Monetary Policy

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This year, Mr. X introduced us to his daughter, who we shall identify as Ms. X. She has many years of experience as a portfolio manager, initially in a wealth management firm, and subsequently in two major hedge funds. In 2017, she joined her father to help him run the family office portfolio. She took an active role in our recent discussion and this report is an edited transcript of our conversation. Mr. X: As always, it is a great pleasure to sit down with you to discuss the economic and investment outlook. And I am thrilled to bring my daughter to the meeting. She and I do not always agree on the market outlook and appropriate investment strategy, but even in her first year working with me she has added tremendous value to our decisions and performance. As you know, I have a very conservative bias in my approach and this means I sometimes miss out on opportunities. My daughter is more willing than me to take risks, so we make a good team. I am happy that our investment portfolio has performed well over the past year, but am puzzled by the high level of investor complacency. I can't understand why investors do not share my concerns about by sky-high valuations, a volatile geopolitical environment and the considerable potential for financial instability. Over the years, you have made me appreciate the power of easy money to create financial bubbles and also that market overshoots can last for a surprisingly long time. Thus, I am fully aware that we could easily have another year of strong gains, but were that to happen, I would worry about the potential for a sudden 1987-style crash. I remember that event well and it was an unpleasant experience. My inclination is to move right now to an underweight equity position. Ms. X: Let me add that I am delighted to finally attend the annual BCA meeting with my father. Over the years, he has talked to me at length about your discussions, making me very jealous that I was not there. He and I do frequently disagree about the outlook so it will be good to have BCA's independent and objective perspective. As my father noted, I do not always share his cautious bias. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded him to raise our equity exposure and that was the right decision. I have been in the business long enough to know that it is dangerous to get more bullish as the market rises and I agree there probably is too much complacency. However, I do not see an early end to the conditions that are driving the bull market and I am inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. Thus, the big debate between us is whether or not we should now book profits from the past year's strong performance and move to an underweight stance in risk assets. Hopefully, this meeting will help us make the right decision. Chart 1An Impressive Bull Market An Impressive Bull Market An Impressive Bull Market BCA: First of all, we are delighted to see you both and look forward to getting to know Ms. X in the years to come. It is not a surprise that you are debating whether to cut exposure to risk assets because that question is on the mind of many of our clients. We share your surprise about complacency - investors have been seduced by the relentless upward drift of prices since early 2016. The global equity index has not suffered any setback above 2% during the past year, and that has to be close to a record (Chart 1). The conditions that have underpinned this remarkable performance are indeed still in place but we expect that to change during the coming year. Thus, if equity prices continue to rise, it would make sense to reduce exposure to risk assets to a neutral position over the next few months. A blow-off phase with a final spike in prices cannot be ruled out, but trying to catch those moves is a very high-risk strategy. We are not yet recommending underweight positions in risk assets, but if our economic and policy views pan out, we likely will shift in that direction in the second half of 2018. Ms. X: It seems that you are siding with my father in terms of wanting to scale back exposure to risk assets. That would be premature in my view and I look forward to discussing this in more detail. But first, I would be interested in reviewing your forecasts from last year. BCA: Of course. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of President-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. The key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given President-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. The most important prediction that we got right was our view that conditions were ripe for an overshoot in equity prices. The MSCI all-country index has delivered an impressive total return of around 20% in dollar terms since the end of 2016, one of the best calendar year performances of the current cycle (Table 1). So it was good that your daughter persuaded you to keep a healthy equity exposure. It is all the more impressive that the market powered ahead in the face of all the concerns that you noted earlier. Our preference for European markets over the U.S. worked out well in common currency terms, but only because the dollar declined. Emerging markets did much better than we expected, with significant outperformance relative to their developed counterparts. Table 1Market Performance 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course With regard to the overall economic environment, we were correct in forecasting a modest improvement in 2017 global economic activity and that growth would not fall short of the IMF's predictions for the first time in the current expansion. However, one big surprise, not only for us, but also for policymakers, was that inflation drifted lower in the major economies. Latest data show the core inflation rate for the G7 economies is running at only 1.4%, down from 1.6% at the end of 2016. We will return to this critical issue later as the trend in inflation outlook will be a key determinant of the market outlook for the coming year and beyond. Regionally, the Euro area and Japanese economies registered the biggest upside surprises relative to our forecast and those of the IMF (Table 2). That goes a long way to explaining why the U.S. dollar was weaker than we expected. In addition, the dollar was not helped by a market downgrading of the scale and timing of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the dollar has merely unwound the 2016 Trump rally and recently has shown some renewed strength. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course A year ago, there were major concerns about potential political turmoil from important elections in Europe, the risk of U.S.-led trade wars and a credit bust-up in China. We downplayed these issues as near-term threats to the markets and that turned out to be appropriate. Nevertheless, there are many lingering risks to the outlook and market complacency is a much bigger concern now than it was a year ago. Mr. X: As you just noted, a key theme of your Outlook last year was "Shifting Regimes" such as the end of disinflation and fiscal conservatism, a retreat from globalization, and the start of a rebalancing in income shares away from profits toward labor. And of course, you talked about the End of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago. Do you still have confidence that these regime shifts are underway? BCA: Absolutely! These are all trends that we expect to play out over a number of years and thus can't be judged by short-term developments. There have been particularly important shifts in the policy environment. The 2007-09 economic and financial meltdown led central banks to fight deflation rather than inflation and we would not bet against them in this battle. Inflation has been lower than expected, but there has been a clear turning point. On fiscal policy, governments have largely given up on austerity against a background of a disappointingly slow economic recovery in recent years and rising populist pressures (Chart 2). The U.S. budget deficit could rise particularly sharply over the next few years. In the U.S., the relative income shares going to profits and labor have started to shift direction, but there is a long way to go. Finally, the same forces driving government to loosen fiscal purse strings have also undermined support for globalization with the U.S. even threatening to abandon NAFTA. The ratio of global trade to output has trended sideways for several years and is unlikely to turn higher any time soon. All these trends are part of our Regime Shift thesis. Chart 2Regime Shifts Regime Shifts Regime Shifts The remarkable macro backdrop of low inflation, easy money and healthy profits has been incredibly positive for financial markets in recent years. You would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that such an environment will persist. Our big concern for the coming year is that we are setting up for a collision between the markets and looming changes in economic policy. The Coming Collision Between Policy And The Markets BCA: As you mentioned earlier, we attach enormous importance to the role of easy money in supporting asset prices and it is hard to imagine that we could have had a more stimulative monetary environment than has existed in recent years. Central banks have been in panic mode since the 2007-09 downturn with an unprecedented period of negative real interest rates in the advanced economies, coupled with an extraordinary expansion of central bank balance sheets (Chart 3). Initially, the fear was for another Great Depression and as that threat receded, the focus switched to getting inflation back to the 2% target favored by most developed countries. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, negative real rates have failed to trigger the typical rebound in credit demand that was so characteristic of the pre-downturn era. Central banks have expanded base money in the form of bank reserves, but this has not translated into markedly faster growth in broad money or nominal GDP. This is highlighted by the collapse in money multipliers (the ratio of broad to base money) and in velocity (the ratio of GDP to broad money). This has been a double whammy: there is less broad money generated for each dollar of base money and less GDP for every dollar of broad money (Chart 4). Chart 3An Extraordinary Period Of Easy Money An Extraordinary Period of Easy Money An Extraordinary Period of Easy Money Chart 4Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Historically, monetary policy acted primarily through the credit channel with lower rates making households and companies more willing to borrow, and lenders more willing to supply funds. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, the credit channel has become partly blocked, forcing policymakers to rely more on the other channels of monetary transmission, the main one being boosting asset prices. However, there is a limit to how far this can go because the end result is massively overvalued assets and building financial excesses. The Fed and many other central banks now realize that this strategy cannot be pushed much further. The economic recovery in the U.S. and other developed economies has been the weakest of the post-WWII period. But potential growth rates also have slowed which means that spare capacity has gradually been absorbed. According to the IMF, the U.S. output gap closed in 2015 having been as high as 2% of potential GDP in 2013. The IMF estimates that the economy was operating slightly above potential in 2017 with a further rise forecast in 2018 (Chart 5). According to IMF estimates, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018 (i.e. they will be operating above potential). This makes it hard to justify the maintenance of hyper-stimulative monetary policies. Chart 5No More Output Gaps No More Output Gaps No More Output Gaps The low U.S. inflation rate is giving the Fed the luxury of moving cautiously and that is keeping the markets buoyant. Indeed, the markets don't even believe the Fed will be able to raise rates as much they expect. The most recent FOMC projections show a median federal funds rate of 2.1% by the end of 2018 but the markets are discounting a move to only 1.8%. The markets probably have this wrong because inflation is likely to wake up from its slumber in the second half of the year. Ms. X: This is another area where my father and I disagree. I view the world as essentially deflationary. We all know that technological innovations have opened up competition in a lot of markets, driving down prices. Two obvious examples are Uber and Airbnb, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is another example of how increased competitive pressures will continue to sweep through previously relatively stable industries. And such changes have an important impact on employee psychology and thus bargaining power. These days, people are glad to just