979-87. In the case of Paul Volcker, the term giant is not just metaphorical but also literal, as he stands six feet seven inches tall! The Volcker piece is the more profound of the two commentaries because it shatters a shibboleth of monetary policy - the 2 percent inflation target. But we will begin with Draghi. Draghi Reveals Some Home Truths The first must-read is the transcript of the latest ECB press conference.1 Draghi's remarks provide valuable insights into the direction of euro area monetary policy, the impact on sovereign yield spreads, and a view on the budget spat between the EU and Draghi's country of origin, Italy. Despite the recent wobble in the euro area economy, the ECB remains on course to end QE and gradually raise ultra-accommodative interest rates. Although Draghi acknowledged the deceleration in euro area growth in the third quarter to 0.6 percent (annualised rate), he attributed some of it to "country-specific idiosyncratic phenomena", for example the car sector in Germany having to meet new standards on emissions. Another drag came from exports, but Draghi pointed out that "the emerging market situation seems to have stabilised". Meanwhile, euro area consumption trends remain pretty strong, buoyed by expanding employment and rising wages. Negotiated wages keep on going up. "This is a very comforting sign because it means that wage increases, which have been quite significant in some core countries, are going to stay". Most significantly, "the labour market keeps on expanding but it is progressively getting tighter and tighter, and capacity utilisation rates in most countries are pretty high". Draghi went on to correct a common myth. The ECB's QE (and its end) does not in itself impact euro area sovereign credit spreads, and he gave a powerful illustration. Although the ECB has not bought Greek bonds but has bought Italian bonds, the spread between Greece and Italy has narrowed sharply (Chart I-2). Hence, the end of QE does not imply widening spreads. "We would expect spreads to depend only on perceptions of net issuance... if countries were having the same net issuance, you wouldn't see any change in spreads". Chart I-2The ECB Hasn't Bought Greek Bonds, Yet The Greece Versus Italy Sovereign Spread Has Narrowed Draghi also provided an important insight on the recent low-level game of chicken between EU institutions and the Italian government over its 2019 budget. Draghi explained that for Italy, escalating the game of chicken risks higher interest rates through the bond market's perceptions for net issuance. But paradoxically, this reduces the room to expand the budget. The weakened capital position of Italian banks from lower bond prices (Chart I-3) combined with deteriorating funding conditions squeezes bank credit, economic growth, and thereby the very space that is needed for fiscal expansion. The latest bank credit data show signs of this danger (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Capital Position Of Italian Banks Is Weak... Chart I-4...And Italian Bank Credit Growth Has Faltered Meanwhile, for the EU, escalating the game of chicken risks financial market contagion to other so-called 'non-core' countries such as Spain. But so far, the sovereign yield spreads of the non-core countries indicate few signs of such danger (Chart I-5). Chart I-5No Major Contagion From Italy To Other Non-Core Countries... Yet Hence, at this stage in the low-level game of chicken, the onus to budge falls more on Italy than on the EU. Opining on his country of origin, Draghi says that in the end "it is just good common sense and perception of what is good for the country and the interests of the Italian people that will lead parties to converge to some sort of agreement". On the basis of Draghi's confidence, the long-term investment opportunity is the Italy versus Spain sovereign 10-year yield spread (Chart of the Week). At almost 200 bps, the spread is at its all-time widest, and incongruous with the vanishing gap between the non-performing loans ratios in Italy and Spain (Chart I-6). Still, for those interested in timing, our tactical stance is to wait for the 10-year BTP yield to move closer to 3 percent before buying Italian assets. Chart I-6Spain Fixed Its Banks In 2013, Italy Is Fixing Its Banks Now What's Wrong With The 2 Percent Inflation Target The second, and more profound, must-read is a Bloomberg op-ed by Paul Volcker, What's Wrong With The 2 Percent Inflation Target.2 To be fair, we have an ulterior motive as the Volcker op-ed repeats almost word for word a Special Report that we penned three years ago, Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation, and its subsequent update last year.3 Of course, we are not implying that Volcker based his piece on ours. Rather that it is a great honour that a central banking colossus such as Volcker would endorse every heterodox argument that we made. The 2 percent inflation target is a relatively recent phenomenon, whose origin can be traced back to New Zealand's Reserve Bank Act of 1989 (Chart I-7). But Volcker's (and our) overarching point is that in trying to manage an economy, "false precision can lead to dangerous policies". Price stability is that state in which expected changes in the general price level do not effectively alter business or household decisions (Chart I-8). However, it is ill-advised to define that state with a point target, such as 2 percent (Chart I-9). Chart I-7The 2 Percent Inflation Target Was Born In New Zealand In 1989 Chart I-8Excluding Wars, Britain Had Price Stability For Centuries Chart I-9Switzerland And Japan Have Had Price Stability For Decades Despite Not Achieving 2 Percent Inflation To paraphrase Volcker, a 2 percent target, or limit, is not in the textbooks; there is no theoretical justification; it is difficult to be both a target and a limit at the same time; and no price index can capture, down to a tenth or a quarter of a percent, the real change in consumer prices. Yet with economic growth robust and unemployment rates near historic lows, concerns are being voiced that consumer prices are growing too slowly - just because they are a quarter percent or so below the 2 percent target! Could that be a signal to delay restraint? That would be nonsense. The seeming numerical precision of 2 percent suggests that it is possible to fine-tune policy with more flexible targeting as conditions change. Unfortunately, the tools of monetary and fiscal policy simply do not permit that degree of precision. Another argument runs, let's keep a little inflation - even in a recession - as a kind of safeguard against deflation, and a backdoor way of keeping real interest rates negative. Borrowers will be enticed to borrow at zero or low interest rates, to invest before prices rise further. However, all these arguments seem to have little empirical support. Actual deflation is rare, yet the exaggerated