keep their jobs and this means companies hold the upper hand when it comes to wage negotiations. So I don't see a pickup in inflation being a threat to the markets any time soon. Mr. X: I have a different perspective. First of all, I do not even believe the official inflation data because most of the things I buy have risen a lot in price over the past couple of years. Secondly, given the extremely stimulative stance of monetary policy in recent years, a pickup in inflation would not surprise me at all. So I am sympathetic to the BCA view. But, even if the data is correct, why have inflation forecasts proved so wrong and what underpins your view that it will increase in the coming year? BCA: There is an interesting disconnect between the official data and the inflation views of many consumers and economic/statistics experts. According to the Conference Board, U.S. consumers' one-year ahead inflation expectations have persistently exceeded the published data and the latest reading is close to 5% (Chart 6). That ties in with your perception. Consumer surveys by the New York Fed and University of Michigan have year-ahead inflation expectations at a more reasonable 2.5%. At the same time, many "experts" believe the official data is overstated because it fails to take enough account of technological changes and new lower-priced goods and services. The markets also have a moderately optimistic view with the five-year CPI swap rate at 2%. This is optimistic because it is consistent with inflation below the Fed's 2% target, if one allows for an inflation risk premium built in to the swap price. We are prepared to take the inflation data broadly at face value. Low inflation is consistent with an ongoing tough competitive environment in most sectors, boosted by the disruptive impact of technological changes that Ms. X described. The inflation rate for core goods (ex-food and energy) has been in negative territory for several years while that for services ex-shelter is at the low end of its historical range (Chart 7). Chart 6Differing Perspectives Of Inflation Differing Perspectives of Inflation Differing Perspectives of Inflation Chart 7Not Much Inflation Here Not Much Inflation Here Not Much Inflation Here There is no simple explanation of why inflation has fallen short of forecasts. Economic theory assumes that price pressures build as an economy moves closer to full employment and the U.S. is at that point. This raises several possibilities: There is more slack in the economy than suggested by the low unemployment rate. The lags are unusually long in the current cycle. Technological disruption is having a greater impact than expected. The link between economic slack and inflationary pressures is typically captured by the Phillips Curve which shows the relationship between the unemployment rate and inflation. In the U.S., the current unemployment rate of 4.1% is believed to be very close to a full-employment level. Yet, inflation recently has trended lower and while wage growth is in an uptrend, it has remained softer than expected (Chart 8). Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Are Turning Inflationary Pressures Are Turning Inflationary Pressures Are Turning We agree with Ms. X that employee bargaining power has been undermined over the years by globalization and technological change and by the impact of the 2007-09 economic downturn. That would certainly explain a weakened relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth, but does not completely negate the theory. The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. As far as the impact of technology is concerned, there is no doubt that innovations like Uber and Airbnb are deflationary. However, our analysis suggests that the growth in online spending has not had a major impact on the inflation numbers. E-commerce still represents a small fraction of total U.S. consumer spending, depressing overall consumer inflation by only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. The deceleration of inflation since the global financial crisis has been in areas largely unaffected by online sales, such as energy and rent. Moreover, today's creative destruction in the retail sector is no more deflationary than the earlier shift to 'big box' stores. We are not looking for a dramatic acceleration in either wage growth or inflation - just enough to convince the Fed that it needs to carry on with its plan to raise interest rates. And the pressure to do this will increase if the Administration is able to deliver on its planned tax cuts. Ms. X: You make it sound as if cutting taxes would be a bad thing. Surely the U.S. would benefit from the Administration's tax plan? A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be very bullish for equities. BCA: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform via eliminating loopholes and distortions and using the savings to lower marginal rates. That would make it more efficient and hopefully boost the supply side of the economy without undermining revenues. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. Importantly, there is not a strong case for personal tax cuts given that a married worker on the average wage and with two children paid an average income tax rate of only 14% in 2016, according to OECD calculations. There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. The combination of easier fiscal policy and Fed rate hikes will be bullish for the dollar and this will contribute to tighter overall financial conditions. That is why we see a coming collision between economic policy and the markets. The narrative for the so-called Trump rally in markets was based on the assumption that the Administration's platform of increased spending, tax cuts and reduced regulations would be bullish for the economy and thus risk assets. That was always a misplaced notion. The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. The Trump agenda would be appropriate for an economy that had a lot of spare capacity and needed a big boost in demand. It is less suited for an economy with little spare capacity. Reduced regulations and lower corporate tax rates are good for the supply side of the economy and could boost the potential growth rate. However, if a key move is large personal tax cuts then the boost to demand will dominate. Mr. X: It seems that you are making the case for a serious policy error in the U.S. in the coming year - both on fiscal and monetary policy. I can't argue against that because everything that has happened over the past few years tells me that policymakers don't have a good grip on either the economy or the implications of their actions. I never believed that printing money and creating financial bubbles was a sensible approach to an over-indebted economy. I always expected it to end badly. BCA: Major tightening cycles frequently end in recession because monetary policy is a very blunt tool. Central banks would like to raise rates by just enough to cool things down but that is hard to achieve. The problem with fiscal policy is that implementation lags mean that it often is pro-cyclical. In other words, there is pressure for fiscal stimulus in a downturn, but by the time legislation is passed, the economy typically has already recovered and does not really need a big fiscal boost. And that certainly applies to the current environment. The other area of potential policy error is on trade. Having already pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trump Administration is taking a hardline attitude toward a renegotiation of NAFTA. This could even end up with the deal being scrapped and that would add another element of risk to the North American economies. Ms. X: Your scenario assumes that the Fed will be quite hawkish. However, everything I have read about Jerome Powell, the new Fed chair, suggests that he will err on the side of caution when it comes to raising rates. So monetary policy may not collide with markets at all over the coming year. BCA: It is certainly true that Powell does not have any particular bias when it comes to the conduct of monetary policy. That would not have been the case if either John Taylor or Kevin Warsh had been given the job - they both have a hawkish bias. Powell is not an economist so will likely follow a middle path and be heavily influenced by the Fed's staff forecasts and by the opinions of other FOMC members. There are still several vacancies on the Fed's Board so much will depend on who is appointed to those positions. The latest FOMC forecasts are for growth and inflation of only 2% in 2018 and these numbers seem too low. Meanwhile, the prediction that unemployment will still be at 4.1% at end-2018 is too high. We expect projections of growth and inflation to be revised up and unemployment to be revised down. That will embolden the Fed to keep raising rates. So, even with Powell at the helm, monetary policy is set to get tighter than the market currently expects. Ms. X: So far, we have talked mainly about the U.S. What about other central banks? I can't believe that inflation will be much of a problem in the euro area or in Japan any time soon. Does that not mean that the overall global monetary environment will stay favorable for risk assets? BCA: The Fed is at the leading edge of the shift away from extreme monetary ease by hiking interest rates and starting the process of balance sheet reduction. But the Bank of Canada also has raised rates and the ECB has announced that it will cut its asset purchases in half beginning January 2018, as a first step in normalizing policy. Even the Bank of England has raised rates despite Brexit-related downside risks for the economy. The BoJ will keep an accommodative stance for the foreseeable future. You are correct that financial conditions will be tightening more in the U.S. than in other developed economies. Moreover, equity valuations are more stretched in the U.S. than elsewhere leaving that market especially vulnerable. Yet, market correlations are such that any sell-off in U.S. risk assets is likely to become a global affair. Another key issue relates to the potential for financial shocks. Long periods of extreme monetary ease always fuel excesses and sometimes these remain hidden until they blow up. We know that companies have taken on a lot of debt, largely to fund financial transactions such as share buybacks and merger and acquisitions activity. That is unlikely to be the direct cause of a financial accident but might well become a problem in the next downturn. It typically is increased leverage within the financial sector itself that poses the greatest risk and that is very opaque. The banking system is much better capitalized than before the 2007-09 downturn so the risks lie elsewhere. As would be expected, margin debt has climbed higher with the equity market, and is at a historically high level relative to market capitalization (Chart 9). We don't have good data on the degree of leverage among non-bank financial institutions such as hedge funds but that is where leverage surprises are likely to occur. And the level of interest rates that causes financial stress is almost certainly to be a lot lower than in the past. Chart 9Financial Leverage Has Risen Financial Leverage Has Risen Financial Leverage Has Risen Mr. X: That is the perfect lead-in to my perennial concern - the high level of debt in the major economies. I realize high debt levels are not a problem when interest rates are close to zero, but that will change if your view on the Fed is correct. Ms. X: I would just add that this is one area where I share my father's concerns, but with an important caveat. I wholeheartedly agree that high debt levels pose a threat to economic and financial stability, but I see this as a long-term issue. Even with rising interest rates, debt servicing costs will stay low for at least the next year. It seems to me that rates will have to rise a lot before debt levels in the major economies pose a serious threat to the system. Even if the Fed tightens policy in line with its plans, real short rates will still stay low by historical standards. This will not only keep debt financing manageable but will also sustain the search for yield and support equity prices. BCA: We would be disappointed if you both had not raised the issue of debt. Debt levels do indeed remain very elevated among advanced and emerging economies (Chart 10). The growth in private debt remains far below pre-crisis levels in the advanced countries, but this has been offset by the continued high level of government borrowing. As a result, the total debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed close to a peak. And both private and public debt ratios have climbed to new highs in the emerging economies, with China leading the charge. Chart 10ADebt Levels Remain Elevated Debt Levels Remain Elevated Debt Levels Remain Elevated Chart 10BDebt Levels Remain Elevated 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course As