fear of it can lead to policies that inadvertently increase the risk. Deflation is a threat posed by a critical breakdown of the financial system, so the real danger comes from encouraging extreme speculation and risk taking, in effect standing by while bubbles and excesses threaten financial markets (Chart 10). Previously, we wrote that "the single minded pursuit of 2 percent inflation creates risks and instabilities". Volcker issues a strikingly similar warning: "Ironically, the easy money, striving for a little inflation, as a means of forestalling deflation, could, in the end, be what brings it about". Chart I-10The Real Danger Comes From Bubbles And Financial Market Excesses Hence, the central banks whose interest rates remain at the zero bound - the BoJ, ECB, and Riksbank - are the ones whose policy is most dangerous and incongruous with their economic fundamentals. On this premise we hold three high conviction multi-year investment views: The yen will go up. The yield shortfall on German bunds versus U.S. T-bonds will compress. Swedish real estate prices will face strong headwinds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2018/html/ecb.is181025.en.html. 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-24/what-s-wrong-with-the-2-percent-inflation-target 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation' August 20, 2015 and Weekly Report 'Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation An Update' July 20, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* Long Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225 achieved its 3.5% profit target and is now closed. There are no trades this week, leaving three open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model RECOMMENDATIONS Asset Allocation Equity Regional And Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond And Interest Rate Allocation Currency And Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

The Great Recession and financial crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for years to come. The roots of the crisis are already well known. The first of a two-part series looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. First, the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) the Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. This reflects a low interest coverage ratio, poor market liquidity, the downward trend in credit quality and covenant erosion. Second, the shock of the Great Recession and its aftermath appears to have affected the relationship between economic slack and inflation. Firms have been extra reluctant to grant wage gains. However, we argue that the "shell shock" effect will wane. The fact that inflation has been depressed for so long may actually cultivate the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years. Investors should hold inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market, or by overweighting inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues. Third, the events of the last decade have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. They will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target in the major economies, despite signs of financial froth. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the current fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. Central bankers will have no trouble employing unorthodox policies again in the future, and will be willing to push the boundaries even further during the next recession. Expect aggressive manipulation of the long-end of the yield curve when the time arrives to ease policy. We may also observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies. Fourth, global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels, reflecting both structural and cyclical headwinds to demand growth. A dismal productivity performance is another culprit. Productivity growth is poised to recover to some extent, while some of the growth headwinds have reached an inflection point. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even fall back to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. The 10-year anniversary of the Lehman shock this autumn sparked an avalanche of analysis on the events and underlying causes of the Great Recession and financial crisis. It is a woeful story of greed, a classic bubble, inadequate regulation, new-fangled financial instruments, and a globalized financial system that spread the shock around the world. The crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for many years to come. The roots of the crisis are well known, so we will not spend any time going over well-trodden ground. Rather, this Special Report looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. In Part I, we cover the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. Part II will look at the debt overhang, systemic risk in the financial sector, asset correlations, the cult of equity and the rise of populism. While not an exhaustive list, we believe these are the key areas of structural change. (1) Corporate Bond Market: Leverage And Downgrade Risk The financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. An extraordinarily long period of extremely low interest rates was too much for corporate CEOs to pass up. However, because the durability of the economic recovery was so uncertain, it seemed more attractive to hand over the borrowed cash to shareholders than to use it to aggressively expand productive capacity. The ongoing equity bull market rewarded CEOs for the financial engineering, serving to create a self-reinforcing feedback loop. And so far, corporate bondholders have not policed this activity. The result is that the U.S. corporate bond market has grown in leaps and bounds since 2009 (Chart II-1A and Chart II-1B). The average duration of the Bloomberg Barclays index has also risen as firms locked in attractive financing rates. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the Eurozone. Chart II-1AU.S. BBB-Rated Share Rising... Chart II-1B...Same In The Eurozone Balance sheet health is obviously not the key driver of corporate bond relative returns at the moment. Nonetheless, investors will begin to worry about the growth outlook if interest rates continue to rise. The U.S. national accounts data suggest that interest coverage remains relatively healthy, but this includes large companies such as some of the FAANGs that have little debt and a lot of cash. The national accounts data are unrepresentative of the companies that are included in the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index, which are heavy debt issuers. To gain a clearer picture, we calculated a bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for a sample of U.S. companies that provides a sector and credit-quality composition that roughly matches the Bloomberg Barclay's index. The CHM is the composite of six critical financial ratios. Chart II-2 highlights that the investment-grade (IG) CHM has improved over the past two years due to the profitability sub-components. However, the debt/equity ratio has been in a steep uptrend. Interest coverage does not appear alarming by historical standards at the moment, but one can argue that it should be much higher given the extremely low average coupon on corporate bonds, and given that profit margins are extraordinarily high in the U.S. The rapid accumulation of debt has overwhelmed these other factors. Evidence of rising leverage is broadly based across sectors and ratings. Chart II-2U.S. IG Corporate Health Unfortunately, the profit tailwind won't last forever. At some point, earnings growth will stall and this cycle's debt accumulation will start to bite in the context of rising interest rates. To gauge the risk, we estimate the change in the interest coverage ratio over the next three years for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt.1 For our universe of Investment-grade U.S. companies, the interest coverage ratio would drop from a little over 7 to under 6, which is close to the lows of the Great Recession (denoted as "x" in Chart II-3). Of course, the decline in interest coverage will be much worse if the Fed steps too far and monetary tightening sparks a recession. The "o" in Chart II-3 denotes the combination of a 100 basis-point interest rate shock and a mild recession in which the S&P 500 suffers a 25% peak-to-trough decline in EPS. The overall interest coverage ratio plunges close to all-time lows at 4½. Chart II-3Interest Coverage To Plunge... These simulations imply that, for any given size of recession, the next economic downturn will have a larger negative impact on corporate health than in the past. Rating agencies have undertaken some downgrading related to shareholder-friendly activity, but downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning and the profit boom is over (Chart II-4). Banks will belatedly tighten lending standards, adding to funding pressure for the corporate sector. Chart II-4...And Ratings To Be Slashed Fallen Angels The potential for a large wave of fallen angels means that downgrade activity will be particularly painful for corporate bond investors. The surge in lower-quality issuance has led to a downward trend in the average credit rating and has significantly raised the size of the BBB-rated bonds relative to the IG index and relative to the broader universe of corporate bonds including high yield (Chart II-5, and Chart II-1A).2 The downward trend in credit quality predates Lehman, but events since the Great Recession have likely reinforced the trend. Chart II-5Lower Ratings And Longer Duration Studies show that bonds that get downgraded into junk status can perform well for a period thereafter, suggesting that investors holding a fallen angel should not necessarily sell immediately. Nonetheless, the process of transitioning from investment-grade to high-yield involves return underperformance as the spread widens. Poor market liquidity and covenant erosion will intensify pressure for corporate spreads to widen when the bear market arrives. Market turnover has decreased substantially since the pre-Lehman years, especially for IG (Chart II-6). The poor liquidity backdrop appears to be structural, reflecting regulation that has curtailed banks' market-making activity and prop trading, among other factors. Chart II-6Poor Market Liquidity The Eurozone corporate bond market has also seen rapid growth and a deterioration in the average credit rating. Liquidity is an issue there as well. That said, the Eurozone corporate sector is less advanced in the leverage cycle than the U.S. Interest coverage ratios will fall during the next recession, but this will be concentrated among foreign issuers - domestic issuers are much less at risk to rising interest rates and/or an economic downturn.3 Bottom Line: Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. Current spreads do not compensate for this risk. (2) Inflation Undershoot Breeds Overshoot Inflation in the U.S. and other developed economies has been sticky since the financial crisis. First, inflation did not fall as much in the recession and early years of the recovery as many had predicted, despite the worst economic contraction in the post-war period. Subsequently, central banks have had trouble raising inflation back to target. In the U.S., core PCE inflation has only recently returned to 2%. Several structural factors have been blamed, but continuing tepid wage growth in the face of a very tight labor market raises the possibility that the inflation-generating process has been fundamentally altered by the Great Recession. In other words, the relationship between slack in the labor market (or market for goods and services) and inflation has changed. In theory, inflation should rise when the economy's output is above its potential level or when the unemployment rate is below its full-employment level. Inflation should fall when the reverse is true. This means that the change (not the level) in inflation should be positively correlated with the level of the output gap or the labor market gap. Chart II-7 presents the change in U.S. core inflation with the output gap. Although inflation appears to have become less responsive to shifts in the output gap after 1990, it has been particularly insensitive in the post-Lehman period. Chart II-7The U.S. Phillips Curve: RIP? One reason may be that the business sector was shell-shocked by the Great Recession and financial crisis to such an extent that business leaders have been more reluctant to grant wage gains than in past cycles. Equally-unnerved workers felt lucky just to have a job, and have been less willing to demand raises. Dampened inflation expectations meant that low actual inflation became self-reinforcing. We have some sympathy with this view. Long-term inflation expectations have been sticky at levels that are inconsistent with the major central banks meeting their inflation targets over the long term. This suggests that people believe that central banks lack the tools necessary to overwhelm the deflationary forces. The lesson for investors and policymakers is that, while unorthodox monetary policies helped to limit the downside for inflation and inflation expectations during and just after the recession, these policies have had limited success in reversing even the modest decline that did occur. That said, readers should keep in mind a few important points: One should not expect inflation to rise much until economies break through their non-inflationary limits. The major advanced economies have only recently reached that point to varying degrees; Inflation lags the business cycle (Chart II-8). This is especially the case in long 'slow burn' economic expansions, as we have demonstrated in previous research; and The historical relationship between inflation and economic slack has been non-linear. As shown in Chart II-9, U.S. inflation has tended to accelerate quickly when unemployment drops below 4½%. Chart II-8U.S. Inflation Lags The Cycle Chart II-9A Kinked Phillips Curve Shell Shock Is Fading We believe that the "shell shock" effect of the Great Recession on inflation will wane over time. Indeed, my colleague Peter Berezin has made the case that the fact that inflation has been depressed for so long actually cultivates the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years.4 Central bankers have been alarmed by the economic and financial events of the last decade. They also cast a wary eye on Japan's inability to generate inflation even in the face of massive and prolonged monetary stimulus. Policymakers at the FOMC are determined to boost inflation and inflation expectations before the next economic downturn strikes. They are also willing to not only tolerate, but actively encourage, an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to ensure that long-term inflation expectations return "sustainably" to a level consistent with meeting the 2% target over the long term. In other words, the Fed is going to err on the side of too much stimulus rather than too little. This is an important legacy of the last recession (see below). Meanwhile, other structural explanations for low inflation are less powerful than many believe. For example, globalization has leveled off and rising tariff and non-tariff barriers will hinder important global supply chains. Our research also suggests that the rising industrial use of robots and the e-commerce effect on retail prices have had only a small depressing effect on U.S. inflation. Bottom Line: The Phillips curve relationship has probably not changed in a permanent way since Lehman went down. It is quite flat when the labor market is not far away from full employment, but the relationship is probably non-linear. As the unemployment rate drops further, the business sector will have no choice but to lift wages as labor becomes increasingly scarce. The kinked nature of the Phillips curve augments the odds that the Fed will eventually find itself behind the curve, and inflation will rise more than the market is expecting. The same arguments apply to the Bank of England and possibly even the European Central Bank. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk, but the precious metal is still quite expensive in real terms. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market or overweighting inflation-linked bonds over conventional issues. (3) Monetary Policy: Destined To Fight The Last War There are several reasons to believe that the shocking events of the crisis and its aftermath have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. Several factors suggest that they will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target: Inflation Persistence: As discussed above, there is a greater awareness that it is difficult to lift both actual inflation and inflation expectations once they have fallen. Some FOMC members believe that long-term inflation expectations are still too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% inflation target over the long term. A modest inflation overshoot in this cycle would be beneficial, according to this view, in the sense that it would boost inflation expectations and thereby raise the probability that the FOMC will indeed meet its goals over the long term. It might also encourage some discouraged workers to re-enter the labor market. Some policymakers also believe that the Fed is not taking much of a risk by pushing the economy hard, because the Phillips curve is so flat. Zero Bound: Low inflation expectations, among other factors, have combined to dramatically reduce the level of so-called r-star - the short-term rate of interest that is neither accommodative nor restrictive in terms of growth and inflation. R-star is thought to be rising now, at least for the U.S., but it is probably still low by historical standards across the major economies. This increases the risk that policy rates will again hit the lower bound during the next recession, making it difficult for central banks to engineer a real policy rate that is low enough to generate faster growth.5 Fighting the Last War: Memories of the crisis linger in the minds of policymakers. The global economy came dangerously close to a replay of the Great Depression, and policymakers want to ensure that it never happens again. Some monetary officials have argued that a risk-based approach means that it is better to take some inflation risks to limit the possibility of making a deflationary policy mistake down the road. Fears that the major economies are now more vulnerable to deflationary shocks seem destined to keep central banks too-easy-for-too-long. Central bankers will also be quicker and more aggressive in responding when negative shocks arrive in the future. This applies more to the U.S., the U.K. and Japan than the European Central Bank, but even for the latter there has been a clear change in the monetary committee's reaction function since Mario Draghi took over the reins. Financial Stability Concerns Policymakers are also more concerned about financial stability. Pre-crisis, the consensus among the monetary elite was that financial stability should play second fiddle to the inflation target. It was felt that central banks should focus on the latter, and pay attention to signs of financial froth only when they affect the inflation outlook. In practice, this meant paying only lip service to financial excess until it was too late. It was difficult to justify rate increases when inflation was not threatening. It was thought that macro-prudential regulation on its own was enough to contain financial excesses. Today, policymakers see financial stability as playing a key role in meeting the inflation target. It is abundantly clear that a burst bubble can be highly deflationary. Some policymakers still believe that aggressive macro-prudential policies can be effective in directly targeting financial excesses. However, others feel there is no substitute for higher interest rates; as ex-Governor Jeremy Stein stated, interest rates get "in all the cracks". Moreover, the Fed does not regulate the shadow banking sector. The Fed is thus balancing concerns over signs of financial froth against the zero-bound problem and fears of the next deflationary shock. We believe that the latter will dominate their policy choices, because it will still be difficult to justify rate hikes to the public when there is no obvious inflation problem. In the U.S., this implies that the economic risks are skewed toward a boom/bust scenario in which the FOMC is slow to respond to a fiscally-driven late cycle mini-boom. Inflation and inflation expectations react with a lag, but a subsequent acceleration in