we have discussed in the past, there is not an inconsistency between our End of Debt Supercycle thesis and the continued high levels of debt in most countries. As noted earlier, record-low interest rates have not triggered the kind of private credit resurgence that occurred in the pre-crisis period. For example, household borrowing has remained far below historical levels as a percent of income in the U.S., despite low borrowing costs (Chart 11). At the same time, it is not a surprise that debt-to-income ratios are high given the modest growth in nominal incomes in most countries. Chart 11Low Rates Have Not Triggered ##br##A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Low Rates Have Not Triggered A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Low Rates Have Not Triggered A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Debt growth is not benign everywhere. In the developed world, Canada's debt growth is worryingly high, both in the household and corporate sectors. As is also the case with Australia, Canada's overheated housing market has fueled rapid growth in mortgage debt. These are accidents waiting to happen when borrowing costs increase. In the emerging word, China has yet to see the end of its Debt Supercycle. Fortunately, with most banks under state control, the authorities should be able to contain any systemic risks, at least in the near run. With regard to timing, we agree that debt levels are not likely to pose an economic or financial problem in next year. It is right to point out that debt-servicing costs are very low by historical standards and it will take time for rising rates to have an impact given that a lot of debt is locked in at low rates. For example, in the U.S., the ratio of household debt-servicing to income and the non-financial business sector's ratio of interest payments to EBITD are at relatively benign levels (Chart 12). However, changes occur at the margin and the example of the Bernanke taper tantrum highlighted investor sensitivity to even modest changes in the monetary environment. You may well be right Ms. X that risk assets will continue to climb higher in the face of a tighter financial conditions. But given elevated valuations, we lean toward a cautious rather than aggressive approach to strategy. We would rather leave some money on the table than risk being caught in a sudden downdraft. Other investors, including yourself, might prefer to wait for clearer signals that a turning point is imminent. Returning to the issue of indebtedness, the end-game for high debt levels continues to be a topic of intense interest. There really are only three options: to grow out of it, to write it off, or to try and inflate it away. The first option obviously would be best - to have fast enough growth in real incomes that allowed debtors to start paying down their debt. Unfortunately, that is the least likely prospect given adverse demographic trends throughout the developed world and disappointing productivity growth (Chart 13). Chart 12Borrowing Costs Are Benign Borrowing Costs Are Benign Borrowing Costs Are Benign Chart 13It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt ##br##With These Structural Headwinds It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt With These Structural Headwinds It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt With These Structural Headwinds Writing the debt off - i.e. defaulting - is a desperate measure that would be the very last resort after all other approaches had failed. In this case, we are talking mainly about government debt, because private debt always has to be written off when borrowers become bankrupt. Japan is the one developed country where government debt probably will be written off eventually. Given that the Bank of Japan owns around 45% of outstanding government debt, those holdings can be neutralized by converting them to perpetuals - securities that are never redeemed. If the first two options are not viable, then inflation becomes the preferred solution to over-indebtedness. To make a big impact, inflation would need to rise far above the 2% level currently favored by central banks, and it would have to stay elevated for quite some time. Central banks are not yet ready to allow such an environment, but that could change after the next economic downturn. Central banks have made it clear that they are prepared to pursue radical policies in order to prevent deflation. This sets the scene for increasingly aggressive actions after the next recession and the end result could be a period of significantly higher inflation. Mr. X: I don't disagree with that view which is why I always like to hold some physical gold in my portfolio. It is interesting that you are worried about a looming setback for risk assets because you are positive on the near-run economic outlook. That is contrary to the typical view that sees a decent economy as supporting higher equity prices. Let's spend a bit more time on your view of the economic outlook. Ms. X: Before we do that, I would just emphasize that it is far too early to worry about debt end games and the potential for sharply rising inflation. I don't disagree that monetary policy could be forced to embrace massive reflation during the next downturn and perhaps that will make me change my view of the inflation outlook. But the sequencing is important because we would first have to deal with a recession that could be a very deflationary episode. And before the next recession we could have period of continued decent growth, which would be positive for risk assets. So I agree that the near-term view of the economic outlook is important. The Economic Outlook BCA: This recovery cycle has been characterized by a series of shocks and headwinds that constrained growth in various regions. In no particular order, these included fiscal austerity, the euro crisis, a brief U.S. government shutdown, the Japanese earthquake, and a spike in oil prices above $100. As we discussed a year ago, in the absence of any new shocks, we expected global growth to improve and that is what occurred in 2017. A broad range of indicators shows that activity has picked up steam in most areas. Purchasing managers' indexes are in an uptrend, business and consumer confidence are at cyclical highs and leading indicators have turned up (Chart 14). This is hardly a surprise given easy monetary conditions and a more relaxed fiscal stance almost everywhere. Chart 14Global Activity On An Uptrend Global Activity On An Uptrend Global Activity On An Uptrend The outlook for 2018 is positive and the IMF's projections for growth is probably too low (see Table 2). So, for the second year in a row, the next set of updates due in the spring are likely to be revised up. Ms. X: Let's talk about the U.S. economy. You are concerned that tax cuts could contribute to overheating, tighter monetary policy and an eventual collision with the markets. But there are two alternative scenarios, both quite optimistic for risk assets. On the one hand, a cut in the corporate tax rate could trigger a further improvement in business confidence and thus acceleration in capital spending. This would boost the supply side of the economy and mean that faster growth need not lead to higher inflation. It would be the perfect world of a low inflation boom. At the other extreme, if political gridlock prevents any meaningful tax cuts, we will be left with the status quo of moderate growth and low inflation that has been very positive for markets during the past several years. Mr. X: You can always rely on my daughter to emphasize the potential for optimistic outcomes. I would suggest another entirely different scenario. The cycle is very mature and I fear it would not take much to tip the economy into recession, even if we get some tax relief. So I am more concerned with near-term downside risks to the U.S. economy. A recession in the coming year would be catastrophic for the stock market in my view. BCA: Before we get to the outlook, let's agree on where we are right now. As we already noted, the U.S. economy currently is operating very close to its potential level. The Congressional Budget Office estimates potential growth to be only 1.6% a year at present, which explains why the unemployment rate has dropped even though growth has averaged a modest 2% pace in recent years. The consumer sector has generally been a source of stability with real spending growing at a 2¾% pace over the past several years (Chart 15). And, encouragingly, business investment has recently picked up from its earlier disappointing level. On the negative side, the recovery in housing has lost steam and government spending has been a source of drag. Looking ahead, the pattern of growth may change a bit. With regard to consumer spending, the pace of employment growth is more likely to slow than accelerate given the tight market and growing lack of available skilled employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, 88% of small companies hiring or trying to hire reported "few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill". Companies in manufacturing and construction say that the difficulty in finding qualified workers is their single biggest problem, beating taxes and regulations. In addition, we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 16). On the other hand, wage growth should continue to firm and there is the prospect of tax cuts. Overall, this suggests that consumer spending should continue to grow by at least a 2% pace in 2018. Chart 15Trends In U.S. Growth Trends In U.S. Growth Trends In U.S. Growth Chart 16Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Survey data suggests that business investment spending should remain strong in the coming year, even without any additional boost from corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, rebuilding and renovations in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma should provide a short-term boost to housing investment and a more lasting improvement will occur if the millennial generation finally moves out of their parents' basements. On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 17). And although housing affordability is down from its peak, it remains at an attractive level from a historical perspective. Chart 17A Weak Housing Recovery A Weak Housing Recovery A Weak Housing Recovery Last, but not least, government spending will face countervailing forces. The Administration plans to increase spending on defense and infrastructure but there could be some offsetting cutbacks in other areas. Overall, government spending should make a positive contribution to 2018 after being a drag in 2017. Putting all this together, the U.S. economy should manage to sustain a growth rate of around 2.5% in 2018, putting GDP further above its potential level. And it could rise above that if tax cuts are at the higher end of the range. You suggested three alternative scenarios to our base case: a supply-side boom, continued moderate growth and a near-term recession. A supply-side revival that leads to strong growth and continued low inflation would be extremely bullish, but we are skeptical about that possibility. The revival in capital spending is good news, but this will take time to feed into faster productivity growth. Overall, any tax cuts will have a greater impact on demand than supply, putting even greater pressure on an already tight labor market. The second scenario of a continuation of the recent status quo is more possible, especially if we end up with a very watered-down tax package. However, growth would actually have to drop below 2% in order to prevent GDP from rising above potential. We will closely monitor leading indicators for signs that growth is about to lose momentum. The bearish scenario of a near-term recession cannot be completely discounted, but there currently is no compelling evidence of such a development. Recessions can arrive with little warning if there is an unanticipated shock, but that is rare. Historically, a flat or inverted yield curve has provided a warning sign ahead of most recessions and the curve currently is still positively sloped (Chart 18). Another leading indicator is when cyclical spending1 falls as a share of GDP, reflecting the increased sensitivity of those items to changes in financial conditions. Cyclical spending is still at a historically low level relative to GDP and we expect this to rise rather than fall over the coming quarters. While a near-term recession does not seem likely, the odds will change during the course of 2018. By late year, there is a good chance that the yield curve will be flat or inverted, giving a warning signal for a recession in 2019. Our base case view is for a U.S. recession to start in the second half of 2019, making the current expansion the longest on record. At this stage, it is too early to predict whether it would be a mild recession along the lines of 1990-91 and 2000-01 or a deeper downturn. Chart 