both forces the Fed to aggressively choke off growth. Policy Toolkit Central bankers will be quite willing to employ their new-found policy tools again in the next recession. The new toolbox includes asset purchases, aggressive forms of forward guidance, negative interest rates, and low-cost direct lending to banks and non-banks in some countries. Policymakers generally view these tools as being at least somewhat effective, although some have argued that the costs of using negative interest rates have outweighed the benefits in Europe and Japan. The debate on how to deal with the zero-bound problem in the U.S. has focused on lifting r-star, including raising the inflation target, adopting a price level target, policies to boost productivity, and traditional fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, ex-Fed Chair Yellen's comments at the Jackson Hole conference in 2016 underscored that it will be more of the same in the event that the zero bound is again reached - quantitative easing and forward guidance.6 No doubt, the major central banks will rely heavily on both of these tools in order to manipulate yields far out the curve. Forward guidance may be threshold-based. For example, policymakers could promise to keep the policy rate frozen until unemployment or inflation reaches a given level. Now that central bankers have crossed the line into unorthodox monetary policy and inflation did not surge, future policymakers will be willing to stretch the boundaries even further in the event of a recession. For example, they may consider price-level targeting, which would institutionalize inflation overshoots to make up for past inflation undershoots. It is also possible that we will observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies in the next recession. The combination of fiscal stimulus and a cap on bond yields would be highly stimulative in theory, in part by driving the currency lower. Japan has gone half way in this direction by implementing a yield curve control (YCC) policy. However, it has failed so far to provide any meaningful fiscal stimulus since the yield cap has been in place. It also appears likely that central bank balance sheets will not return to levels as a percent of GDP that existed before the crisis. An abundance of bank deposits at the central bank will help to satisfy a structural increase in the demand for cash-like risk-free assets. Maintaining a bloated balance sheet will also allow central banks to provide substantial amounts of reverse repos (RRPs) into the market, which should improve the functioning of money markets that have been impaired to some degree by regulation. We do not expect that a structural increase in central bank balance sheets will have any material lasting impact on asset prices or inflation. We believe that inflation will surprise on the upside, but not because central banks will continue to hold significant amounts of government bonds on their balance sheets over the medium term. Bottom Line: The implication is that the monetary authorities will have a greater tolerance for an overshoot of the inflation target than in the past. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. During the next recession, policymakers will rely heavily on quantitative easing and forward guidance to manipulate the yield curve (after the policy rate reaches the lower bound). (4) Bond Prices: Structural Factors Turning Less Bullish Perhaps the most dramatic and lasting impact of the GFC has been evident in the global bond market. Government yields fell to levels never before observed across the developed countries and have remained extremely depressed, even as the expansion matured and economic slack was gradually absorbed. Real government bond yields are still negative even at the medium and long parts of the curve in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart II-10). It is tempting to conclude that there has been a permanent shift down in global bond yields. Chart II-10Real Yields Still Depressed Equilibrium bond yields are tied to the supply side of the economy. Potential GDP growth is the sum of trend productivity growth and the pace of expansion of the labor force. Equilibrium bond yields may fall below the potential growth rate for extended periods to the extent that aggregate demand faces persistent headwinds. The headwinds in place over the past decade include fiscal austerity, demographics, household deleveraging, increased regulation and lingering problems in the banking sector that limited the expansion of credit, among others. These headwinds either affect the desire to save or the desire to invest, the interplay of which affects equilibrium bond yields. Some of these economic headwinds predate 2007, but the financial crisis reinforced the desire to save more and invest less. Space limitations prevent a full review of the forces that depressed bond yields, but a summary is contained in Appendix 1 and we encourage interested readers to see our 2017 Special Report for full details.7 The Great Supply-Side Shortfall Falling potential output growth in the major advanced economies also helped to drag down equilibrium bond yields. The pace of expansion in the global labor force has plunged from 1¾% in 2005, to under 1% today (Chart II-11). The labor force has peaked in absolute terms in the G7, and is already shrinking in China. Chart II-11Slower Labor Force Expansion... Productivity growth took a dramatic turn for the worst after 2007 (Chart II-12). The dismal productivity performance is not fully understood, but likely reflected the peaking in globalization, increased regulation and the dramatic decline in capital spending relative to GDP. The latter was reflected in a collapse in the growth rate of the global capital stock (Chart II-13). In the U.S., for which we have a longer history of data, growth in the capital stocks has lead shifts in productivity growth with a 3-year lag. Firms have also been slower to adopt new technologies over the past decade. Chart II-12...And Lower Productivity Chart II-13Productivity And Investment The resulting impact on the level of GDP today has been nothing short of remarkable. The current IMF estimate for the level of potential GDP in 2018 is 10% lower than was projected by the IMF in 2008 (Chart II-14). There has been a similar downgrading of capacity in Europe, Japan and the U.K. Actual GDP has closed the gap with potential GDP to varying degrees in the major countries, but at a much lower level than was projected a decade ago. Paul Krugman has dubbed this the "Great Shortfall". Chart II-14A Permanent Loss Of Output The Great Shortfall was even greater with respect to capital spending. For 2017, the IMF estimates that global investment was more than 20% below the level implied by the pre-crisis trend (Chart II-15). Reduced credit intermediation, from a combination of supply and demand factors, was a