18No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet Mr. X: I hope that you are right that a U.S. recession is more than a year away. I am not entirely convinced but will keep an open mind, and my daughter will no doubt keep me fully informed of any positive trends. Ms. X: You can be sure of that. Although I lean toward the optimistic side on the U.S. economy, I have been rather surprised at how well the euro area economy has done in the past year. Latest data show that the euro area's real GDP increased by 2.5% in the year to 2017 Q3 compared to 2.3% for the U.S. Can that be sustained? BCA: The relative performance of the euro area economy has been even better if you allow for the fact that the region's population growth is 0.5% a year below that of the U.S. So the economic growth gap is even greater on a per capita basis. The euro area economy performed poorly during their sovereign debt crisis years of 2011-13, but the subsequent improvement has meant that the region's real per capita GDP has matched that of the U.S. over the past four years. And even Japan's GDP has not lagged much behind on a per capita basis (Chart 19). Chart 19No Clear Winner On Growth No Clear Winner On Growth No Clear Winner On Growth The recovery in the euro area has been broadly based but the big change was the end of a fiscal squeeze in the periphery countries. Between 2010 and 2013, fiscal drag (the change in the structural primary deficit) was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There was little fiscal tightening in the subsequent three years, allowing those economies to recover lost ground. Meanwhile, Germany's economy has continued to power ahead, benefiting from much easier financial conditions than the economy has warranted. That has been the inevitable consequence of a one size fits all monetary policy that has had to accommodate the weakest members of the region. The French and Italian economies have disappointed, but there are hopes that the new French government will pursue pro-growth policies. And Italy should also pick up given signs that it is finally starting to deal with its fragile banking system. Both Spain and Italy faced a sharp rise in non-performing bank loans during the great recession, but Italy lagged Spain in dealing with the problem (Chart 20). That goes a long way to explaining why the Italian economic recovery has been so poor relative to Spain. With Italian banks raising capital and writing off non-performing loans more aggressively, the Italian economy should start to improve, finally catching up with the rest of the region. Overall, the euro area economy should manage to sustain growth above the 2.1% forecast by the IMF for 2018. Overall financial conditions are likely to stay favorable for at least another year and we do not anticipate any major changes in fiscal policy. If, as we fear, the U.S. moves into recession in 2019, there will be negative fallout for Europe, largely via the impact on financial markets. However, in relative terms, the euro area should outperform the U.S. during the next downturn. Mr. X: A year ago, you said that Brexit posed downside risks for the U.K. economy. For a while, that seemed too pessimistic as the economy performed quite well, but recent data show things have taken a turn for the worse. How do you see things playing out with this issue? BCA: It was apparent a year ago that the U.K. government had no concrete plans to deal with Brexit and little has changed since then. The negotiations with the EU are not going particularly well and the odds of a "hard" exit have risen. This means withdrawing from the EU without any agreement on a new regime for trade, labor movements or financial transactions. A growing number of firms are taking the precaution of shifting some operations from the U.K. to other EU countries. As you noted, there are signs that Brexit is starting to undermine the U.K. economy. For example, London house prices have turned down and the leading economic index has softened (Chart 21). The poor performance of U.K. consumer service and real estate equities relative to those of Germany suggest investors are becoming more wary of the U.K. outlook. Of course, a lot will depend on the nature of any deal between the U.K. and the EU and that remains a source of great uncertainty. Chart 20A Turning Point For Italian Banks? A Turning Point For Italian Banks? A Turning Point For Italian Banks? Chart 21U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are ##br##Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up At the moment, there are no real grounds for optimism. The U.K. holds few cards in the bargaining process and the country's strong antipathy toward the free movement of people within the EU will be a big obstacle to an amicable separation agreement. Ms. X: I think the U.K. made the right decision to leave the EU and am more optimistic than you about the outlook. There may be some short-term disruption but the long-term outlook for the U.K. will be good once the country is freed from the stifling bureaucratic constraints of EU membership. The U.K. has a more dynamic economy than most EU members and it will be able to attract plenty of overseas capital if the government pursues appropriate policies toward taxes and regulations. It will take a few years to find out who is correct about this. In the meantime, given the uncertainties, I am inclined to have limited exposure to sterling and the U.K. equity market. Let's now talk about China, another country facing complex challenges. This is a topic where my father and I again have a lot of debates. As you might guess, I have been on the more optimistic side while he has sided with those who have feared a hard landing. And I know that similar debates have occurred in BCA. BCA: It is not a surprise that there are lots of debates about the China outlook. The country's impressive economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented build-up of debt and supply excesses in several sectors. The large imbalances would have led to a collapse by now in any other economy. However, China has benefited from the heavy state involvement in the economy and, in particular, the banking sector. The big question is whether the government has enough control over economic developments to avoid an economic and financial crisis. The good news is that China's government debt is relatively low, giving them the fiscal flexibility to write-off bad debts from zombie state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The problems of excessive leverage and over-capacity are particularly acute in SOEs that still comprise a large share of economic activity. The government is well aware of the need to reform SOEs and various measures have been announced, but progress has been relatively limited thus far. The IMF projects that the ratio of total non-financial debt to GDP will remain in an uptrend over the next several years, rising from 236% in 2016 to 298% by 2022 (Chart 22). Yet, growth is expected to slow only modestly over the period. Of course, one would not expect the IMF to build a crisis into their forecast. Some investors have been concerned that a peak in China's mini-cycle of the past two years may herald a return to the economic conditions that prevailed in 2015, when the industrial sector grew at a slower pace than during the acute phase of the global financial crisis. These conditions occurred due to the combination of excessively tight monetary conditions and weak global growth. While China's export growth may slow over the coming year, monetary policy remains accommodative. Monetary conditions appear to have peaked early this year but are still considerably easier than in mid-2015. Shifts in the monetary conditions index have done a good job of leading economic activity and they paint a reasonably positive picture (Chart 23). The industrial sector has finally moved out of deflation, with producer prices rising 6.9% in the year ended October. This has been accompanied by a solid revival in profits. Chart 22China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue Chart 23China Leaves Deflation Behind China Leaves Deflation Behind China Leaves Deflation Behind On balance, we assume that the Chinese economy will be able to muddle through for the foreseeable future. President Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip on power and he will go to great lengths to ensure that his reign is not sullied with an economic crisis. The longer-term outlook will depend on how far the government goes with reforms and deleveraging and we are keeping an open mind at this point. In sum, for the moment, we are siding with Ms. X on this issue. Mr. X: I have been too bearish on China for the past several years, but I still worry about the downside risks given the massive imbalances and excesses. I can't think of any example of a country achieving a soft landing after such a massive rise in debt. I will give you and my daughter the benefit of the doubt, but am not totally convinced that you will be right. BCA has been cautious on emerging economies in general: has that changed? BCA: The emerging world went through a tough time in 2015-16 with median growth of only 2.6% for the 23 constituent countries of the MSCI EM index (Chart 24). This recovered to 3% in 2017 according to IMF estimates, but that is still far below the average 5% pace of the period 2000-07. Chart 24Emerging Economy Growth: ##br##The Boom Years Are Over Emerging Economy Growth: The Boom Years Are Over Emerging Economy Growth: The Boom Years Are Over It is always dangerous to generalize about the emerging world because the group comprises economies with very different characteristics and growth drivers. Two of the largest countries - Brazil and Russia - went through particularly bad downturns in the past couple of years and those economies are now in a modest recovery. In contrast, India has continued to grow at a healthy albeit slowing pace, while Korea and the ASEAN region have not suffered much of a slowdown. If, as seems likely, Chinese growth holds above a 6% pace over the next year, then those countries with strong links to China should do fine. And it also points to reasonably steady commodity prices, supporting resource-dependent economies. Longer-run, there are reasons to be cautious about many emerging economies, particularly if the U.S. goes into recession 2019, as we fear. That would be associated with renewed weakness in commodity prices, and capital flight from those economies with high external debt such as Turkey and South Africa. As we stated a year ago, the heady days of emerging economy growth are in the past. Mr. X: It seems that both my daughter and I can find some areas of agreement with your views about the economic outlook. You share her expectation that the global growth outlook will stay healthy over the coming year, but you worry about a U.S.-led recession in 2019, something that I certainly sympathize with. But we differ on timing: I fear the downturn could occur even sooner and I know my daughter believes in a longer-lasting upturn. Let's now move onto what this all means for financial markets, starting with bonds. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I expect this to be a short discussion as I can see little attraction in bonds at current yields. Even though I expect inflation to stay muted, bonds offer no prospect of capital gains in the year ahead and even the running yield offers little advantage over the equity dividend yield. BCA: As you know, we have believed for some time that the secular bull market in bonds has ended. We expect yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018 and thus share your view that equities offer better return prospects. By late 2018, it might well be appropriate to switch back into bonds against a backdrop of higher yields and a likely bear market in equities. For the moment, we recommend underweight bond exposure. It is hard to like government bonds when the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is less than 50 basis points above the dividend yield of the S&P 500 while the euro area bond yield is 260 basis points below divided yields (Chart 25). Real yields, using the 10-year CPI swap rate as a measure of inflation expectations, are less than 20 basis points in the U.S. and a negative 113 basis points in the euro area. Even if we did not expect inflation to rise, it would be difficult to recommend an overweight position in any developed country government bonds. One measure of valuation is to compare the level of real yields to their historical average, adjusted by the standard deviation of the gap. On this basis, the most overvalued markets are the core euro area countries, where real yields are 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below their historical average (Chart 26). There are only two developed bond markets where real 10-year government yields currently are above their historical average: Greece and Portugal. This is warranted in Greece where there needs to be a risk premium in case the country is forced to leave the single currency at some point. This is less of a risk for Portugal, making it a more interesting market. Real yields in New Zealand are broadly in line with their historical average, also making it one of the more attractive markets. Chart 25Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Chart 26Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course Mr. X: Given your expectation of higher inflation, would you recommend inflation-protected Treasuries? BCA: Yes, in the sense that they should outperform conventional Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS are discounting average inflation of 1.85% and we would expect this to be revised up during the coming year. However, the caveat is that absolute returns will still be mediocre. Ms. X: You showed earlier that corporate bonds had a reasonable year in 2017, albeit falling far short of the returns from equities. A year ago, you recommended only neutral weighting in investment-grade bonds and an underweight in high yield. But you became more optimistic toward both early in 2017, shifting to an overweight position. Are you thinking of scaling back exposure once again, given the tight level of spreads? BCA: Yes, we were cautious on U.S. corporates a year ago because valuation was insufficient to compensate for the deterioration in corporate balance sheet health. Nonetheless, value improved enough early in 2017 to warrant an upgrade to overweight given our constructive macro and default rate outlook. The cyclical sweet spot for carry trades should continue to support spread product for a while longer. Moreover, value is better than it appears at first glance. The dotted line in Chart 27 shows the expected 12-month option-adjusted spread for U.S. junk bonds after adjusting for our base case forecast for net default losses. At 260 basis points, this excess spread is in line with the historical average. In the absence of any further spread narrowing, speculative-grade bonds would return 230 basis points more than Treasurys in 2018. If high-yield spreads were to tighten by another 150 basis points, then valuations would be at a historical extreme, and that seems unwarranted. An optimistic scenario would have another 100 basis point spread tightening, delivering excess returns of 5%. Of course, if spreads widen, then corporates will underperform. If financial conditions tighten in 2018 as we expect then it will be appropriate to lower exposure to corporates. In the meantime, you should favor U.S. and U.K. corporate bonds to issues in the Eurozone because ECB tapering is likely to spark some spread widening in that market. Mr. X: What about EM hard-currency bonds? BCA: The global economic background is indeed positive for EM assets. However, EM debt is expensive relative to DM investment-grade bonds which, historically, has heralded a period of underperformance (Chart 28). We expect that relative growth dynamics will be more supportive of U.S. corporates because EM growth will lag. Any commodity price weakness and/or a stronger U.S. dollar would also weigh on EM bonds and currencies. Chart 27Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Chart 28Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Mr. X: We have not been excited about the bond market outlook for some time and nothing you have said changes my mind. I am inclined to keep our bond exposure to the bare minimum. Ms. X: I agree. So let's talk about the stock market which is much more interesting. As I mentioned before, I am inclined to remain fully invested in equities for a while longer, while my father wants to start cutting exposure. Equity Market Outlook BCA: This is one of those times when it is important to draw a distinction between one's forecast of where markets are likely to go and the appropriate investment strategy. We fully agree that the conditions that have driven this impressive equity bull market are likely to stay in place for much of the next year. Interest rates in the U.S. and some other countries are headed higher, but they will remain at historically low levels for some time. Meanwhile, in the absence of recession, corporate earnings still have upside, albeit not as much as analysts project. However, we have a conservative streak at BCA that makes us reluctant to chase markets into the stratosphere. For long-term investors, our recommended strategy is to gradually lower equity exposure to neutral. However, those who are trying to maximize short-term returns should stay overweight and wait for clearer signs that tighter financial conditions are starting to bite on economic activity. Chart 29Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Getting down to specifics, here are the trends that give us cause for concern and they are all highlighted in Chart 29. Valuation: Relative to both earnings and book value, the U.S. equity market is more expensive than at any time since the late 1990s tech bubble. The price-earnings ratio (PER) for the S&P 500 is around 30% above its 60-year average on the basis of both trailing operating earnings and a 10-year average of earnings. The market is not expensive on a relative yield basis because interest rates are so low, but that will change as rates inevitably move higher. Other developed markets are not as overvalued as the U.S., but neither are they cheap. Earnings expectations: The performance of corporate earnings throughout this cycle - particularly in the U.S. - has been extremely impressive give the weaker-than-normal pace of economic growth. However, current expectations are ridiculously high. According to IBES data, analysts expect long-run earnings growth of around 14% a year in both the U.S. and Europe. Even allowing for analysts' normal optimistic bias, the sharp upward revision to growth expectations over the past year makes no sense and is bound to be disappointed. Investor complacency: We all know that the VIX index is at a historical low, indicating that investors see little need to protect themselves against market turmoil. Our composite sentiment indicator for the U.S. is at a high extreme, further evidence of investor complacency. These are classic contrarian signs of a vulnerable market. Most bear markets are associated with recessions, with the stock market typically leading the economy by 6 to 12 months (Chart 30). The lead in 2007 was an unusually short three months. As discussed earlier, we do not anticipate a U.S. recession before 2019. If a recession were to start in mid-2019, it would imply the U.S. market would be at risk from the middle of 2018, but the rally could persist all year. Of course, the timing of a recession and market is uncertain. So it boils down to potential upside gains over the next year versus the downside risks, plus your confidence in being able to time the top. Chart 30Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap We are not yet ready to recommend that you shift to an underweight position in equities. A prudent course of action would be to move to a broadly neutral position over the next few months, but we realize that Ms. X has a higher risk tolerance than Mr. X so we will leave you to fight over that decision. The timing of when we move to an underweight will depend on our various economic, monetary and market indicators and our assessment of the risks. It could well happen in the second half of the year. Mr. X: My daughter was more right than me regarding our equity strategy during the past year, so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt and wait for clearer signs of a market top. Thus far, you have focused on the U.S. market. Last year you preferred developed markets outside the U.S. on the grounds of relative valuations and relative monetary conditions. Is that still your stance? BCA: Yes it is. The economic cycle and thus the monetary cycle is far less advanced in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. This will provide extra support to these markets. At the same time, profit margins are less vulnerable outside the U.S. and, as you noted, valuations are less of a problem. In Chart 31, we show a valuation ranking of developed equity markets, based on the deviation of cyclically-adjusted PERs from their historical averages. The chart is not meant to measure the extent to which Portugal is cheap relative to the U.S., but it indicates that Portugal is trading at a PER far below its historical average while that of the U.S. is above. You can see that the "cheaper" markets tend to be outside the U.S. Japan's reading is flattered by the fact that its historical valuation was extremely high during the bubble years of the 1980s, but it still is a relatively attractive market. Chart 31Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course From a cyclical standpoint, we are still recommending overweight positions in European and Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., on a currency-hedged basis. Nevertheless, market correlations are such that a sell-off in the U.S. will be transmitted around the world (Chart 32). Chart 32When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold Ms. X: I would like to turn the focus to emerging equity markets. You have been cautious on these for several years and that worked out extremely well until 2017. I note from your regular EM reports that you have not changed your stance. Why are you staying bearish given that you see an improvement in global growth and further potential upside in developed equity prices? BCA: The emerging world did extremely well over many years when global trade was expanding rapidly, China was booming, commodity prices were in a powerful bull market and capital inflows were strong. Those trends fostered a rapid expansion in credit-fueled growth across the EM universe and meant that there was little pressure to pursue structural reforms. However, the 2007-09 economic and financial crisis marked a major turning point in the supports to EM outperformance. As we noted earlier, the era of rapid globalization has ended, marking an important regime shift. Meanwhile, China's growth rate has moderated and the secular bull market in commodities ended several years ago. We do not view the past year's rebound in commodities as the start of a major new uptrend. Many emerging equity markets remain highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and to commodity prices (Chart 33). Although we expect the Chinese economy to hold up, growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Finally, the rise in U.S. interest rates is a problem for those countries that have taken on a marked increase in foreign currency debt. This will be made even worse if the dollar appreciates. Obviously, the very term "emerging" implies that this group of countries has a lot of upside potential. However, the key to success is pursuing market-friendly reforms, rooting out corruption and investing in productive assets. Many countries pay only lip service to these issues. India is a case in point where there is growing skepticism about the Modi government's ability to deliver on major reforms. The overall EM index does not appear expensive, with the PER trading broadly in line with its historical average (Chart 34). However, as we have noted in the past, the picture is less compelling when the PER is calculated using equally-weighted sectors. The financials and materials components are trading at historically low multiples, dragging down the overall index PER. Emerging market equities will continue to rise as long as the bull market in developed markets persists, but we expect them to underperform on a relative basis. Chart 33Drivers Of EM Performance Drivers of EM Performance Drivers of EM Performance Chart 34Emerging Markets Fundamentals Emerging Markets Fundamentals Emerging Markets Fundamentals Mr. X: One last question on equities from me: do you have any high conviction calls on sectors? BCA: A key theme of our sector view is that cyclical stocks should outperform defensives given the mature stage of the economic cycle. We are seeing the typical late-cycle improvement in capital spending and that will benefit industrials, and we recommend an overweight stance in that sector. Technology also is a beneficiary of higher capex but of course those stocks have already risen a lot, pushing valuations to extreme levels. Thus, that sector warrants only a neutral weighting. Our two other overweights are financials and energy. The former should benefit from rising rates and a steeper yield curve while the latter will benefit from firm oil prices. If, as we fear, a recession takes hold in 2019, then obviously that would warrant a major shift back into defensive stocks. For the moment, the positive growth outlook will dominate sector performance. Ms. X: I agree that the bull market in equities, particularly in the U.S., is very mature and there are worrying signs of complacency. However, the final stages of a market cycle can sometimes be very rewarding and I would hate to miss out on what could be an exciting blow-off phase in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, my inclination is to stay heavily invested in equities for a while longer and I have confidence that BCA will give me enough of a warning when risks become unacceptably high. Of course, I will have to persuade my father and that may not be easy. Mr. X: You can say that again, but we won't bother our BCA friends with that conversation now. It's time to shift the focus to commodities and currencies and I would start by commending you on your oil call. You were far out of consensus a year ago when you said the risks to crude prices were in the upside and you stuck to your guns even as the market weakened in the first half. We made a lot of money following your energy recommendations. What is your latest thinking? Commodities And Currencies BCA: We had a lot of conviction in our analysis that the oil market would tighten during 2017 against a backdrop of rising demand and OPEC production cuts, and that view turned out to be correct. As we entered the year, the big reason to be bearish on oil prices was the bloated level of inventories. We forecast that inventories would drop to their five-year average by late 2017, and although that turned out to be a bit too optimistic, the market tightened by enough to push prices higher (Chart 35). Chart 35Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends The forces that have pushed prices up will remain in force over the next year. Specifically, our economic view implies that demand will continue to expand, and we expect OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition of OPEC and non-OPEC states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - to extend its 1.8 million b/d production cuts to at least end-June. On that basis, OECD inventories should fall below their five-year average by the end of 2018. We recently raised our 2018 oil price target to an average of $65 in 2018. Of course, the spot market is already close to that level, but the futures curve is backwardated and that is likely to change. We continue to see upside risks to prices, not least because of potential production shortfalls from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and Libya. Mr. X: The big disruptor in the oil market in recent years was the dramatic expansion in U.S. shale production. Given the rise in prices, could we not see a rapid rebound in shale output that, once again, undermines prices? BCA: Our modeling indicates that U.S. shale output will increase from 5.1 mb/d to 6.0 mb/d over the next year, in response to higher prices. This is significant, but will not be enough to materially change the global oil demand/supply balance. Longer run, the expansion of U.S. shale output will certainly be enough to prevent any sustained price rise, assuming no large-scale production losses elsewhere. A recent report by the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. is destined to become the global leader in oil and gas production for decades to come, accounting for 80% of the rise in global oil and gas supply between 2010 and 2025. Ms. X: You have suggested that China's economic growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Also, you have shown in the past that real commodity prices tend to fall over time, largely because of technological innovations. What does all this imply for base metals prices over the coming year? BCA: The base metals story will continue to be highly dependent on developments in China. While the government is attempting to engineer a shift toward less commodity-intensive growth, it also wants to reduce excess capacity in commodity-producing sectors such as coal and steel. Base metals are likely to move sideways until we get a clearer reading on the nature and speed of economic reforms. We model base metals as a function of China's PMIs and this supports our broadly neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 36). Chart 36China Drives Metals Prices 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course Mr. X: As usual, I must end our commodity discussion by asking about gold. Last year, you agreed that an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with continued low interest rates should support bullion prices, and that was the case with a respectable 12% gain since the end of 2016. You also suggested that I should not have more than 5% of my portfolio in gold which is less than I am inclined to own. It still looks like a gold-friendly environment to me. Ms. X: Let me just add that this is one area where my father and I agree. I do not consider myself to be a gold bug, but I think bullion does provide a good hedge against shocks in a very uncertain economic and political world. I would also be inclined to hold more than 5% of our portfolio in gold. BCA: There will be opposing forces on gold during the coming year. On the positive side, it is safe to assume that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and there also is the potential for an increase in inflation expectations that would support bullion. On the negative side, rising interest rates are not normally good for gold and there likely will be an added headwind from a firmer U.S. dollar. Gold appears to be at an important point from a technical perspective (Chart 37). It currently is perched just above its 200-day average and a key trend line. A decisive drop below these levels would be bearish. At the same time, there is overhead resistance at around 1350-1360 and prices would have to break above that level to indicate a bullish breakout. Traders' sentiment is at a broadly neutral level, consistent with no clear conviction about which way prices will break. There is no science behind our recommendation of keeping gold exposure below 5%. That just seems appropriate for an asset that delivers no income and where the risk/reward balance is fairly balanced. Ms. X: You referred to the likelihood of a firmer dollar as a depressant on the gold price. You also were bullish on the dollar a year ago, but that did not work out too well. How confident are you that your forecast will fare better in 2018? BCA: We did anticipate that the dollar would experience a correction at the beginning of 2017, but we underestimated how profound this move would be. A combination of factors explains this miscalculation. Chart 37Gold At A Key Level Gold At A Key Level Gold At A Key Level It first began with positioning. We should have paid more attention to that fact that investors were massively bullish and long the dollar at the end of 2016, making the market vulnerable to disappointments. And disappointment did come with U.S. inflation weakening and accelerating in the euro area. Additionally, there were positive political surprises in Europe, especially the presidential victory of Emmanuel Macron in France. In the U.S., the government's failure to repeal Obamacare forced investors to lower expectations about fiscal stimulus. As a result, while investors were able to price in an earlier first hike by the ECB, they cut down the number of rate hikes they anticipated out of the Fed over the next 24 months. In terms of the current environment, positioning could not be more different because investors are aggressively shorting the dollar (Chart 38). The hurdle for the dollar to deliver positive surprises is thus much lower than a year ago. Also, we remain confident that tax cuts will be passed in the U.S. by early 2018. As we discussed earlier, U.S. GDP will remain above potential, causing inflation pressures to build. This will give the Fed the leeway to implement its planned rate hikes, and thus beat what is currently priced in the market. This development should support the dollar in 2018. Ms. X: A bullish view on the U.S. dollar necessarily implies a negative view on the euro. However, the European economy seems to have a lot of momentum, and inflation has picked up, while U.S. prices have been decelerating. To me, this suggests that the ECB also could surprise by being more hawkish than anticipated, arguing against any major weakness in the euro. BCA: The European economy has indeed done better than generally expected in the past year. Also, geopolitical risks were overstated by market participants at the beginning of 2017, leaving less reason to hide in the dollar. However, the good news in Europe is now well known and largely discounted in the market. Investors are very long the euro, by both buying EUR/USD and shorting the dollar index (Chart 39). In that sense, the euro today is where the dollar stood at the end of 2016. Chart 38Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Chart 39Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Valuations show a similar picture. The euro might appear cheap on a long-term basis, but not so much so that its purchasing power parity estimate - which only works at extremes and over long-time periods - screams a buy. Moreover, the euro has moved out of line with historical interest rate parity relationships, warning that the currency is at risk if the economy disappoints. Overall, we expect EUR/USD to trade around 1.10 in 2018. Long-run, the picture is different because a U.S. recession in 2019 would trigger renewed broad-based weakness in the dollar. Mr. X: I have been perplexed by the yen's firmness in the past year, with the currency still above its end-2016 level versus the dollar. I expected a lot more weakness with the central bank capping bond yields at zero and more or less monetizing the government deficit. A year ago you also predicted a weak yen. Will it finally drop in 2018? BCA: We were not completely wrong on the yen as it has weakened over the past year on a trade-weighted basis and currently is about 2% below its end-2016 level. But it has risen slightly against the U.S. dollar. In the past couple of years, the yen/dollar rate has been highly correlated with real bond yield differentials (Chart 40). These did not move against the yen as much as we expected because U.S. yields drifted lower and there was no major change in relative inflation expectations. Chart 40Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen The real yield gap is likely to move in the dollar's favor over the next year, putting some downward pressure on the yen. Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan will continue to pursue a hyper-easy monetary stance, in contrast to the Fed's normalization policy. However, it is not all negative: the yen is cheap on a long-term basis, and Japan is an international net creditor to the tune of more than 60% of GDP. Investors are also quite short the yen as it remains a key funding currency for carry trades. Thus, it will continue to benefit each time global markets are gripped with bouts of volatility. It remains a good portfolio hedge. Ms. X: Are any other currency views worth noting? BCA: The outlook for sterling obviously will be tied to the Brexit negotiations. Having fallen sharply after the Brexit vote, sterling looks cheap relative to its history. This has allowed it to hold in a broad trading range over the past 18 months, even though the negotiations with the EU have not been going well. At this stage, it is hard to know what kind of deal, if any, will emerge regarding Brexit so we would hedge exposure to sterling. Our optimism toward the oil price is consistent with a firm Canadian dollar, but developments in the NAFTA negotiations represent a significant risk. At the moment, we are overweight the Canadian dollar, but that could change if the NAFTA talks end badly. We still can't get enthusiastic about emerging market currencies even though some now offer reasonable value after falling sharply over the past few years. Mr. X: We can't leave currencies without talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I like the idea of a currency that cannot be printed at will by governments. There are too many examples of currency debasement under a fiat money system and the actions of central banks in recent years have only served to increase my mistrust of the current monetary system. But I can't profess to fully understand how these cryptocurrencies work and that makes me nervous about investing in them. What are your thoughts? BCA: You are right to be nervous. There have been numerous cases of hackers stealing Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Also, while there is a limit to the number of Bitcoins that can be issued, there is no constraint on the number of possible cryptocurrencies that can be created. Thus, currency debasement is still possible if developers continue creating currencies that are only cosmetically different from the ones already in existence. Moreover, we doubt that governments will sit idly by and allow these upstart digital currencies to become increasingly prevalent. The U.S. Treasury derives $70 billion a year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to issue currency