significant factor behind the structural loss of economic capacity according to the IMF study.8 Chart II-15Permanent Scars On Capital Spending By curtailing the business investment relative to GDP for a prolonged period, major economic slumps can have a permanent effect on an economy's long-term prospects. The loss of output since the financial crisis will never be regained. That said, bond yields in theory are related to the growth rate of productivity, not its level. The IMF report noted that there may even be some long-lasting effects on the growth rate of productivity. The crisis left lingering scars on future growth due to both reduced global labor force migration and fertility rates. The latter rose in the decade before the crisis in several advanced economies, only to decline afterward. Households postponed births in the face of the economic and financial upheaval. The IMF argues that not all of the decline in fertility rates will be reversed. An Inflection Point In Global Bond Yields On a positive note, the pickup in business capital spending in the major countries in recent years implies an acceleration in the growth rate of the capital stock and, thus, productivity. In the U.S., this relationship suggests that productivity growth could rise by a percentage point over the coming few years (Chart II-13). This should correspond to a roughly equivalent rise in equilibrium bond yields. Moreover, some of the other structural factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. For example, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool as people retire and begin to deplete their nest eggs. Household savings rates will trend sharply lower in the coming years. Again, we encourage readers to read the 2017 Special Report for a full account of the structural factors that are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. QE Reversal To Weigh On Bond Prices And let's not forget the unwinding of central bank balance sheets. The idea that central bank asset purchases on their own had a significant depressing effect on global bond yields is controversial. Some argue that the impact on yields occurred more via forward guidance; quantitative easing was a signal to markets that the central bank would stay on hold for an extended period, which pulled down yields far out the curve. This publication believes that QE had a meaningful impact on global bond yields on its own (Chart II-16). Nonetheless, either way, the Fed is now shrinking its balance sheet and the European Central Bank will soon end asset purchases. This means that the private sector this year is being forced to absorb a net increase in government bonds available to the private sector for the first time since 2014 (Chart II-17). Investors may demand juicier yields in order to boost their allocation to fixed-income assets. Chart II-16Reverse QE To Weigh On Bonds Chart II-17Private Investors Will Have To Buy More We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors still have an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2027 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-18). The implied path of real rates in the U.S. looks more reasonable, but there is still upside potential. Moreover, there is room for the inflation expectations component of nominal yields to shift up, as discussed above. Chart II-18Real Yields Still Too Low Another way of making this point is shown in Chart II-19. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is still very low by historical standards. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year/5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-19Market Expectations Still Low Bottom Line: Global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels due to a combination of cyclical and structural factors. The bond-bullish structural factors were reinforced by shifts in desired savings and business investment as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Some of these structural factors will linger in the coming years, but others are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even return close to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix 1: Key Factors Behind The Decline In Equilibrium Global Bond Yields The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. A key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. China became a major source of global savings after it joined the WTO, and its large trade surplus was recycled into the global pool of savings. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. The increase in ex-ante savings and reduction in ex-ante capital spending resulted in a substantial drop in equilibrium global interest rates. The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie. A positive labor supply shock should benefit global living standards in the long run, but the adjustment costs related to China's integration into the global economy imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. Moreover, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners. This represents a headwind to growth that requires lower interest rates all along the curve. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. 1 We make the simplifying assumptions that companies do not issue any more debt over the three years, and that EBIT is unchanged, in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. 2 The average credit rating for the U.S. is unavailable before 2000 in the Bloomberg Barclays index. However, other data sources confirm the long-term downward trend. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector," dated May 31, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Reports "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018 and "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The lower bound is zero in the U.S., but is in negative territory for those central banks willing to impose negative rates on the banking sector. 6 For more background on the zero bound debate, the usefulness of a large central bank balance sheet and ways to lift r-star, please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Herding Cats At the Fed," dated October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," dated April 27, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8 The Global Economic Recovery 10 Years After the 2008 Financial Meltdown. IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2018.

Highlights Duration: Foreign economic growth continues to diverge negatively from growth in the United States. The resulting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar will eventually drag U.S. growth down, and could temporarily threaten the cyclical uptrend in Treasury yields. But so far there is no evidence that dollar strength is too much for the U.S. economy to handle. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration until signs of contagion are more apparent. Yield Curve: A reading of the macro drivers of the yield curve suggests that the slope of the curve will not steepen or flatten dramatically during the next 6-12 months. In this environment, trades that are long the belly of the curve and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the short and long ends will profit, due to extremely attractive valuation. We currently recommend going long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. Feature If investors were already worried about the impact of restrictive Fed policy on credit spreads and equities, the minutes from September's FOMC meeting - released last Wednesday - did nothing to calm their nerves. The minutes revealed that "a few participants expected that policy would need to become modestly restrictive for a time" while an additional "number" of participants "judged that it would be necessary to temporarily raise the federal funds rate above their assessments of its longer-run level." There is a small distinction between the "few" participants who expect that a fed funds rate above the estimated longer-run neutral level of 3% will be necessary because restrictive monetary policy will be warranted and the "number" of participants who think that the fed funds rate will move above 3% without policy turning restrictive. However, the main takeaway for investors should be that a large portion of the committee expects that rate hikes will continue until the fed funds rate is at least above 3%. In last week's report we explored the risk that higher yields lead to an excessive tightening of financial conditions and actually sow the seeds of their own decline.1 But we do not view that as the greatest threat to our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. The biggest risk to that view comes from the ongoing divergence between strong U.S. and weak foreign economic growth. No Contagion... Yet Chart 1 shows that, since 1993, every time our Global (ex. U.S.) Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has fallen below zero, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. But while the Global (ex. U.S.) LEI has now been below zero for nine consecutive months, there is so far no evidence of contagion into the United States. The resilience of the U.S. economy probably explains why the September FOMC minutes only briefly mentioned the risk from weak foreign growth. Chart 1U.S. And Foreign Growth Continue To Diverge From the minutes:2 The divergence between domestic and foreign economic growth prospects and monetary policies was cited as presenting a downside risk because of the potential for further strengthening of the U.S. dollar... But: Participants generally agreed that risks to the outlook appeared roughly balanced. The concern is that, much like in the 2014-16 period, the divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world puts so much upward pressure on the dollar that it eventually drags U.S. growth and bond yields lower. But despite this year's 4.6% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar, we have yet to see any impact on our Fed Monitor and Treasury yields remain in an uptrend (Chart 2). This suggests that we have not yet reached peak divergence between U.S. and foreign growth. Further divergence and dollar strength is necessary before the U.S. economy is negatively impacted. Chart 2More $ Strength Required The reason why the dollar's recent appreciation has not yet exerted a discernible impact on the U.S. economy might be because overall global GDP growth is on a more solid footing than it was in 2014-16 (Chart 3). The IMF forecasts that global GDP growth will be 3.7% in 2018 and 2019, compared to 3.5% in 2015. Meanwhile, the moderation in Eurozone growth represents a decline from lofty 2017 GDP growth of 2.4%. Even in emerging markets, where the global growth slowdown is most apparent, the IMF is still forecasting GDP growth of 4.7% for both 2018 and 2019, a far cry from the 4.3% seen in 2015 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Global Growth Stronger Than 2014-16 Of course, IMF forecasts can always change, and they likely will be revised lower if current trends continue. However, the key point for bond investors is that the global economy is in much better shape than it was between 2014 and 2016. This means that non-U.S. growth needs to see further significant weakness before the uptrend in U.S. Treasury yields is threatened. Bottom Line: Foreign economic growth continues to diverge negatively from growth in the United States. The resulting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar will eventually drag U.S. growth down, and could temporarily threaten the cyclical uptrend in Treasury yields. But so far there is no evidence that dollar strength is too much for the U.S. economy to handle. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration until signs of contagion are more apparent. Can Uncertainty Steepen The Yield Curve? The yield curve has steepened somewhat during the past few weeks, the result of much higher yields at the long-end of the curve and short-end yields that have been roughly unchanged. We think Fed communication has been an important catalyst for this curve action. Specifically, the Fed's deliberate attempt to introduce uncertainty around its estimates of the neutral fed funds rate.3 Bond investors are finally getting the message that the Fed's median forecast of a 3% longer-run fed funds rate is not written in stone. Depending on the economic outlook, the funds rate could peak for the cycle at a level that is well above or below 3%. Given the recent spate of strong U.S. economic data, the market is starting to discount a peak that is above 3%, no matter what median forecast appears in the Fed's dots. This raises the question of whether a further un-anchoring of long-dated yields could occur. Is it possible that the yield curve will continue to steepen, even with the Fed lifting short rates at a gradual pace of 25 basis points per quarter? Below, we review a few different macro drivers of the yield curve and conclude that neither a large steepening nor large flattening is likely during the next 6-12 months. Nominal GDP Growth One useful rule-of-thumb for when monetary policy turns restrictive is when the 10-year Treasury yield exceeds the rate of growth in nominal GDP. In the past, a 10-year yield above the rate of growth in nominal GDP has coincided with downward pressure on core inflation (Chart 4). With that in mind, we note that nominal GDP has grown by 5.44% during the past year, by 3.98% (annualized) during the past two years and by 3.85% (annualized) during the past three years. Chart 410-Year Yield & Nominal GDP We discount the recent 5.44% growth rate because it was largely fueled by fiscal thrust that will fade in the coming quarters. This leaves us with a recent trend of 3.85% - 4% in nominal GDP growth. Even with no further deterioration