which it can then redeem for goods and services. At some point, governments could simply criminalize the use of cryptocurrencies. This does not mean that Bitcoin prices cannot rise further, but the price trend is following the path of other manias making it a highly speculative play (Chart 41). If you want more detail about our thoughts on this complex topic then you can read the report we published last September.2 Chart 41Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Ms. X: I don't fear bubbles and manias as much as my father and have made a lot of money during such episodes in the past. But I am inclined to agree that Bitcoin is best avoided. The topic of manic events presents a nice segue into the geopolitical environment which seems as volatile as ever. Geopolitics Ms. X: Which geopolitical events do you think will have the biggest impact on the markets over the coming year? BCA: Domestic politics in the U.S. and China will be very much in focus in 2018. In the U.S., as we discussed, the Republicans will pass tax cuts but it is unclear whether this will help the GOP in the November midterm elections. At this point, all of our data and modeling suggests that Democrats have a good chance of picking up the House of Representatives, setting a stage for epic battles with President Trump about everything under the sun. In China, we are watching carefully for any sign that Beijing is willing to stomach economic pain in the pursuit of economic reforms. The two reforms that would matter the most are increased financial regulation and more aggressive purging of excess capacity in the industrial sector. The 19th Party Congress marked a serious reduction in political constraints impeding President Xi's domestic agenda. This means he could launch ambitious reforms, akin to what President Jiang Zemin did in the late 1990s. While this is a low-conviction view, and requires constant monitoring of the news and data flow out of China, it would be a considerable risk to global growth. Reforms would be good for China's long-term outlook, but could put a significant damper on short-term growth. The jury is out, but the next several months will be crucial. Three other issues that could become market-relevant are the ongoing North Korean nuclear crisis, trade protectionism, and tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. The first two are connected because a calming of tensions with North Korea would give the U.S. greater maneuvering room against China. The ongoing economic détente between the U.S. and China is merely a function of President Trump needing President Xi's cooperation on pressuring North Korea. But if President Trump no longer needs China's help with Kim Jong-Un, he may be encouraged to go after China on trade. As for Iran, it is not yet clear if the administration is serious about ratcheting up tensions or whether it is playing domestic politics. We suspect it is the latter implying that the market impact of any brinkmanship will be minor. But our conviction view is low. Mr. X: We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding populist pressures in Europe. The far right did not do as well as expected in the Netherlands or France, but did well in Austria. Also, Merkel is under some pressure in Germany. BCA: We don't see much in the way of mixed messages, at least when it comes to support for European integration. In Austria, the populists learned a valuable lesson from the defeats of their peers in the Netherlands and France: stay clear of the euro. Thus the Freedom Party committed itself to calling a referendum on Austria's EU membership if Turkey was invited to join the bloc. As the probability of that is literally zero, the right-wing in Austria signaled to the wider public that it was not anti-establishment on the issue of European integration. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany only gained 12.6%, but it too focused on an anti-immigration platform. The bottom line for investors is that the European anti-establishment right is falling over itself to de-emphasize its Euroskepticism and focus instead on anti-immigration policies. For investors, the former is far more relevant than the latter, meaning that the market relevance of European politics has declined. One potential risk in 2018 is the Italian election, likely to be held by the end of the first quarter. However, as with Austria, the anti-establishment parties have all moved away from overt Euroskepticism. At some point over the next five years, Italy will be a source of market risk, but in this electoral cycle and not with economic growth improving. Ms. X: The tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, fueled by two unpredictable leaders, have me very concerned. I worry that name-calling may slide into something more serious. How serious is the threat? BCA: The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are a good analog for the North Korean crisis. The U.S. had to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move Iran towards negotiations. As such, the Obama administration ramped up the war rhetoric - using Israel as a proxy - in 2011-2012. The negotiations with Iran did not end until mid-2015, almost four years later. We likely have seen the peak in "credible threat" display this summer between the U.S. and North Korea. The next two-to-three months could revisit those highs as North Korea responds to President Trump's visit to the region, as well as to the deployment of the three U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. However, we believe that we have entered the period of "negotiations." It is too early to tell how the North Korean crisis will end. We do not see a full out war between either of the main actors. We also do not see North Korea ever giving up its nuclear arsenal, although limiting its ballistic technology and toning down its "fire and brimstone' rhetoric is a must. The bottom line is that this issue will remain a source of concern and uncertainty for a while longer. Conclusions Mr. X: This seems a good place to end our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that it would make good sense to start lowering the risk in our portfolio. I know that such a policy could leave money on the table as there is a reasonable chance that equity prices may rise further. But that is a risk I am prepared to take. Ms. X: I foresee some interesting discussions with my father when we get back to our office. At the risk of sounding reckless, I remain inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. I am sympathetic to the view that the era of hyper-easy money is ending and at some point that may cause a problem for risk assets. However, timing is important because, in my experience, the final stages of a bull market can deliver strong gains. BCA: Good luck with those discussions! We have similar debates within BCA between those who want to maximize short-run returns and those who take a longer-term view. Historically, BCA has had a conservative bias toward investment strategy and the bulk of evidence suggests that this is one of these times when long-run investors should focus on preservation of capital rather than stretching for gains. Our thinking also is influenced by our view that long-run returns will be very poor from current market levels. Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation (Table 3). That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. There is a negligible equity risk premium on offer, implying that stock prices have to fall at some point to establish higher prospective returns. Table 310-Year Asset Return Projections 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course The return calculations for equities assume profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or PERs stay at historically high levels. In that case, equities obviously would do better than our estimates. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot will depend on the pace of economic growth. We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. That is possible, but we would not make it our base case scenario. Ms. X: You have left us with much to think about and I am so glad to have finally attended one of these meetings. My father has always looked forward to these discussions every year and I am very happy to be joining him. Many thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Before we go, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 20, 2017 1 This comprises consumer spending on durables, housing and business investment in equipment and software. 2 Please see 'Bitcoin's Macro Impact', BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, September 15, 2017.

The Federal Reserve faces unprecedented turnover in its Board of Governors over the coming year. The recent resignation of Stanley Fischer occurred when three of the Board's positions were already vacant and there is the additional issue that Janet Yellen's term as Chair ends in January. It remains far from clear that she will be offered another term or would even choose to stay if given the chance.1 Even Governor Lael Brainard's position could change - her willingness to stay on at the Fed may depend on who is the next Chair and on the other Board appointments. The point is that President Trump has the opportunity to choose the people who will run the nation's monetary policy for years to come. The first Board appointment will be Randal Quarles, nominated to be vice-chair for supervision, a position created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act to oversee the banking industry. His nomination was recently cleared by the Senate Banking Committee and he should soon be accepted by the full Senate. Quarles has indicated that his position on financial regulations is much softer than that of Yellen. Not surprisingly, there are widespread concerns about the looming changes to the Fed's Board. There are fears that new appointments may lack appropriate expertise and/or that they will have an intellectual bias that could result in overly tight or overly easy policies. Most Fed Chairmen have been highly-regarded economists with extensive experience in policymaking. One notable exception was G. William Miller, who served as Fed Chair from March 1978 until August 1979. Mr. Miller, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, came from a business background - he was CEO of the conglomerate Textron Inc. His short tenure at the Fed was regarded as a failure because he did not take tough action to deal with a growing inflation problem. That challenge was left to his successor, Paul Volcker. Many names have been touted as possible successors to Janet Yellen, including former Fed Governors Kevin Warsh and Larry Lindsey, Professors John Taylor and Glen Hubbard, and former bank CEOs Richard Davis and John Allison. Media reports suggest that the previous front-runner, Gary Cohn, is out of consideration following his criticism of President Trump's response to the Charlottesville clash between right-wing extremists and their objectors. How much will it matter to the economy and markets which person is chosen? The Fed's Scorecard Monetary policy is important because its sets the short-term price of a very important commodity - money! If the price is set too low, then financial excesses are virtually inevitable and if the price is set too high then economic activity is choked off. Yet knowing exactly where to set that price is no simple matter. The appropriate level of short-term interest rates is not observable and is a function of many variables, including the amount of slack in the economy, inflationary pressures, the level of financial conditions, and international factors. The Fed uses different economic models to help its decision making, but these have proved to be of dubious value. As we highlighted in an earlier report this year, the Fed has failed to forecast every recession during the past 60 years (Table 1).2 Yes, the Fed has been successful in achieving low and relatively stable inflation, but only after major policy errors during the 1960s and 1970s allowed inflation to spiral out of control. Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes Should You Fear Looming Changes At The Federal Reserve? Should You Fear Looming Changes At The Federal Reserve? The Fed's Open Market Committee (FOMC) is not run as a dictatorship, yet the person at the helm does have real power. Weak leadership was partly responsible for the inflationary policy errors of the 1960s and 1970s and the strong hand of Paul Volcker was important in launching the attack on inflation in the 1980s. The aura of invincibility surrounding Alan Greenspan during the second half of his tenure as Fed Chair cowed opposition from other FOMC members and contributed to the major error of weak regulatory oversight during a massive buildup of financial imbalances in the 2000s. Central bankers have long believed that price stability is a key prerequisite for maximizing an economy's potential. If we judge the effectiveness of post-WWII Fed leaders solely by the performance of inflation during their tenure, then Chart 1 shows we must give failing grades to those in charge during the 1950s, 60s and 70s - William McChesney Martin (1951-1970), Arthur Burns (1970-78) and G. William Miller (1978-79). Subsequent Chairs get passing grades - Paul Volcker (1979-87), Alan Greenspan (1987-06), Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) and Janet Yellen (2014-). However, it is not quite as simple as that. The Fed has a dual mandate - the Federal Reserve Act requires that policy achieves maximum employment as well as stable prices. And the Fed also plays an important regulatory role in maintaining financial stability. Chart 1The Fed's Record With Its Dual Mandate The Fed's Record With Its Dual Mandate The Fed's Record With Its Dual Mandate If we also take account of trends in the labor market and financial stability, the performance of Fed Chairs alters a bit. The second panel of Chart 1 shows the difference between the unemployment rate and its full employment level (based on estimates by the Congressional Budget Office). The Chairs who presided over rising inflation also managed to keep unemployment low for most of the time. And the cost of Volcker's attack on inflation was a deep recession and spike in unemployment. On average, Greenspan's record on growth and thus unemployment was good, but as we noted, he allowed an unprecedented buildup of financial excesses. This helped to create the conditions for the deepest economic and financial downturn since the 1930s but it was his successor, Ben Bernanke, who had to deal with that problem. Another way to assess the Fed's record is to compare the actual funds rate to the level implied by the Taylor Rule. Professor John Taylor's rule calculates the appropriate funds rate based on the deviation of inflation from 2% and the gap between real GDP and its full employment level. The starting point is the assumption that the real equilibrium rate is 2%. If, for example, inflation was above target and the economy was operating above potential, then the rule would require a real funds rate above 2%. There is a widely-accepted view that the real equilibrium rate declined after the 2007-09 downturn so, in our calculations, we use a level of 0.5% after 2007.3 Chart 2 shows that rising inflation of the 1950s, 60s and 70s coincided with the funds rate being kept below the level implied by the Taylor Rule estimate. Not surprisingly, Volcker had to push the funds rate far above normal to start the disinflation process. Subsequently, both Greenspan and Bernanke kept the funds rate relatively close to the Taylor-implied level. Yellen has kept the rate below our estimate and Taylor has been a critic of the Fed's easy money policies. However, some studies suggest that the real equilibrium rate may be even lower than the 0.5% we have assumed. Chart 2The Fed Funds Rate: Actual Versus The Taylor Rule The Fed Funds Rate: Actual Versus The Taylor Rule The Fed Funds Rate: Actual Versus The Taylor Rule Which Fed Chair was best for investors? Chart 3 shows real return indexes for bonds and equities. Not surprisingly, bond returns performed poorly during the periods of rising inflation and Volcker's reign coincided with the start of a long-term bull market. The equity market rose strongly under Martin, helped by a healthy economy, but in terms of annualized returns during the various Chairs, Volcker takes first place. The real returns for both markets are summarized in Table 2. Although the market did well under Greenspan, the severe bear market of 2000-02 occurred under his watch and, as previously noted, his regulatory lapses set the scene for the 2007-09 market debacle. Yellen had the second-best returns among the Fed Chairs listed for both bonds and stocks, highlighting the power of zero interest rates and quantitative easing! Chart 3The Fed And Market Returns The Fed And Market Returns The Fed And Market Returns Table 2Fed Chairs And Market Returns Should You Fear Looming Changes At The Federal Reserve? Should You Fear Looming Changes At The Federal Reserve? So What? The errors made by policymakers to some extent reflect the biases created during their formative years. For example, for those in charge during the 1950s and 60s, fears of renewed depression probably outweighed those of inflation. And the experience of runaway inflation in the 1970s cemented a powerful anti-inflation bias in those central bankers who gained experience during that time. Volcker was in the Fed before inflation took root, but one could argue that whoever had taken over from William Miller would have been forced to take tough action. Inflation was such a severe problem that no Fed Chair could have allowed it to continue. While Volcker deserves a lot of praise, it should be noted that inflation declined in virtually all industrial countries during the 1980s and beyond, even in cases where central banks had not yet achieved independence. The U.S. was in the vanguard of fighting inflation, but the trend in inflation rates was broadly the same in the U.S. and in the median of 18 other industrial countries (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Was Not Unique In Driving Down Inflation The Fed Was Not Unique In Driving Down Inflation The Fed Was Not Unique In Driving Down Inflation At the swearing-in ceremony for Fed Chair Arthur Burns, President Richard Nixon reportedly said "I respect his independence. However, I hope that independently he will conclude that my views are the ones that should be followed". Burns did indeed take an overly soft line on inflation. It is widely assumed that President Trump would prefer someone who will maintain a low interest rate policy in order to support economic growth. It would be a particular concern if the U.S. Administration were to fill the Fed Board with people who had little or no economic and/or policy experience. With the looming departure of Stanley Fischer, there already is a worrying dearth of policy expertise and institutional memory on the Board. President Trump has shown a predilection to favor successful businesspeople for senior cabinet posts and the William Miller's record is not encouraging in that regard. However, it is doubtful that the Senate would approve a full slate of new Board members that is completely devoid of appropriate experience. Moreover, some of the people being touted as possible successors to Yellen, most notably John Taylor, Kevin Warsh and Glenn Hubbard are respected economists who would not be political puppets in pursued of irresponsible policies. If Quarles joins the Fed Board he will push for an easing in bank regulations and will likely get the support from the Chair if a former bank CEO replaces Yellen. However, there would be severe pushback from the staff and other Governors. With memories of the 2007-09 downturn still relatively fresh, Congress also may be wary of a major rollback of regulations. Some Dodd-Frank regulations may be eased - especially for community banks - but we do not anticipate a return to a systemically-dangerous lax regime. What about the Fed's vulnerability to attempted interference from the Administration? Even if President Trump managed to install a new Chair that he deemed loyal and who shared his policy visions, this person would face challenges. The Fed staff is powerful and would make strong arguments against policies they believed to be inappropriate. Importantly, the policymaking process is a lot more transparent now than in the days when Fed Chairs Burns and Miller bowed to political influence. The publication of Fed economic forecasts and detailed meeting minutes would quickly highlight internal policy disagreements and financial market pressures would come into play. And while the Administration gets to nominate people to the Fed's Board, it is not able to remove them. A bigger concern is the possibility that Congress could pass legislation to audit the Fed, including its policy decisions. Earlier this year, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2017, a bill sponsored by Rand Paul, a frequent Fed critic. The bill "directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to complete, within 12 months, an audit of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks. In addition, the bill allows the GAO to audit the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks with respect to: (1) international financial transactions; (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters; (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; and (4) discussions or communications among Federal Reserve officers, board members, and employees regarding any of these matters." Attempts to pass similar legislation in the past have failed, but President Trump is apparently in favor, as are many in Congress. The Fed Chair already faces twice-yearly interrogations by the House and Senate Banking Committees and that has not impacted policy decisions. Nevertheless, any politicization of Fed decisions would be a problem. At the moment, detailed transcripts of Fed meetings are released with a five-year time lag. Publication of internal Fed deliberations within a year of the bill's passage could compromise the willingness of FOMC participants to take unpopular decisions. The Policy Outlook The reality is that Fed policy will largely be constrained by economic environment, regardless of who is the Chair. A lackluster economic expansion and softer-than-expected wage growth and inflation have supported the maintenance of accommodative policies. But, in the absence of a new downturn, the Fed will stick to its plan of winding down its balance sheet and slowly raising interest rates. If anything, market expectations of a fed funds rate of only 1.5% by the end of 2018 seem too low. Dollar weakness and a strong stock market have meant an easing in overall financial conditions and the fiscal environment is set to become more stimulative. Whoever is leading the Fed next year will be under pressure to communicate a more hawkish stance to the markets. The long-run outlook for monetary policy is a more open question. There will be another recession - possibly as soon as 2019 - and that could be quite a deflationary affair. The next generation of central bankers will have spent more of their formative policy years in an environment when inflation was not a major economic problem and they will have come to terms with the extreme monetary actions needed during the 2007-09 collapse. And with massive quantitative easing failing to deliver the high inflation that many feared, any barriers to even more desperate measures may be limited. Thus, the next downturn may sow the seeds of a return to much higher inflation. Given that demographic trends and a political failure to reign in entitlements will lead to rapidly growing public sector debt, higher inflation would be welcomed by the political establishment. The bottom line is that looming changes in the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors is important, but we doubt that the overall integrity of the Fed will be seriously compromised by bad appointments. However, at this stage, it is futile to guess who the Administration will choose. Regardless of who controls the Fed, there always will be the potential for errors because their economic models (along with everybody else's) are imprecise, data can be unreliable, and the policy tools are crude. Some uptick in inflation is likely and would even be desirable, but it will not be allowed to get out of control. The bigger uncertainty is what will happen after the next economic downturn because even the most hawkish policymakers may be forced to embrace inflationary policies that will make the past cycle's actions pale by comparison. Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 Yellen's renomination chances may have been undermined by her recent Jackson Hole speech defending the current financial regulatory regime because that puts her at odds with the Administration's desire to unwind some of the Dodd-Frank rules. 2 This table was originally shown in our Special Report "Beware the 2019 Trump Recession", March 7, 2017. 3 There are several variants of the Taylor Rule, depending on smoothing co-efficients and the choice of the real equilibrium rate. We base our estimates on the formula used by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, with the one change of lowering the real equilibrium rate to 0.5% after 2007. The FRB Atlanta data can be accessed at https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/taylor-rule.aspx

The question of how far central banks should go in their efforts to boost growth is becoming increasingly controversial. In this <i>Special Report</i>, BCA Chief Economist Martin Barnes outlines his personal view that monetary policy has done enough. He will debate this issue with Peter Berezin, BCA Chief Global Strategist at next month's BCA Conference in NY.