in growth as the cycle matures, this puts an approximate cap on how high long-dated yields can rise before policy becomes restrictive and the cycle starts to turn. With the 10-year Treasury yield already at 3.19%, it can rise by between 66 bps and 81 bps before it reaches that range. If that adjustment were to occur very quickly, then the yield curve would steepen sharply and then re-flatten as the Fed lifted rates to catch up with the long end. Alternatively, if that adjustment were to occur over a period of 6-9 months, with the Fed hiking at a pace of 25 bps per quarter, the slope of the yield curve would be roughly unchanged. Wage Growth While nominal GDP growth is useful for thinking about long-maturity yields, wage growth correlates quite strongly with the slope of the yield curve itself. Specifically, rapid wage gains tend to coincide with curve flattening, and vice-versa. In fact, a typical cyclical pattern is that first the yield curve flattens and then wage growth accelerates to catch up with the curve (Chart 5). It would be highly unusual for the yield curve to steepen significantly while wage growth is rising, which it finally appears to be doing. Chart 5Higher Wage Growth = Flatter Curve We cannot completely rule out the possibility that stronger productivity growth actually causes unit labor costs to decelerate even as "top line" wage pressures mount. Unit labor costs are essentially the ratio of wages (compensation per hour) to productivity (output-per-hour), and the bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that a deceleration in unit labor costs could cause the yield curve to steepen. However, we note that there is not much precedent for strong productivity growth overwhelming an acceleration in wages, causing unit labor costs to diverge from other wage measures. For example, even as productivity growth strengthened in the 1990s, unit labor costs continued to rise alongside other measures of wage growth. Inflation Expectations We have frequently noted that inflation expectations embedded in long-dated Treasury yields remain too low compared to levels that are consistent with inflation being well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. It stands to reason that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates could steepen the yield curve as they adjust higher. However, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.11%, only slightly below the range of 2.3% to 2.5% that has historically been consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations (Chart 6). In other words, the upside in long-dated breakevens is now fairly limited. In contrast, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate stands at only 1.70%, still considerably below "well-anchored" levels (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6More Upside In Short-Dated Breakevens Further, since the financial crisis, breakevens at both the short- and long-ends of the curve have been driven by trends in the actual inflation data (Chart 7). If it is rising realized inflation that has driven both the 2-year and 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates higher this cycle, and the 2-year rate is further away from target than the 10-year rate, then it stands to reason that inflation expectations are more likely to exert flattening pressure on the nominal yield curve than steepening pressure. Chart 7Realized Inflation Is Driving Expectations Rate Volatility & The Term Premium One final macro driver that could steepen the yield curve would be a spike in interest rate volatility and an increase in the term premium at the long-end of the curve. Our prior research has shown that implied interest rate volatility is linked to uncertainty about the macro environment, and Chart 8 shows that the MOVE index of implied interest rate volatility has tended to track the dispersion of individual forecasts of 3-month T-bill rates and GDP growth. In this context, it should not be surprising that implied volatility fell to very low levels when interest rates were pinned at zero and not expected to move for an extended period. Chart 8Macro Uncertainty & Rate Volatility But, as was mentioned above, the Fed has been trying scale back its forward guidance and inject some uncertainty into the market. Indeed, we think this is one reason why the yield curve steepened and rate volatility increased during the past few weeks. Taking a broader view, we also observe that, historically, macro uncertainty and implied interest rate volatility have tended to fall when the Fed is hiking rates, only spiking once monetary policy becomes restrictive and the economic recovery is threatened. The yield curve is typically inverted by that point. This leaves us to conclude that some further increase in interest rate volatility from exceptionally low levels is possible, but a large spike is unlikely until monetary policy becomes restrictive. Investment Implications A survey of the macro drivers of the yield curve leaves us to conclude that the most likely outcome for the next 6-12 months is that the slope of the curve remains close to its current level, meaning that the curve undergoes a roughly parallel upward shift as the Fed continues to lift rates. However, if nominal GDP growth fails to decelerate from its current 5.44% clip, it is possible that the yield curve steepens first and then flattens as the Fed lifts rates more quickly to catch up. This is not the most likely outcome, but rather a risk to our base case scenario. The final piece of the puzzle is the observation that curve steepener trades continue to look attractively priced. Our current recommendation is to favor the 7-year bullet over a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 1-year and 20-year notes. This trade offers a spread of +8 bps above the reading from our fair value model (Chart 9). Or alternatively, our model shows that the 1/7/20 butterfly spread is currently priced for 29 bps of 1/20 curve flattening during the next six months (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 9Curve Steepeners Are Still Attractive That much curve flattening is highly unlikely in the current macro environment, and we continue to recommend curve steepener trades to profit from an unchanged yield curve during the next six months. Bottom Line: A reading of the macro drivers of the yield curve suggests that the slope of the curve will not steepen or flatten dramatically during the next 6-12 months. In this environment, trades that are long the belly of the curve and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the short and long ends will profit, due to extremely attractive valuation. We currently recommend going long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rate Shock", dated October 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20180926.pdf 3Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification