Equities

Special Report

Highlights So What? The bull market in defense stocks is global and only beginning. We construct a BCA Global Defense Index to give investors exposure to this theme. Why? Multipolarity will drive uncertainty and conflict, spurring arms demand to Cold War heights. Contemporary geopolitical hotspots require expensive and modern technology. Cold War-era weapon systems are long in the tooth and in need of replacement. Also... We close our long Energy / short S&P 500 portfolio hedge for a gain. Feature It is somewhat of a cliché to tell clients that one of our highest conviction calls is to be overweight defense stocks. We are, after all, geopolitical investment strategists! Our decision to go long S&P 500 aerospace and defense stocks / short MSCI ACW is up 14% since initiation in December 2016. In this report, we build on previous work focusing on U.S. defense stocks and expand our analysis to global plays. GPS' Mega-Theme: Multipolarity Is Good For War International affairs are characterized by an anarchic governance structure. In the absence of a global government, the vacuum of power is filled by powerful states. These states behave like bullies in the schoolyard. When a single, powerful bully dominates the lunch break, all other kids fall in line or suffer the bully's wrath. When two bullies split the yard into warring camps, proxy fights may emerge on the sidelines, but generally an equilibrium is preserved. Formal political science theory and history teach us that the further we are from a hegemonic global structure where one country (the hegemon) dominates and bullies all others, the closer we are to anarchy. The "offensive realism" school of International Relations theory further splits multipolarity into two types: Balanced multipolarity is characterized by a number of roughly equally powerful states, similar to the distribution of power of continental Europe during the "Concert of Europe" era in the nineteenth century. Unbalanced multipolarity is closest to contemporary geopolitics. In The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics, John Mearsheimer reviewed 200 years of European history and concluded that unbalanced multipolarity is by far the most volatile geopolitical system (Table 1).1 Table 1Global System Structure And War A multipolar ordering of global power, therefore, produces the highest level of disorder (Chart 1). This finding is theoretically elegant, but normatively disturbing. Every country gets a voice and an opportunity to defend its sovereignty. But the international order is normatively ignorant and desires a bully or hegemon. Chart 1Multipolarity Produces Disorder Over the past fifty years, there have been three identifiable periods in the global arms market (Chart 2): Chart 2Further Upside In The 'War Bull Market' Cold War Arms Race - 1961-1982: The arms trade grew by a whopping 177% during this period, with an average annual growth rate of 5.5%; Disarmament - 1982-2002: Arms trade shrunk by 61% and average annual growth rate was -3.9%; Multipolarity - 2002-present: What started with the U.S. defense buildup following 9/11 has evolved into a truly global response to emerging multipolarity. The arms trade grew by 73% from 2002 to 2017, with an average annual growth rate of 3.4%. Bottom Line: In 2017, the total arms trade was 68% of its peak in 1982, signifying that we have more room to go in this recent "War Bull Market." Given that unbalanced multipolarity produces a higher volume of conflict than a bipolar system, we would expect the current phase to be more fruitful for the global arms race than even the Cold War era. The Pillars Of An Arms Bull Market Chart 3Global Defense Spending... In this report, we focus on the global arms trade, which is different from global defense spending (Chart 3). This is because global defense spending includes non-investible transactions, such as spending on salaries, buildings, health care, and pensions. The global arms trade was once 20% of global defense spending, but is now only 1.9% (Chart 4). Chart 4...Is Different From The Global Arms Trade The reason is that salaries and pensions now dominate defense budgets. In the U.S., they make up 42% of all expenditure. They are higher in much of the developed world (66% in Italy, for example). Moreover, many countries that in 1960 did not have an armaments industry have become quite adept at satisfying demand via domestic production. We nonetheless would expect the global arms trade to bounce off of its lows today. There are three main reasons. Evolving Conflict Zones: Asia And Europe The primary reason to expect a brisk pickup in the global arms race is that the global conflict zones are evolving. Multipolarity is causing shifting geopolitical equilibriums. We expect both East Asia and Europe - largely dormant as hotspots since the end of the Cold War - to catch up with the Middle East as zones of tensions. Periods of rising conflict tend to coincide with the rise in the global arms trade (Chart 5). Chart 5Rising Conflict Coincides With Escalating Arms Trade East Asia is our primary concern. Sino-American tensions have been brewing for decades, well before the trade war initiated by the Trump administration. Recently, the trade war has begun to spill into strategic areas (Table 2), creating a vicious feedback loop that could spark an accident or outright military conflict. Table 2Trade War Spills Into Strategic Areas The South China Sea is the premier geographic location of U.S.-China strategic friction. It is a hub for international trade, a vital supply route for all major Asian economies, and the premier focus of China's attempt to rewrite global rules (Diagram 1). We update our list of clashes in this area in Appendix A. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout China has used its growing economic heft in the region to bully its neighbors into acquiescing to its geopolitical posture (Chart 6). It has used economic sanctions, trade boycotts, and tourism bans to get its way with the neighborhood. China's East Asia neighbors - including Japan - will look to balance their growing dependence on the Chinese economy with a desire to maintain sovereignty. One way to do so will be to rearm and present a formidable challenge to Beijing's regional hegemony. This means that not only the South China Sea but also China's entire periphery is at risk of friction, and this is true regardless of any U.S. interest in Asia. Chart 6China Uses Its Economic Might To Bully Europe is also growing as a potential source of global arms demand. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has seen a decline in defense spending. One reason is the NATO alliance, which has allowed Europeans to pass the buck to the U.S. This has not only been the case with the safely cocooned Western European states. Poland, intimately familiar with the built-in geopolitical risks of its neighborhood, reduced its defense spending once it joined NATO. President Trump has made awakening Europe from its stupor a key pillar of his trans-Atlantic policy. A combination of Trump's pestering and concerns that the U.S. is trending towards isolationism with an evolving threat matrix that now includes terrorism, migration, and Russia should be enough to spur Europeans to meet their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defense (Chart 7). Chart 7Europeans Will Be Swayed To Meet Defense Commitments... If NATO member states and Japan were to respond to their evolving threats and commit to spending 2% of GDP on defense, the impact on global arms demand would be significant. The extra spending would be roughly $145 billion, a 14% increase from current levels (Chart 8). Chart 8...Raising Global Arms Demand What about the Middle East? In the short term, we are concerned that President Trump's "maximum pressure" policy could lead to kinetic action against Iran. In the medium and long term, we expect some form of an equilibrium to emerge in the Middle East that would keep regional demand for weapons stable at current elevated levels. Saudi Arabia has been the primary importer of weapons, with 13% of total demand since 2002. Saudi purchases have accelerated as the U.S. has geopolitically deleveraged out of the region (Chart 9 and Chart 10). Chart 9As The U.S. Military Deleverages... Chart 10...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Evolving Technological Demands The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of this century was probably the last large-scale mechanized conflict involving large formations of main battle tanks (MBT). The evolving threat matrixes in East Asia and Europe are likely to create a growing demand for naval, air superiority, and drone/autonomous technology. In East Asia, the two main risk theaters are the South and East China Seas. In Europe, the Mediterranean, the Baltic, and the Black Seas are increasingly becoming a risk vector due to the instability of North African and Middle East countries, as well as Russian assertiveness. This is good news for the arms industry as aircraft and ships are some of the most lucrative exports given the high level of technological sophistication that goes into developing them (Chart 11). A war fought in the trenches and jungles by soldiers and insurgents is unlikely to be very profitable, other than for small arms manufacturers. But tensions between sovereign nations across large distances and bodies of water will be highly lucrative for major defense manufacturers that specialize in anti-access/area-denial systems.2 Chart 11Aircraft And Ships Are Most Lucrative Furthermore, capital depreciation is advanced for the most sophisticated (and thus expensive) military technology that was introduced at the tail-end of the Cold War expansionary phase. The U.S. aircraft carrier fleet, for example, is mostly made up of Nimitz-class carriers, which have served for the past 43 years on average (Chart 12). Chart 12Capital Depreciation Is Advanced Our back-of-the-envelope calculations show that the cyclicality in U.S. aircraft carriers is apparent across the major defense systems. Looking at 40 countries and their respective aircraft and MBTs, the bulk of these weapons is beyond the average age of the previous generation when it was retired (Chart 13). Part of the reason for the extended life cycle is better technology, but we suspect the main reason is that these major weapon systems were developed at the height of the Cold War and have not been updated since then. Chart 13Weapons Are Beyond Retirement Age, Need Updating Population Aging The demographic trends of population aging and low birth rates have wide-ranging macroeconomic implications. But they will also impact the defense industry by encouraging automation. There are benefits to automation in the military sphere beyond simply replacing a shrinking pool of able-bodied youth. First, the likely geopolitical hotspots of this century - East Asian seas, the Persian Gulf, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean - are conducive to high-tech warfare. These bodies of water will be patrolled by drones and plied by autonomous surface vessels while hypersonic missiles deny access to the enemy. Second, by shifting the burden of fighting wars from humans to robots, policymakers will face lower constraints to conflict. This development will not only encourage policymakers to develop autonomous weapon systems, but might also increase the frequency with which they are used, destroyed, and thus re-ordered, shortening the hardware life-cycle and thus increasing the sales volume. Bottom Line: Global multipolarity has seen the U.S. geopolitically deleverage from the Middle East, threaten Europe with abandonment, and put pressure on China in East Asia. These are trends that we believe are here to stay irrespective of President Trump's success or failure in the 2020 election. They are all bullish for defense spending and arms trade. In addition, evolving technological demands and global demographic trends will buoy the arms trade. We expect this era of unbalanced multipolarity to be even more lucrative for global defense contractors. The U.S.: Remain Overweight Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA's chief U.S. equity strategist, recommends that investors remain overweight the pure-play BCA defense index and add exposure to it on any meaningful pullbacks while keeping it as a structural overweight within the GICS1 S&P industrials index. In the U.S., defense spending and investment have bottomed and will continue to accelerate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) continues to project that defense outlays will jump further next year (middle panel, Chart 14). We expect that this breakneck pace is actually sustainable, mainly because any fiscal compromise with Democrats on discretionary, non-defense spending would require acquiescence on GOP spending priorities, such as defense. Defense outlays will therefore continue to expand into the 2020s. Chart 14Upbeat Defense Outlays... Such a buoyant demand backdrop is music to the ears of defense contractor CEOs and represents a boost to defense equity revenue growth prospects. Defense contractors enjoy high operating leverage. No wonder M&A activity is robust: at least four large deals have been announced in the past year that are underpinning both takeout premia and relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 15). Chart 15...And A Flurry Of M&A Is A Boon For Defense A closer look at operating metrics corroborates the view that defense goods manufacturers are firing on all cylinders. New orders recently jumped to fresh all-time highs and the industry's shipments-to-inventories ratio is rising, on track to surpass the 2008 peak. Unfilled orders are also running at a high rate, signaling that factories will keep on humming at least for the next few quarters (Chart 16). Chart 16Firming Operating Metrics Importantly, the industry is not standing still and is making significant investments. U.S. defense capex as reported in the financial statements of constituent firms is growing at roughly 20% annually, or twice as fast as overall capex (Chart 17). Defense ROE is running near 30%, again roughly double the rate of the broad market (Chart 18). Chart 17Industry Is Not Standing Still Chart 18Healthy Balance Sheet With High ROE... Valuations are on the expensive side and in overshoot territory (Chart 19). This is clearly a risk to the overall view. However, if our structural thesis pans out, then defense stocks in the U.S. will grow into their pricey valuations as happened in the back half of the 1960s. Chart 19...But Valuations Are Expensive Bottom Line: The secular advance in pure-play defense stocks remains in place. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy recommends an above-benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA defense index are: LMT, LLC, NOC, GD, and RTN. Global Stocks: Be Discerning Beyond the U.S., which global defense stocks are appealing? We believe that there are several market and structural factors to consider. We have ranked national defense sectors by market and structural factors in Tables 3 and 4. Further, Appendix B lists all the non-U.S. weapon manufacturers that we examined, as well as market performance by country. Table 3Russian Defense Sector Attractive On Market Factors Table 4European Companies Rank Highly On Structural Factors Momentum - We like stocks from equity markets that have momentum behind them, i.e. whose stock are above their 200-day moving average. Relative valuation - We like defense sectors that are at a discount relative to the U.S. plays. Performance since Trump - For any country that has outperformed the U.S. aerospace and defense sector since the inauguration of President Trump on January 20, the market believes in its competitiveness vis-à-vis the largest exporter. Geographical diversity - We have ranked country defense sectors by how diverse their sources of revenue are. The higher the figure, the more geographically diverse the revenue pool. Russian and Indian defense plays score very low on this variable as they depend solely on one source: themselves. Exposure to arms trade - We have ranked country defense sectors by how exposed their contractors are to defense as opposed to civilian production. Most companies have major civilian outlays. To fully capture our multipolarity theme, we have ranked companies based on how fully focused they are on producing and selling weapons. Share of global arms market - We recommend that clients buy defense companies in countries that already have a high share of the global arms market. Decisions on purchasing weapons often involve path dependency due to the need to acquire compatible systems. Defense spending - We penalize countries that are already spending 2% of GDP on defense. Their companies will see little boost to domestic demand. It is the other, under-spending countries that will significantly increase their outlays over the next decade. Russian companies score high on market factors. They have good momentum, are attractively valued relative to the U.S. aerospace and defense sector, and are structurally supported. Israel, Canada, Australia, and Brazil are also attractive. All of these are made up of only one stock. On structural factors alone, we like German, British, Italian, and Swedish defense companies. They are geographically diversified, have a respectable share of the global arms trade, and have both reason and room to increase domestic spending. French companies are also structurally attractive, although France may have less need to increase defense outlays. Putting it all together, we are creating a BCA Global Defense Basket. We would include the following global tickers in that basket: A:ASBX, F:AIRS, F:CSF, F:SGM, F:AM@F, C:CAE, D:RHM, D:TKA, I:LDO, I:FCTI, ULE, COB and W:SAAB. Clients may want to include in the basket the five U.S. tickers recommended by BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy: LMT, LLL, NOC, GD, and RTN. We recommend that investors buy this basket, in absolute terms, as a structural investment. Housekeeping We are closing two of our hedges today. First, we are closing long Brent / Short S&P 500 for a gain of 6% and our long U.S. energy / short U.S. information technology for a loss of 1.63%. We initiated the two tactical trades on October 3, which means we timed the market correction perfectly. However, concerns over a supply glut in the oil market meant that the "long" part of our trade did not work out. Furthermore, there have been leaks from the White House to the media that the U.S. may award exceptions to the oil embargo to several critical importers. This would suggest that the Trump administration is beginning to see the risks of its aggressive maximum pressure strategy toward Iran and therefore may be trying to backtrack from it. We still think that the odds of an oil spike due to geopolitics in 2019 are high, but they do appear to be declining, at least for the time being. As such, we are closing the two trades for a net gain. We will continue to monitor the Iran embargo carefully as we expect that geopolitical risks will again be understated in the future, offering investors another opportunity to be long energy. Jesse Anak Kuri, Consulting Editor jesse.anakkuri@mail.mcgill.ca 1 Please see John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001). 2 Anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) is a strategy of preventing an adversary from occupying or transiting a geographic area. Defense systems that perform A2/AD functions in the modern era tend to be expensive and technologically sophisticated. They include anti-ship missiles, sophisticated radars, attack submarines, and air-superiority fighter jets. Appendix A Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Appendix B Appendix B Chart 20British Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 21French Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 22German Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 23Italian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 24Swedish Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 25Norwegian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 26Canadian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 27Australian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 28Korean Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 29Japanese Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 30Singaporean Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 31Israeli Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 32Russian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 33Brazilian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 34Indian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 35Turkish Defense Stocks Appendix B Table 1Key Aerospace And Defense Companies Appendix B Table 1Key Aerospace And Defense Companies, Continued

Highlights Growth Scare: Despite the recent pickup in global equity market volatility, bond volatility remains subdued. Until there is more decisive evidence of a deeper pullback in global growth that is impacting the mighty U.S. economy, yields on government bonds - which remain overvalued in all major developed economies - will have difficulty falling much more even if equity markets continue to correct. Stay below benchmark on global duration exposure, while maintaining only a neutral allocation to global credit. Canada: The Bank of Canada remains on a hawkish path to a more neutral policy rate, even with the lingering concerns over household debt and global trade tensions. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in hedged global bond portfolios. Feature Just like that other great October tradition, Halloween, market volatility has returned to spook investors. Both the MSCI All-Country World Index and S&P 500 index are officially in correction territory, down -10% from the highs reached in September. The causes for the pullback range from high-profile third quarter U.S. earnings disappointments to increased evidence that the U.S.-China tariff war is negatively impacting U.S. investment spending. Yet the reaction from global bond markets has been relatively muted for such a large pullback in stocks. Benchmark 10-year government bond yields for the major developed markets are down from their peaks, but the declines have been smaller in countries where central banks are in a rate hiking cycle (U.S. -14bps, Canada -19bps) relative to countries where central banks are on hold (Germany -20bps, U.K. -31bps). One possible reason for this discrepancy is that the downtrend in data surprises appears to have stabilized in the U.S. and, even more importantly, China, while European data continues to disappoint relative to expectations (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekNoisy Equities, Calm Bonds We still do not believe that global bond yields have peaked for the cycle. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark strategic bias on overall duration exposure, but with only a neutral allocation to global corporate bonds that favors U.S. credit. On a more shorter-term tactical basis, there is a risk that yields could decline further, with more credit spread widening than seen during the current risk-off episode, if economic data starts to disappoint in the U.S. where growth has so far been resilient. Staying up in credit quality within an allocation to U.S. corporates is one way to hedge against such an outcome. Bond Yields Are Normalizing, Bond Volatility Is Not The selloff in risk assets has resulted in a pickup in widely-followed market volatility measures like the U.S. VIX index. Yet when looking at the level of realized total return volatility across all major asset classes, the current bout of turbulence has been unimpressive outside of global equities. In Chart 2, we present an update of a chart from our 2018 global bond outlook report, showing the current levels of realized volatility across different asset class benchmarks compared to their historical ranges. The vertical lines in each chart represent the range between 1999 and 2017 of annualized monthly volatilities for global government bonds, credit, equities, currencies and commodities. The red triangles represent the most recent 13-week annualized volatilities for those same asset classes. What stands out in the chart is that volatilities are off the historical lows for global equities, Italian government bonds and industrial commodities, yet volatilities remain subdued for developed market government bonds, global corporate debt and currencies. Chart 2Bond Volatility Remains Subdued, Despite More Volatile Equities We have long argued that the shift to a structurally higher level of volatility across all asset classes will show up first with a rise in bond volatility. In the U.S., in particular, sustained periods of elevated volatility for both Treasuries (as measured by the MOVE index) and stocks (as measured by the VIX index) have occurred alongside episodes of greater variance in nominal GDP growth (Chart 3). When the latter rises, that also triggers more uncertainty about the future path of monetary policy which feeds into a rise in expected bond volatility. That, in turn, impacts volatility in growth sensitive assets like equities, credit and commodities. Chart 3Equity Vol Responding To Growth Uncertainty Right now, nominal GDP volatility has picked up in the U.S. but still remains low by historical standards (middle panel). Some of that increased growth volatility can be attributed to the Trump fiscal stimulus coming at a time of full employment, which has helped boost both real GDP growth and U.S. inflation. Interest rate markets have moved to discount more Fed hikes in response, but the Fed's steady pace of well-telegraphed, 25bps-per-quarter rate increases is likely acting to dampen Treasury market volatility. As we have written about extensively throughout the course of 2018, the hurdle for central banks (not just the Fed) to shift to a less hawkish or more dovish policy stance is much higher when unemployment is low and inflation is closer to central bank targets. In such an environment, the correlation between equity and bond returns should be weaker than during periods of excess capacity and low inflation when central banks can stay dovish. That can be seen in Chart 4, which plots the trailing 52-week correlation of total returns for equities and government bonds for the major developed markets (top panel), along with the 10-year market-based inflation expectations for each country (bottom panel). For almost all countries shown, the stock/bond correlation has risen to zero away from the negative correlations that dominated the post-crisis years. That move in correlations has occurred alongside a more stable backdrop for inflation expectations, which are much closer to central bank targets. The lone exception is, of course, Japan, where inflation remains disappointingly low and the Bank of Japan continues to keep a tight lid on interest rates. Chart 4More Stable Inflation Means Less Correlated Stock & Bond Returns Besides more stable inflation, another factor preventing yields from falling as much as implied by the declines in equity markets is that global bond yields remain overvalued relative to trend economic growth. One way to assess this is to look at the level of real bond yields relative to a moving average of actual GDP growth. We show this for the major developed economies in Charts 5 & 6, which plot rolling 3-year moving averages of real GDP growth (a proxy for "trend" or potential growth) versus real 5-year government bond yields, 5-years forward. For the latter, we take the nominal 5-year/5-year forward yield and subtract a five-year moving average of realized headline inflation for each country, rather than market-based inflation-linked instruments like CPI swaps or TIPS, to allow for a longer history of real yields in the charts. Chart 5Real Bond Yields Are Still Too Low ... Chart 6... Compared To Real Economic Growth For all countries show, real bond yields remain below the level of real growth. The gap between the two is smallest in the U.S. and Canada - unsurprising, as central bankers have been tightening monetary policy, and helping push up real interest rates, in both countries. Bonds look most overvalued in core Europe, Japan and Sweden where policymakers have been using negative interest rates and quantitative easing (QE) to hold down bond yields. Real yields in those countries are between 200-300bps below our proxy for trend real growth. With such a large gap between actual growth and interest rates, it becomes harder for policymakers to consider easing monetary policy, or at least slow the pace of policy normalization, in response to more volatile financial markets. It should not be a surprise that last week, during a period of global market turmoil, the European Central Bank and Sweden's Riksbank both signaled that they remain on pace to end QE and begin hiking interest rates within the next 6-12 months, while the Bank of Canada delivered another 25bp rate hike. In the absence of a VERY large global growth shock, global real yields should be expected to increase over at least the next year, and a defensive posture on global duration exposure should be maintained. One such shock could come from a deeper downturn in China than has already occurred in 2018, which would feed into a bigger slowdown in non-U.S. growth. Another shock could come from the U.S. if the recent pullback in core durable goods orders (Chart 7) is a sign that a) U.S. companies are becoming more worried about the impact of U.S.-China trade tariffs on global growth; and/or b) the impact of the Trump fiscal stimulus is already starting to fade. Such a move could be exacerbated by a larger downturn in housing activity than seen already in response to rising mortgage rates. Chart 7Treasuries Are Exposed To A U.S. Growth Scare These shocks, if large enough, could trigger a short-covering rally in U.S. Treasuries, where sentiment remains very depressed (bottom panel). However, with leading economic indicators still pointing to above trend U.S. growth, and with U.S. consumer spending holding firm alongside a tight labor market and faster wage growth, such a pullback in yields would likely be short-lived and difficult for investors to time successfully. Bottom Line: Despite the recent pickup in global equity market volatility, bond volatility remains subdued. Until there is more decisive evidence of a deeper pullback in global growth that is impacting the mighty U.S. economy, yields on government bonds - which remain overvalued in all major developed economies - will have difficulty falling much more even if equity markets continue to correct. Stay below benchmark on global duration exposure, while maintaining only a neutral allocation to global credit. Canada Update: The BoC Stays Hawkish The Bank of Canada (BoC) delivered another rate hike last week, lifting the policy rate by 25bps to 1.75%. The language used to explain the hike was surprisingly hawkish. In the press conference following the BoC meeting, Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins noted that the policy rate remains negative in real terms and is still below the central bank's estimate of neutral (between 2.5% and 3.5%). She also noted that the term "gradual" was no longer used to describe the pace of monetary tightening, so as not to give the impression that policy was following a steady predetermined path similar to the Fed's tightening cycle - potentially, a sign that more hawkish surprises could be in the offing. The BoC also sounded more optimistic on the outlook for the Canadian economy, while sounding less concerned about the two factors that should cause the most worry - high consumer debt levels and uncertainty over global trade. The more upbeat tone is at odds with the current pace of economic growth in Canada, which has slowed. GDP growth has decelerated to 1.9% from 3.0% at the end of 2017, while the OECD's leading economic indicator for Canada is also in a downtrend (Chart 8). In the Monetary Policy Report (MPR) that was also released last week, the latest BoC forecasts for Canadian real GDP growth for 2019 and 2020 were essentially left unchanged. Chart 8Is The BoC's Growth Optimism Justified? The BoC noted that the composition of demand within the Canadian economy was shifting away from consumption and housing towards business investment and exports. That can be seen in the most recent data that shows sluggish consumer spending (middle panel) and rebounding export growth (bottom panel). The central bank attributes the softer path for consumption to its own interest rate increases and changes to housing market policies, both of which have forced households to adjust their spending patterns. That is evident in the sharp decline in house price growth, deceleration of household credit growth and the softening trends in housing starts and residential investment spending (Chart 9) Chart 9Canadian Housing Has Cooled Off The BoC is of the view, however, that consumer spending will rebound (but not overheat) on the back of strong household income growth and a pickup in net immigration inflows that is boosting population growth. The other area of diminished concern for the central bank is investment spending, which has been negatively impacted by the uncertainty over the renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). That smooth acronym is now gone, to be replaced by the more awkward "USMCA", or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That new trade deal has reduced the immediate uncertainty over the impact of U.S. trade policy on Canada, although the BoC did note in the MPR that there was still the potential for lingering uncertainty based on previous U.S. trade actions (i.e. on steel and aluminum imports to the U.S.) and because the USMCA has not yet been ratified. The BoC did make an upward adjustment to its assumptions regarding the hit to Canadian growth from U.S. trade policy compared to the July MPR. The level of exports is now only expected to fall by -0.3% over the next two years (vs -0.7% in the July MPR) and business investment is expected to decline by -0.7% over the same period (vs -1.4% in the July MPR). The reduction in trade uncertainty should be expected to free up demand for capex in Canada. The Q3/2018 BoC Senior Loan Officers' Survey reported a further easing of lending standards from the Q2 survey (Chart 10). The central bank's Q3 Business Outlook Survey also noted that firms' investment intentions continued to strengthen to the highest level in eight years (middle panel). This was primarily due to increased expectations for future sales growth, coming at a time of high reported capacity pressures (bottom panel). Importantly, the Business Outlook Survey took place before the USMCA deal was reached, suggesting that the data may actually understate sales expectations. This bodes well for future gains to overall GDP growth from business investment spending. Chart 10Canadian Companies Need To Invest & Hire That same Business Outlook Survey also reported that firms are continuing to experience labor shortages, most notably in sectors such as construction, transportation and information technology. This is a sign that employment growth should remain firm in Canada. Coming at a time when the unemployment rate at 5.9% remains well below estimates of full employment, this suggests that there could be some upward pressure on inflation. Canadian headline CPI inflation currently sits at 2.2%, while core CPI inflation is at 1.8% (Chart 11). That is a sharp decline from the 3% inflation seen in July, which was the result of an unexpected surge in airline fares. Yet at current levels, Canadian inflation sits right at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target range. Furthermore, the BoC's own assessment is that the output gap is in a range of -0.5% to +0.5%, in line with the estimates from the IMF and OECD (middle panel). Although headline wage growth has cooled in recent months, the BoC's preferred measure that incorporates several wage measures ("Wage-Common"), has been stable near the same 2% levels as seen for CPI inflation. Chart 11Canadian Inflation At BoC Target Expect More BoC Hikes With the Canadian economy operating at full employment and with inflation at target, the BoC seems determined to push the policy rate back up towards their estimated 2.5%-3.5% range for the neutral rate. This means another 75-175bps of additional rate increases. At the moment, there are only 49bps of hikes over the next year discounted in the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve (Chart 12). This leaves Canadian bond yields exposed to additional rate increases. This is especially true given our forecast of continued Fed interest rate increases in 2019, as the BoC has been playing a game of "Follow the Leader" with the Fed during the current tightening cycle (top panel). Chart 12Stay Underweight Canadian Government Bonds In terms of our recommended fixed income investment strategy, we continue to favor: an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds for global bond investors a below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated Canadian bond portfolios long positions in Canadian inflation protection (CPI swaps or inflation-linked bonds) While we expect the Canadian yield curve to flatten as the BoC delivers more rate hikes than currently discounted over the next year, we do not see the 2-year/10-year curve flattening by more than is currently priced in the forwards. This is not the case for an outright duration bet, where the forwards are currently priced for very little upward movement in Canadian bond yields over the next year. Therefore, we prefer to stick with directional bets on Canadian yields (higher) and Canadian relative bond performance versus global peers (worse). Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada remains on a hawkish path to a more neutral policy rate, even with the lingering concerns over household debt and global trade tensions. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in hedged global bond portfolios. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The latter stages of expansions and bull markets ought to be jittery, ... : Equities tend to get jumpier in the final stages of equity bull markets, but performance typically improves enough to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. ... and tariff fights, a potential trade war, and other daunting headlines only make things worse: Tariff worries are starting to pile up in earnings calls, threatening financial markets and the real economy. When it comes to the economy, U.S. investors have to ask how much good news is too much good news: The trouble with an extended stretch of good news is that it conditions investors to keep setting the bar higher. After all, bear markets don't begin when things are bad, they begin when things can't get better. We remain constructive on risk assets, but we recognize the need for vigilance: The indicators we're watching are not signaling a turn right now, but we are keeping our eyes peeled. Feature So much for the boring bull market. After a somnolent 2017, when single-day moves of at least 1% were a rarity, and there were no 2% moves at all, volatility is back (Chart 1). The S&P 500 shed 9% in the three weeks ended Wednesday; the major small-cap indexes and the NASDAQ have fared a good bit worse; and with the vast majority of S&P 500 constituents having made corrections (peak-to-trough declines of at least 10%), breadth is crumbling. The key question for asset allocators and equity investors of all stripes is whether or not the recent moves mark the beginning of a bear market. Chart 1What A Difference A Year Makes We do not think they do; volatility is supposed to reawaken in the latter stages of bull markets, and we are not deterred by October's admittedly lousy action. Our work on the key cycles does not point to an imminent inflection point, and we still think the bull market has another year to go. We are conscious of the dangers of being lulled to sleep by a strong U.S. economy, but we take some comfort from a review of the way bull markets have played out over the last 50 years. A preponderance of evidence suggests that the expansion, the credit cycle, and the equity bull market are not over yet, and we recommend staying invested. The Evolution Of Bull Markets The bull market that began in March 2009 is the ninth bull market of the last 52 years.1 Bull markets have been the rule, with the S&P 500 spending less than 20% of that stretch in a bear market (Chart 2). We have previously noted that large-cap U.S. bull markets have a tendency to sprint to the finish line; the pace of appreciation tends to quicken noticeably over a bull's final stages. Chart 2Bull Markets May Be Stocks' Natural Condition ... Charts 3 and 4 present the course of bull-market gains from 1966 through 2007. Details of the bull markets, which span nearly 8,400 sessions, are listed in Table 1. Each quintile in Chart 3 reflects the aggregate performance over the eight complete bull markets between 1966 and 2007; the first quintile's performance is calculated by linking the advance in the first 104 days of Bull #1, with the advance over the first 133 days of Bull #2, the advance over the first 311 days of Bull #3, and so on through the first 252 days of Bull #8, summing to eight advances across 1,679 trading days. Decile calculations follow the same protocol, aggregating 839 or 840 days of performance. Chart 3... But Performance Within A Bull ... Chart 4... Is Quite Variable Table 1S&P 500 Bull Markets Since 1966 The return distributions are quite uneven, with only the first and last deciles clearly topping the aggregate bull-market return. Investors who underweight equities before the bull market is complete are at risk of underperforming their benchmarks. Investors who are underweight equities when the bull market commences are almost certain to underperform. Bull markets may quicken in their final stages, but they begin by being shot out of a cannon. The cannon shot may offer an important takeaway about equity positioning in bear markets, but we will take the inflections one at a time. The key U.S. equity decision currently confronting an investor is whether or not attempting to capture the final gains in this bull market is worth his/her while. Per historical annualized mean returns and standard deviations in each bull-market decile, the risk/reward profile favors remaining fully invested (Chart 5, top panel). The first and last deciles lead the way on a return-per-unit-of-risk basis just as surely as they do on an absolute-return basis (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5Bulls Also Sprint To The Finish Line On A Risk-Adjusted Basis Bottom Line: The lion's share of bull-market gains are earned in their first and last deciles, on both an absolute and a risk-adjusted basis. If the bull market has another year to run, history favors maintaining at least an equal weighting in equities in spite of the recent upheaval. What Might Be Different This Time There is no shortage of factors to worry about right now. The tit-for-tat imposition of new tariff barriers is likely to exert at least some downward margin pressure for all companies that export goods to China, and/or consume resources/sell imported goods subject to tariffs. Tariffs are beginning to be cited regularly as a burden on quarterly earnings calls. Our geopolitical strategists don't expect the issue to go away any time soon; they view the trade contretemps as just one element of a struggle for preeminence between the U.S. and China. Pressure from a stronger dollar is also being blamed for lowered earnings forecasts. Comments from reliably dovish Atlanta Fed President Bostic confirmed that the FOMC is viewing developments through a more hawkish lens. Price stability is the focus at the Fed, as one should expect with the unemployment rate at a 50-year low and headed lower.2 There is more to exchange rates than policy-rate differentials, but the rising fed funds rate will keep at least some wind at the dollar's back. We do not expect that the president's ongoing attempts to discourage the Fed from continuing to hike will amount to anything. White House pressure on the Fed is nothing new, from LBJ's inimitable face-to-face negotiating style, to Nixon's (successful) campaign to influence Arthur Burns, to George H.W. Bush's testy public inveighing against rate hikes early in his term. Just last week, Paul Volcker divulged a remarkable joint effort by President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Baker to get the Fed to stay its hand ahead of the 1984 election. As Reagan looked on silently, according to Volcker, Baker told him, "The president is ordering you not to raise interest rates before the election."3 The news that devices resembling functional pipe bombs had been mailed to several Democratic officials, including former president Obama and the Clintons, helped to unsettle markets last Wednesday. Trade matters more to financial markets, however. For all the dispiriting headlines, it remains our view that the expansion remains healthy and is likely to continue for another year, backed by double-barreled fiscal and monetary accommodation. We are monitoring trade tensions and the dollar, but we don't yet see a catalyst to precipitate an inflection point in the key cycles. How To Fool A Macro Investor Even if the domestic economy is hale and hearty, however, investors can't blithely ignore the risks. The latter stages of expansions and bull markets can be treacherous. We know of no one who has articulated the market perils of good times as well as Oaktree Capital co-founder Howard Marks. Inspired by a client, we read all of Marks' client memos from 20074 at the beginning of the year, and we have been mulling over his concerns about the current cycle as he's raised them. Although we are not concerned about current valuation levels, the S&P 500 isn't cheap. We are encouraged that the forward earnings multiple is nearly three points off of its year-to-date high (Chart 6), but other metrics are at least somewhat elevated relative to history (Chart 7). We only get exercised about valuation at extremes, and we long ago internalized the law of mutual exclusivity: investors can have cheap stocks or good news, but they can't have both. Given the relentless drumbeat of good economic and corporate earnings news, stocks shouldn't be cheap. Chart 6Valuations Have Cooled Considerably Since January ... Chart 7... Across The Board There is a fine line between good and too good, however, because growth in mature companies and economies ultimately reverts to the mean. When expectations get too high, investors run the risk of finding themselves offside, as Marks has written: No matter how favorable and steady fundamentals may be, the markets will always be subject to substantial cyclical fluctuation. The reason is simple: even ideal conditions can become overrated and therefore overpriced. And having reached too-high levels, prices will correct, bringing capital losses despite the idealness of the environment [.] So don't fall into the trap of thinking that good fundamentals = positive market outlook [.] ... [P]rofit potential is all a matter of the relationship between intrinsic value and price. There is no level of fundamentals that can't become overpriced.5 Investment Implications We remain constructive on the economy and markets, because we do not see a near-term catalyst to cut off the expansion, the credit cycle and/or the equity bull market. Significant equity market downturns typically require outright contractions in corporate earnings (contractions, not decelerating growth, which has historically been just fine for stocks), and they rarely occur outside of recessions. Our simple recession indicator, which looks at the slope of the yield curve, the year-over-year change in leading economic indicators, and the state of Fed policy, is nowhere near danger territory.6 There is no doubt that complacent investors could get too bulled up on already-discounted good news, but fiscal stimulus would seem to ensure that a recession is out of the question in 2019. The fraught environment pushed us to cut our house view on global equities from overweight to equal weight at our June View Meeting, redirecting the proceeds to establish a cash overweight. U.S. Investment Strategy followed suit, pulling in its horns on U.S. equities. The downgrade has paid off; as of Thursday's close, the MSCI All-Country World Index had fallen 7% since June 15th, while the S&P 500 was down 2.7%. As we mentioned last week, the 2,600-2,640 range, spanning correction territory to the year-to-date lows (Chart 8), looks pretty good to us and we will look to increase our recommended equity exposure if the S&P approaches its lower bound. Chart 8The Sell-Off May Nearly Be Spent Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 We adhere to the classic definition of bull (and bear) markets, a trough-to-peak closing-price gain (peak-to-trough decline) of at least 20%. 2 According to the Atlanta Fed's online calculator (https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx?panel=1), it takes less than 110,000 monthly payroll gains to keep the unemployment rate at a steady state. 3 "Paul Volcker, at 91, 'Sees a Hell of a Mess in Every Direction,' New York Times. Accessed October 23, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/business/dealbook/paul-volcker-federal-reserve.html 4 Marks' memos are available to the public at https://www.oaktreecapital.com/insights/howard-marks-memos. 5 Marks, Howard, "It's All Good," July 16, 2007 Memo to Oaktree Clients, p.5. Accessed from online archive February 18, 2018. 6 Please see the August 13, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Overbought technicals, pricey valuations, decelerating global growth, declining capex, rising indebtedness and softening operating metrics argue for hopping off the S&P railroads index. Rising refined product stocks, ebbing gasoline demand, and excessive analyst profit optimism underscore that more pain lies ahead for refiners. Recent Changes Book profits of 15% in the S&P railroads index and downgrade to neutral today. TABLE 1 FEATURE Equities continue to digest the recent healthy pullback, and should remain range-bound before building a base in order to resume their bull market run. As we highlighted in our October 9thWeekly Report, "stock market crash-prone October is upon us, and thus a pick-up in volatility would not come as a surprise".1 Simply put, the difference between perception and reality propagates as volatility. Volatility has indeed come roaring back. There are high odds that vol will settle at a higher level, and bouts of volatility will be more frequent. The most important determinant of vol is interest rates, as we first highlighted on March 5th this year.2 For almost a decade, the Fed kept the fed funds rate close to zero in order to suppress volatility. QE and excess liquidity injections into the financial system and in the economy also aided in bringing down volatility across assets classes. Now this process is working in reverse. Not only is the Fed tightening monetary policy by increasing the fed funds rate, but it is also allowing maturing bonds to fall off its balance sheet (what some market participants have defined as quantitative tightening). In other words, as the Fed is mopping up excess liquidity, volatility is making a comeback (Chart 1). Chart 1VIX The Comeback Kid A relatively flat yield curve also points to higher volatility in the months ahead. This relationship is intuitive, given that a flat curve signals that the cycle is long in the tooth and a recession may be approaching. While both of these interest rate relationships with vol have a long lead time, the message is clear: investors should get accustomed to higher volatility at this stage of the cycle (yield curve shown on inverted scale, Chart 2). Chart 2Yield Curve And Vol Joined At The Hip Following up from last week, our Economic Impulse Indicator (EII) caught the attention of a number of our clients, igniting a healthy exchange. One criticism is that this Indicator has had some big misses in the past. This is true, but the recent history (since mid-1990s) has enjoyed an extremely high correlation. Importantly, if we show SPX profits as an impulse, the fit with the EII increases considerably (bottom panel, Chart 3). In addition, the EII moves in lockstep with the impulse of S&P 500 momentum (second panel, Chart 3). Chart 3Economic Impulse Yellow Flag Nevertheless, our worry remains intact and the risk of modest economic disappointment sometime early next year is rising (Chart 4). On that front, another indicator that continues to show signs of stress is the credit card chargeoff rate of U.S. commercial banks, excluding the 100 largest outfits. According to the Fed, both delinquencies and chargeoffs are near recessionary levels, a message large banks do not corroborate, at least not yet (Chart 5). Chart 4Economic Growth Trouble Chart 5Watch Credit Quality True, we do not think the consumer is at the cusp of retrenching as a tight labor market and rising wage inflation should boost disposable income, but rising interest rates are a clear headwind. Importantly, the fact that regional banks are sniffing out some credit quality trouble is disconcerting especially given the recent anecdote of commercial real estate (CRE) chargeoffs at Bank OZK, a regional bank that epitomizes the CRE excesses of the current cycle. We will continue to monitor our Indicators for further evidence of deteriorating credit quality. While all these risks are worrisome, and a surge in the U.S. dollar is a key EPS risk for 2019, last Friday we triggered our "buy the dip" strategy for long-term oriented capital that we have been touting recently - as the SPX hit the 10% drawdown mark since the late-September peak - predicated on BCA's view of no recession in the coming 12 months.3 In fact, none of the boxes in the three signposts we track to call the end of the cycle have been checked yet (please refer to last week's report for a recap).4 In addition, the multiple has reset significantly lower (down 20% from the cyclical peak set in January) flirting with the late-2015/early-2016 lows (Chart 6), leaving the onus on EPS to do the heavy lifting. Chart 6Wholesale Liquidation Should Bring Out Bargain Hunters On that front, Q3 earnings season has been solid, despite the input cost inflation worries that MMM and CAT rekindled recently (please look forward to reading next week's pricing power update where we gauge if the U.S. corporate sector will be in a position to pass on input cost inflation down the supply chain or to the consumer). This week we downgrade a transportation sub-group that has been on fire, and update our view on an energy index we continue to dislike. Time To Get Off The Rails We have been riding the rails juggernaut for roughly 16 months, but the time has come to get off board. Chart 7 shows that technical conditions are overbought and relative valuations are pricey, hovering near previous extremes as investors are extrapolating good times far into the future. Such euphoric readings have historically been synonymous with a high relative performance mark for this key transportation sub-index and are a cause for concern. Chart 7Overvalued And Overbought We do not want to overstay our welcome on the S&P rails index for a number of reasons. First, its is quite perplexing why this capital intensive industry has been cutting capex as the rest of the non-financial corporate sector has been growing gross fixed capital formation at near double-digit rates (second panel, Chart 8). Chart 8Capex Blues Adding insult to injury, railroad CEOs have been changing the capital structure of their respective firms by borrowing extensively in order to retire equity (in order to satisfy shareholders) and thus artificially massaging EPS higher. Going through the recent history of the constituents' financial statements is worrying. Net debt-to-EBITDA is up 75% since early-2015 near 2.2x and higher than the overall market, largely driven by rising indebtedness (Chart 8). Taken together, lack of investment and a higher debt burden are painting a grim backdrop, especially if cash flow growth suffers a mishap. Second, the global manufacturing outlook has downshifted on the back of Trump's trade rhetoric and China's larger than anticipated slowdown. Tack on our souring margin proxy and relative EPS euphoria resting mostly on equity retirement is under attack (second panel, Chart 9). Chart 9Warning Signals... Third, two of our key industry Indicators have suddenly turned south. Our Railroad Indicator has dropped into the contraction zone and our Rail Shipment Diffusion Indicator has fallen off a cliff lately (Chart 10). The implication is that rail freight demand is likely on the verge of cresting. Chart 10...Abound... Fourth, industry operating metrics are deteriorating, at the margin. Intermodal rail shipments have rolled over. In fact, toppy consumer confidence alongside decreasing traffic at the Port of Los Angeles signal that the path of least resistance is lower for this key rail freight category, comprising 50% of total carloads (Chart 11). In addition, coal shipments are moribund, despite the recent slingshot recovery in natural gas prices that should have enticed utilities to switch out of nat gas and into coal for electricity generation (not shown). Chart 11...Even In Intermodel... However, there are some positive offsets that prevent us from turning outright bearish on the S&P rails index. This transportation sub group is an oligopoly and is in the driver's seat with regard to pricing power (middle panel, Chart 12). In other words, it has the ability to pass rising diesel costs through to its clients as a fuel surcharge. Alternative modes of transportation like air freight and trucking are available, at least for some rail categories, but the switching costs are typically prohibitive and the relative price advantages few and far between. Chart 12...But There Are Offsets Further, rail pricing power is a key input to our railroad EPS model and the message from our model is that EPS have more upside, at least until Q1/2019. Thus, we refrain from swinging all the way to a below benchmark allocation. Adding it up, overbought technicals, pricey valuations, declining capex rising indebtedness and softening operating metrics argue for hopping off the rails. Bottom Line: Lock in gains of 15% since inception in the S&P rails index and downgrade to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSC, KSU. Refiners Crack Under Pressure Pure-play refiners remain our sole underweight within the energy space, and despite recent M&A activity, they have trailed the broad market by 9% since the early-July inception. More downside looms, and we continue to recommend a below benchmark allocation in the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index. We remain puzzled with sell-side analysts' extreme long-term EPS euphoria in this niche energy space. Historically, when an index catapults to a 25%/annum 5-year forward EPS growth rate, it is time to run for cover: the tech sector in the late 1990s, biotech stocks in the early-2000s and in 2014 and, most recently, semi equipment stocks in late-2017 all painfully demonstrate that stocks hit a wall when profit euphoria is so elevated (bottom panel, Chart 13). Chart 13Too Good To Be True Refiners are currently trading at a 45%/annum long-term EPS growth rate. While at first we thought base effects were the culprit, a closer inspection reveals that those effects were filtered out late last year and the recent increase in expected growth rate from 20% to north of 45% defies logic (middle panel, Chart 13). We expect a sharp revision to a rate below the broad market in the coming months, as refining stocks also continue to correct lower. There are a few reasons why we anticipate such a gravitational pull back down to earth. Refined product consumption is falling and that exerts a downward pull on refining profitability. This letdown in demand is materializing at a time when gasoline inventories are rising at a high mid-single digit rate (gasoline inventories shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 14). Chart 14Bearish Supply Demand Backdrop Not only have light vehicle sales crested, but also vehicle miles driven are flirting with the contraction zone, weighing heavily on gasoline demand prospects (second panel, Chart 15). Chart 15No Valuation Cushion Ultimately, pricing discovery resolves any supply/demand imbalances and most evidence currently points to at least an easing in crack spreads. Chart 16 highlights that crude oil inventories are trailing the buildup in refined products stocks and that is pressuring refining margins. Chart 16Mixed Signals... The implication is that refining industry profits will underwhelm, which will catch investors and analysts by surprise given their near and long-term optimistic EPS assessment. If our weak profit backdrop pans out, then a lack of a valuation cushion suggests that relative share prices will likely suffer a significant drawdown (bottom panel, Chart 15). Nevertheless, there are two related positive offsets. And, if they were to persist then our bearish view on refiners would be offside. The widening Brent-WTI crude oil spread suggests that crack spreads could reverse course if it stays stubbornly elevated. This wide oil price differential has pushed refining net exports close to all-time highs and represents a profit relief valve as the energy space has, up to now, escaped the trade wars unscathed (Chart 17). Chart 17...On Crack Spreads Netting it out, rising refined product stocks, softening gasoline demand, and excessive analyst profit optimism underscore that more pain lies ahead for refiners. Bottom Line: Continue to avoid the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC and HFC. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, "The "FIT" Market" dated October 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 10 Reasons We Still Like Banks" dated March 5, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight, "Time To Bargain Hunt" dated October 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, "Icarus Moment?" dated October 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

We have been advocates of a "buy the dip" strategy and now that the 10% drawdown is here we are ready to put to work longer-term oriented capital, with a time horizon of at least 9-months. The primary reason for this is BCA's view of no recession in the coming 9-12 months. Also none of the boxes have been ticked on the three indicators we monitor to call the end of the cycle (please refer to this week's report for a recap). With regard to the ferocity of the drawdown, not only is there a wholesale liquidation on the forward P/E multiple, but this is also occurring in tandem with a 12-month forward EPS deceleration down from 20% to 10%. Finally, stocks are weaker than they appear as large cap indexes tend to mask the breadth of the declines we have seen. According to the Value Line Arithmetic and Geometric indexes the average and median stock is down roughly 13% from the recent peak and according to Standard & Poor's small cap stocks are down 16% from the recent top, whereas the SPX is near the -10% mark from the 2940 peak hit in late-September. Bottom Line: We would be deploying longer-term oriented capital as a U.S. recession remains a low probability event in the coming 12-months.

Highlights The correction in global equities is not yet over, but we would turn more constructive if stocks retreated about 6% from current levels. Among the many things bothering investors, the fate of the Chinese economy remains high on the list. Chinese growth continues to slow, with the impact of the trade war yet to be fully felt. Investors are likely to end up being disappointed by both the size and the composition of Chinese stimulus. High debt levels and excess capacity limit the prospective benefits of traditional fiscal/credit easing. Stimulus measures aimed at boosting consumption, which is what the authorities are increasingly focusing on, would help the Chinese economy. However, they would generate only small gains for the rest of the world. A weaker yuan would be outright negative for other economies. Cyclically and structurally, we expect the bond bear market to continue, but slower Chinese growth and a stronger dollar could temporarily cap Treasury yields over the coming months. Feature Correction Slightly More Than Halfway Through We argued in our October 5th report that "prudent investors should consider scaling back risk if they are currently overweight risk assets" because the market was at an elevated risk of a "phase transition" from unbridled optimism to a more sober appreciation of the risks presently facing the global economy.1 The good news is that the ongoing correction will be just that, a correction. Both monetary and fiscal policy in the U.S. remain highly accommodative. The next recession will not occur until late-2020 at the earliest. U.S. equities, which account for over half of global stock market capitalization, rarely enter sustained bear markets outside of recessions (Chart 1). Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap The bad news is that we have yet to reach a capitulation point. As we noted last week, corrections usually end when investors stop believing that they are witnessing a correction and start thinking that a bear market is afoot.2 Normally, stocks need to break through prior support levels several times before "buy the dip" investors throw in the towel. This week saw the S&P 500 fall below its October 11th lows. A few more iterations of this pattern may be necessary. To repeat what we wrote before, barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish on global equities again if the MSCI All-Country World Index were to fall by 12% 10% 8% 6% from current levels. With that in mind, we are putting in a limit order to buy the ACWI ETF at $64.3 Emerging Markets: Time To Pay The Piper Even if we were to turn more positive on global equities, we would maintain our preference for developed market stocks over emerging markets, despite the latter's higher beta nature. The wave of liquidity created by the Fed and other major central banks over the past decade ended up flowing into places where it was not needed. Emerging markets were a prime destination: Dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets now stands at levels reached just before the late-1990s Asian Crisis (Chart 2). Chart 2EM Dollar Debt At Late-1990s Levels While EM valuations have cheapened considerably, they are not yet at washed out levels. The latest BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey showed that managers were slightly net overweight emerging market equities in October. This is a far cry from 2015, when a net 30% of managers were underweight EM stocks. Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? China figures heavily into the equation. If the Chinese government were to deliver a massive dose of traditional fiscal/credit easing, this would boost fixed-asset investment and thus commodity prices, helping emerging markets in the process. Such a dollop of stimulus would also lift global growth. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar tends to weaken when global growth accelerates (Chart 3). The reflationary impulse from higher commodity prices and a softer dollar would be manna from heaven for emerging markets. Chart 3Decelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bullish For The Dollar If we had strong confidence that such a burst of stimulus were forthcoming, we would be comfortable in calling the end of the global stock market correction now and going overweight EM assets. Unfortunately, the evidence so far suggests that while the Chinese authorities are stimulating the economy, they are not doing so by enough to reignite growth (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Growth Remains Soft Real GDP increased at a weaker-than-expected pace in the third quarter. Industrial production surprised on the downside in September, echoing declines in the manufacturing PMI. Home sales are running well below housing starts, suggesting downside risk for the latter in the months ahead. Goldman's China Current Activity Indicator has continued to grind lower, while the economic surprise index remains mired in negative territory. Our conversations with clients suggest that most are expecting the recently announced stimulus measures to arrest and then reverse the downward trend in growth. We are not so sure. As our geopolitical team has stressed, the Chinese government has expended a lot of political capital on its reform agenda.4 Abandoning it now would not only cause the government to lose credibility, but it would undermine the very reasons it was implemented in the first place. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart 5). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart 6). Our China team estimates that 15%-to-20% of apartments are sitting vacant.5 Chart 5China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart 6Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For Chinese SOEs Today, Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. As such, we are skeptical that the recent acceleration in credit growth will have long legs (Chart 7). Anecdotal evidence suggests that some companies which are receiving credit are simply holding on to the cash, rather than running the risk of being accused of investing in money-losing projects. Monetary policy in China is increasingly pushing on a string. Chart 7China: Only A Modest Acceleration In Credit Growth Rebalancing: Be Careful What You Wish For This does not mean that China will not try to prop up its economy. It will. But the form of stimulus the government pursues may not be to foreign investors' liking. For example, consider the recently announced income tax reforms, which raise the threshold at which households need to start paying taxes while increasing deductions for education, health, housing, and eldercare. In and of themselves, these measures are admirable and long overdue. The Chinese income tax system is fairly regressive. Poor households face an effective income tax rate exceeding 40%. This is well above OECD norms (Chart 8).6 A more progressive tax system would boost consumption among poorer households. Chart 8High Tax Burden For Low-Income Households In China The snag is that raw materials and capital goods comprise 85% of Chinese imports. As Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's Chief EM strategist, has long noted, policies that boost Chinese consumption are simply less beneficial to the rest of the world than policies that boost investment.7 Pundits who talk about the virtue of "rebalancing" the Chinese economy away from fixed-asset investment and towards consumer spending should be careful what they wish for! The Trade War Will Heat Up One of the more notable aspects of China's recent slowdown is that it has been concentrated in domestic demand rather than in net exports. Remarkably, Chinese exports to the U.S. actually increased by 12% in dollar terms in the first nine months of the year, compared to the same period in 2017. However, judging from the steep drop in the export component of both the official and private-sector Chinese manufacturing PMI, the export sector is likely to come under increasing pressure over the next few quarters as the headwinds from higher tariffs fully manifest themselves (Chart 9). Chart 9China: An Ominous Sign For Exports Investors hoping that U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping will reach a deal to end the trade war on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit in Buenos Aires on November 29 are likely to be disappointed. As we have stressed in the past, Trump's fiscal policy is completely inconsistent with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus in a full-employment economy will suck in imports. It will also force the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a larger trade deficit. Trump will not be able to blame Canada or Mexico for a deteriorating trade position because he just signed a "big, beautiful" trade agreement with them (incidentally, the new USCAM USMCA agreement is remarkably similar to the "horrible" one that it replaced with the notable exception that it contains a clause barring Canada and Mexico from negotiating bilateral trade deals with China). This means Trump needs a patsy who will take the blame for America's burgeoning trade deficit. Reaching a deal with China would actually be a strategic mistake for Trump's political career. A Weaker RMB Ahead A weaker Chinese currency would blunt some of the pain inflicted on China's export sector from Trump's tariffs. There is obviously a limit to how far China can let its currency slide, but last week's decision by the U.S. Treasury to refrain from labeling China a currency manipulator will probably embolden the Chinese to allow the currency to depreciate some more from current levels.8 A weaker Chinese currency would be a cold shower for the rest of the world. Not only will it make other economies less competitive in global markets; it will also reduce Chinese imports. Concluding Thoughts Investors spend a lot of time debating the magnitude of China's stimulus plans and not enough time thinking about the composition of that stimulus. Credit/fiscal easing of the sort China has historically engaged in is good for other emerging markets because it sucks in raw materials and capital goods. In contrast, consumption-based stimulus is only modestly beneficial to the rest of the world, while a weaker Chinese currency is an outright negative for other economies. If China focuses more on the latter two types of stimulus and less on the former, global investors are likely to be disappointed. Emerging market assets have cheapened considerably over the past few months and will likely find a bottom in the first half of next year. For now, however, investors should overweight developed market stocks relative to their EM peers. Consistent with our July 5, 2016 call declaring "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," both the cyclical and structural trend in bond yields is firmly to the upside. Tactically, however, bonds are deeply oversold (Chart 10). The combination of slower EM growth, disappointments over the magnitude and composition of Chinese stimulus, and a stronger dollar will put a lid on yields over the next few months. Chart 10Treasurys Are Oversold Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next U.S. Recession: Waiting For Godot?" dated October 5, 2018. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today," dated October 19, 2018. 3 Valid during extended trading hours. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Part Two," dated August 15, 2018. 5 Please see Emerging Market Strategy Special Report, "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?" dated April 6, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is China Heading For A Minsky Moment?" dated April 13, 2018. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018. 8 Ironically, while China may not be manipulating its currency based on the Treasury's legal definition, economic logic suggests it is. True, China is no longer buying dollars in a bid to weaken the yuan. In fact, its reserves have actually declined significantly since 2015. However, the value of the yuan is determined not just by current dollar purchases; it is also determined by those that have taken place in the past. If a central bank buys dollars, this bids up the value of those dollars relative to its own currency. If it then stops buying dollars, its currency does not instantly fall back to its original level. All things equal, it just stays where it is. The best parallel is with quantitative easing. Both theory and evidence suggest that it is the stock of bonds that a central bank owns, rather than the flow of bonds in and out of its balance sheet, that determines the level of yields. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Five risks to our bullish dollar stance need to be monitored: further weakness in the S&P 500; rebounding gold prices; stabilizing EM exchange rates and bond prices; Spanish bank stocks at multi-decade lows; and large, long-exposure by speculators to the greenback. However, China's lackluster response to stimulus and the U.S.'s domestic strength still favor the dollar. In fact, the key force likely to cause U.S. growth to converge toward weaker global growth will be a stronger U.S. dollar. Feature BCA has a positive bias toward the dollar for the coming six to nine months. Admittedly, the dollar is expensive, but cyclical determinants still favor a rally. The Federal Reserve is hiking rates as the U.S. economy is at full capacity and goosed up by fiscal injections. Yet global growth is very wobbly. This combination is a potent cocktail for USD strength. Despite these key sources of support, we cannot be dogmatic, especially as financial markets are anticipatory mechanisms, and therefore the dollar could have already priced in some of these developments. As such, this week we explore the key risks to our dollar view. While serious threats for the dollar exist over the upcoming two to three quarters, the key macro and financial drivers remain dollar bullish. The Threats 1) The S&P Sells Off Further The MSCI EAFE index, expressed in USD terms, is down nearly 20% since its January 2018 highs. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 has fallen 9% since its recent all-time high, or 7% vis-Ã -vis where it stood in late January. The risk is that as the global economic slowdown deepens, investors end up selling their good assets along with their bad ones. This means the S&P 500 could fall more. In fact, our colleague Peter Berezin writes in BCA's Global Investment Strategy that U.S. equities could fall an additional 6% from current levels before finding a durable support.1 The problem for the dollar is not whether stock prices fall. It is about what it means for the Fed. Until earlier this week, equity weakness had no impact at all on bonds. However, now, weak stock prices are dragging down U.S. bond yields. Moreover, while the U.S. yield curve slope steepened between August 24 and October 5, it is flattening anew (Chart I-1). All these market moves suggest investors are beginning to price out anticipated interest rate hikes. If U.S. stocks were to fall further, these dynamics would most likely deepen. However, since there is little monetary tightening to price out of the European or Japanese interest rate curves, such a move would likely lead to a dollar-bearish narrowing of interest rate differentials. Chart I-1It Took A Stock Market Rout For Investors To Reconsider The Fed's Path 2) Gold Is Rebounding Keynes might have called gold a barbarous relic of a bygone era, but as an extremely long-duration asset with no cash flow, the yellow metal remains an important gauge of global monetary and liquidity conditions. As the stock of dollar foreign-currency debt is large, a strong dollar is synonymous with tightening global liquidity conditions. Unsurprisingly, since 2017, gold and the dollar have been tightly negatively correlated (Chart I-2). However, since October, this correlation has been breaking down. Both the dollar and gold are moving up. This suggests that the recent increase in U.S. interest rates and in the dollar might not be as deleterious for the world as markets are currently anticipating. Chart I-2Is Gold Not Hating A Strong Dollar Anymore? Moreover, gold prices often lead EM asset prices. Since gold prices are highly sensitive to global liquidity, this makes sense. When the yellow metal sniffs out whiffs of reflation, it is only a matter of time before EM assets do as well. Since a rally in EM assets would lead to an easing in EM financial conditions, this easing would improve the global growth outlook (Chart I-3). Hence, rising gold prices might be a sign that while investors are increasingly negative on global industrial activity, the light at the end of the tunnel could be around the corner. The dollar would suffer if the outlook for global growth were to improve. Chart I-3EM Financial Conditions Hold The Key To Global Growth 3) EM Currencies And EM High-Yield Bonds Stabilizing Something strange is happening. While EM equity prices are still falling, EM high-yield bonds and currencies are not. In fact, EM FX and EM debt prices bottomed at the beginning of September, despite rising U.S. interest rates. However, since then, EM stock prices denominated in USD terms have fallen nearly 10% (Chart I-4). EM exchange rates and yields are the most important determinants of EM financial conditions. This suggests that despite EM stock prices falling fast, EM financial conditions may not be deteriorating as quickly as assumed. Chart I-4Are EM Financial Conditions Easing? This market action is in fact consistent with the development we highlighted in the gold market. We must therefore maintain a watchful eye on EM bonds and EM FX. Further meaningful improvement in these assets, while not BCA's base-case, would dangerously challenge our view that global industrial activity slows further, undermining our dollar-bullish view. 4) Spanish Banks Near Post-2008 Lows As we highlighted in August, Spanish banks are the most exposed major banks in the world to EM woes (Chart I-5).2 The exposure of the Spanish banking sector to the weakest EM economies represents 170% of capital and reserves, which is driving the entire euro area's exposure to these markets to 32% of Eurozone banks' capital and reserves. Chart I-5Who Has More Exposure To EM? The weakening in EM expected growth and the fall in EM currencies is a risk for Spanish banks. However, Spanish banks also maintain a large chunk of their EM exposure in wholly or partly owned subsidiaries. This means that while an EM crisis will definitely have an important impact on Spanish bank earnings, the impact on the balance sheet of Spanish banks is likely to be more limited. However, Spanish banks now trade in line with the levels that prevailed in Q1 2009, Q3 2012 and Q1 2016 (Chart I-6). In other words, Spanish banks are already pricing in a crisis, especially after the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that banks - not customers - must pay mortgage duties. Chart I-6Spanish Banks Are Discounting Plenty Of Bad News While markets may not be the most efficient mechanism when it comes to pricing future shocks, markets are very efficient at lateral pricing - i.e. the pricing of an event in one market, even if wrong, will be equally reflected in other markets. If the impact of an EM crisis is fully priced into Spanish banks, the impact of such a crisis is likely to also be reflected in the expectations of what the European Central Bank will do over the coming quarters, and thus it is also priced into the euro. The pessimism already present in Spanish banks and euro area financial equities may explain why the euro has not cracked below its August 17 lows, while global stock prices have. The bad news could simply already be baked into the cake! If Spanish bank stocks rebound, the dollar is likely to suffer; if they break down, the dollar will likely rally more. 5) Speculators Are Already Long The Dollar For the dollar to rise further, someone needs to buy it. The problem is that speculators have already been buying the greenback, and they are now aggressively long the dollar (Chart I-7). This means that it may become more difficult to find new buyers for U.S. dollars, especially as investors may be in the process of unloading their U.S. equities. To be fair, while it is true that the net speculative positions are elevated, they also can remain so for extended periods. Chart I-7Investors Are Long The Dollar Bottom Line: There are important risks to our dollar-bullish view that we need to closely monitor. They are: the global stock selloff migrating to the U.S., which could prompt investors to price out Fed rate hikes; gold rebounding, which might indicate marginal improvement in global liquidity conditions; EM exchange rates and high-yield bonds not weakening anymore, which could result in an easing in financial conditions, ending the deterioration in global growth; Spanish banks potentially already pricing in a dire outcome in EM; and speculators being already long the dollar. Despite these Risks, Why Do We Still Like The Dollar? The first reason relates to global growth. Ultimately, the dollar is a counter-cyclical currency. When global growth weakens, the dollar strengthens. China continues to generate potent headwinds for the world economy. Beijing has been stimulating the Chinese economy, but this stimulus is having a muted impact. As Arthur Budaghyan writes in the week's Emerging Market Strategy report, China's monetary stimulus is falling flat.3 Not only are excess reserves in the banking sector rather meager, Chinese banks are not showing a deep propensity to lend. It is not just about the behavior of Chinese banks: Chinese firms are also not displaying a high propensity to spend and borrow, which is weighing on the velocity of money in China (Chart I-8). As a result, this means that liquidity injections are not generating much impact in terms of loan growth and economic activity. Chart I-8Chinese Stimulus Is Falling Flat Because Economic Agents Are Cautious This is evident when looking at two variables. China's Li-Keqiang Index, our preferred measure of Chinese industrial activity, has stopped rebounding. In fact, it is currently weakening anew, which suggests that Chinese growth, despite all the supposed easing in monetary conditions, is not responding (Chart I-9, top panel). Moreover, Chinese infrastructure spending is also contracting at its fastest pace in 14 years (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Further, the slowing in Chinese real estate sales suggests that construction will not come to the rescue, especially as vacancy rates in Chinese major cities currently stand at elevated levels. Chart I-9Chinese Growth Outlook Is Deteriorating Anew We continue to monitor our China Play index (Chart I-10) to see if China is showing any underlying improvement, but the rally evident from June to October is now dissipating. The impact of stimulus thus looks like it is leaving investors wanting for more. Yet, as Matt Gertken and Roukaya Ibrahim argue in this week's Geopolitical Strategy service, additional stimulus will be limited as Xi Jinping is not yet abandoning his three battles against indebtedness, pollution and poverty.4 Hence, we expect China to remain a significant drag on global growth over the coming two to three quarters. Chart I-10China-Related Plays Are Losing Momentum The second issue that supports our bullish-dollar stance is the mechanism required for U.S. and global growth to converge. As Ryan Swift argues in BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service, U.S. growth will not be able to avoid the gravitational pull of a weaker global economy.5 The type of divergence currently on display between the global and U.S. Leading Economic Indicators (LEIs) is generally followed by a deteriorating U.S. growth outlook (Chart I-11). Chart I-11U.S. Growth Ultimately Converges With The Rest Of The World However, this weakening in U.S. growth won't happen out of nowhere. Either there will be domestic vulnerabilities that prompt the U.S. to become more sensitive to foreign shocks, or the dollar will force this adjustment. Today, unlike in 2015 and 2016, the sales-to-inventory ratio does not point to any imminent decline in U.S. industrial activity; to the contrary, it suggests further improvements in the coming months (Chart I-12). This leaves the dollar as the main culprit to put the brakes on U.S. growth. Chart I-12U.S. Domestic Fundamentals Are Fine Since 2009, the greenback has been very responsive to the relative growth outlook between the U.S. and the rest of the world. The accumulated gap between the U.S. and global LEIs shows the total impact of growth divergences. This indicator has done a good job at foretelling how the dollar will trade (Chart I-13). The dollar tends to respond to U.S. growth outperformance. Only once the dollar has rallied enough to meaningfully tighten U.S. financial conditions does the U.S. growth outlook deteriorate vis-Ã -vis the rest of the world. Currently, this chart suggests we are nowhere near having reached a chokepoint for U.S. growth. Chart I-13A Higher Dollar Needed For U.S. Growth To Resist The Gravitational Pull From The Rest Of The World Since the Fed remains quite unconcerned by the weakness in global growth and global stock prices, we expect that world financial markets will have to plunge deeper, the dollar to rally higher and U.S. financial conditions to tighten further before the FOMC shows enough concern to hurt the dollar. We are not there yet. Bottom Line: The absence of a meaningful response by the Chinese economy to stimulus suggests that China may have hit a debt wall. This implies that Chinese growth remains fragile and therefore a drag on global growth. Hence, international economic activity and trade will continue to provide an important tailwind for the U.S. dollar. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is not displaying enough domestic vulnerabilities to be overly sensitive to the softness in global growth. Instead, more rounds of dollar strength will be required to force U.S. growth to converge lower toward global economic activity. As such, these two forces remain powerful enough to overweight currency exposure to the USD within global portfolios. That said, the five risks described in the previous section must be kept in mind. At the current juncture, they only warrant buying a few hedges, such as our long NZD/USD recommendation, but they do not warrant underweighting the greenback. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Stimulus: Not so Stimulating", dated October 26, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Stimulus, Deleveraging And Growth", dated October 25, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China Sticks To The "Three Battles", dated October 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Waiting For Peak Divergence", dated October 23, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Markit Services PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 54.7. This measure also increased from the previous month's reading of 53.5. However, durable good ex-defense month-on-month growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.6%. Finally, monthly new homes sales underperformed expectations, coming in at an annualized pace of 553 thousand. DXY has appreciated by 0.8% this week. We are bullish on the U.S. dollar on a cyclical basis. Furthermore, momentum, one of the strongest predictive factors for the dollar continues to be positive. Finally, global growth should continue to slowdown, as the monetary tightening by Chinese authorities starts to weigh on the global industrial cycle. Report Links: In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus - August 3, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area has been negative: Markit Manufacturing PMI surprised to the downside, coming in at 52.1. Moreover, Markit Services PMI also underperformed expectations, coming in at 53.3. Finally, private loan yearly growth surprised negatively, coming in at 3.1%. EUR/USD has fallen by 0.8% this week. We are bearish on the euro on a cyclical basis, as inflationary pressures continue to be too weak in the euro area for the ECB to start raising rates. Moreover, the fact that the euro area's economy is highly dependent on exports, makes it very sensitive to global growth and emerging markets. This means that the tightening by Chinese authorities should impact the euro area economy negatively, and consequently, put downward pressure on EUR/USD. Report Links: Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan? - October 5, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: The leading economic Index outperformed expectations, coming in at 104.5. However, the coincident index surprised to the downside, coming in at 116.7. USD/JPY has been flat this week. We are neutral on the yen on a tactical basis, given that the current risk-off environment should continue to help safe havens like the yen. However, we are bearish on the yen on a cyclical basis, as inflation expectations are not well anchored in Japan. This means that the BoJ will continue to conduct ultra-dovish monetary policy for the foreseeable future, putting a cap on how high the yen can rise. Report Links: Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan? - October 5, 2018 Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy - July 27, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP/USD has decreased by 1.5% this week. Given the lack of a geopolitical risk premium embedded into the pound, we expect GBP volatility to remain elevated. This means that any hiccups in Brexit negotiations could bring about some downside for the pound. Furthermore, inflation should remain contained, even amid a tight labour market. This is mainly because inflation dynamics in the U.K. are much more driven by the external sector, as imports represent a very large portion of British final demand. Given that the pound has remained stable this year, inflation will remain subdued. We are currently short GBP/NZD in our portfolio, to take advantage of the dynamics mentioned above. Report Links: Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD/USD has been flat this week. We are most bearish on this currency within the G10, given that the AUD is highly sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle, which will continue to slow down, as Chinese authorities keep cleaning credit excesses in the economy. Moreover, policy tightening by the Fed will provide a further headwind to cyclical plays like the AUD. We are short AUD/CAD within our portfolio, as we believe that the oil currencies should fare better than other commodity currencies, given that OPEC supply cuts, as long as Iranian sanction in oil will keep upward pressure on oil prices. Report Links: Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has been flat this week. We are positive on the New Zealand dollar, particularly against the GBP, as there is very little room for kiwi rate expectations to fall. Moreover, this currency should also outperform the Australian dollar, given that New Zealand is less exposed to the Chinese industrial cycle than Australia. Nevertheless, we remain bearish on the NZD on a long-term basis, given that the new government proposals to reduce immigration and add an unemployment mandate to the RBNZ will lower the neutral rate in New Zealand, which will limit the central bank's ability to tighten monetary policy. Report Links: Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been negative: Core inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.5%. This measure also decreased form 1.7% last month. Headline inflation also surprised to the downside, coming in at 2.2%. This measure decreased significantly, coming down from 2.8% the previous month. The Bank of Canada increased rates to tk% on Wednesday, and highlighted the potential for additional rate hikes over the coming 12 months. USD/CAD has been mostly flat this week. The upside in the CAD versus the USD is likely to be limited as the policy tightening by the BoC now seems well anticipated by market participants. To take advantage of this reality, we went short CAD/NOK in our portfolio. This cross also serves as a hedge to our long dollar view, given its positive correlation to the DXY. Despite some headwinds, the CAD should outperform the AUD, as we expect that oil will do better than base metals within the commodity complex. Report Links: Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has fallen by 0.5% this week, as investors have grown worried with the recent sell off in equities. We are bearish on the franc on a cyclical basis, given that inflation in Switzerland is still too weak for the SNB to move away from their ultra-dovish monetary policy. Moreover, Helvetic real estate prices should continue to fall, as the restrictions on immigration put forth by the Swiss government since 2014 should continue to weigh on housing demand. This will further hamper the ability of the SNB to tighten its extraodinarly accommodative monetary policy. That being said, EUR/CHF could continue to fall in the near term, as money flows into safe heaven assets amid the current sell off in equities. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has risen by 0.9% this week. As expected, yesterday the Norges Bank left rates unchanged at 0.75%. In its report, the Norwegian central bank highlighted that although economic growth has been a little lower than anticipated, inflation has been somewhat higher than expectations. We are bullish on the krona against the Canadian dollar, given that rate hike expectation in Canada are much more fully priced in than in Norway even though the inflationary backdrop is very similar. Moreover, we are positive on the krone relatively to other commodity currencies like the AUD or the NZD, as we expect oil to outperform other commodities thanks to supply cuts by OPEC and sanctions against Iran. Report Links: Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 USD/SEK has rallied by 1% this week. We are positive on USD/SEK on a short-term basis, given that the SEK is the currency which is most negatively affected by the strength of the U.S. dollar. Furthermore, tightening by Chinese authorities should also weigh on the krona, given that the Swedish economy is very levered to the global industrial cycle, as many of its exports are intermediate goods that are then re-exported to emerging markets. That being said, we are bullish on the krona on a longer-term basis, as the Riksbank is on the verge of beginning a tightening cycle as imbalances in the Swedish economy are only growing more dangerous. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights We do not view October's equity downdraft as a signal to further trim risk assets to underweight. Nonetheless, stocks have not yet fallen enough to justify buying either. The economic divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world is intensifying and showing up in relative EPS trends. We believe earnings growth is set to drop sharply in the Eurozone and Japan. The viciousness of the bond selloff in October is worrying. The good news is that the Treasury curve steepened and the selloff mostly reflected higher real yields, rather than inflation expectations. Both facts suggest that the Treasury rout was reflective of strong U.S. growth, rather than a signal that the Fed is overly restrictive. Our sense is that the fed funds rate has not yet reached the economic choke point, but it is critical to watch for signs of trouble. This month we focus on key monetary indicators. Our "R-Star" indicator is deteriorating, but is not yet in the danger zone for risk assets. It is possible that we will upgrade risk assets back to overweight if stocks in the developed markets cheapen further, as long as our monetary indicators are not flashing red and the U.S. earnings backdrop remains upbeat. However, the risks are formidable and show no signs of abating. Indeed, our global economic indicators continue to deteriorate and we might be headed for a brief manufacturing recession outside of the U.S. A Democratic win in the U.S. mid-terms might spark a knee-jerk equity selloff, but Congress is unlikely to unravel any of the fiscal stimulus currently in place through 2019. The Administration's foreign policy remains a larger risk for equities. Our high conviction view is that President Trump will continue to use a "maximum pressure" approach for Iran and China that will spark additional fireworks. Another growing risk is an oil price spike above US$100/bbl in early 2019, causing significant economic damage. Chinese policy stimulus is underwhelming and the credit impulse remains weak. In the absence of real policy action in China, the prospect of continuing Fed tightening means that it is too early to bottom-fish in emerging markets. The market is still underestimating the U.S. inflation outlook and the amount of Fed tightening over the next 12-18 months. We continue to recommend a neutral stance on global equities (with a preference for developed over emerging markets), a below-benchmark duration bias, and an overweight allocation in cash. Feature October's market action confirmed that we have entered a period of elevated volatility as investors digest the inevitability of rising U.S. interest rates. We do not view the downdraft in equity markets as a signal to further trim risk asset exposure to underweight. Nonetheless, stocks have not yet fallen enough to justify buying either. We took profits and downgraded risk assets to benchmark in June, placing the proceeds into cash. Our primary motivation was the advanced nature of the U.S. economic cycle, stretched valuations, heightened geopolitical tensions, the risk of a Chinese "hard landing" and upside potential for U.S. inflation and global bond yields. We did not foresee a recession either in the U.S. or the other major economies in the near future. Nonetheless, we concluded that the risk/reward balance did not favor staying overweight risk assets. A number of culprits could be blamed for October's pullback, but in reality the market has been primed for some profit-taking for a long while and so any little excuse could have been used by investors to sell. Fed Chair Powell's "long way to go" comment seemed to push the teetering equity market over the edge. He challenged the market's view that the fed funds rate is getting close to neutral, implying that the Fed is not close to pushing the pause button. The Treasury curve steepened as the market discounted a higher cyclical peak in the fed funds rate. Could it be that bond yields have reached a "choke point" where tightening financial conditions are derailing the economic expansion? The global economic deceleration is intensifying, but the U.S. economy still appears to be enjoying solid momentum outside of housing. We do not yet see any major dark clouds forming in the U.S. corporate earnings picture either, as discussed below. Moreover, the bond selloff in October mostly reflected rising real yields (rather than inflation expectations), and the curve steepened. Both facts suggest that the Treasury selloff was reflective of U.S. strong growth, rather than a signal that the Fed is now outright restrictive. Nonetheless, the issue is particularly tricky in this cycle because the equilibrium, or neutral, fed funds rate is undoubtedly somewhat lower than in past expansions. Given the uncertain level of the neutral rate, investors must be on the lookout for signs that interest rates are beginning to bite. Markets And The Fed Cycle BCA has long viewed financial markets through the lens of money and credit. This includes a framework that involves the Fed policy cycle. We begin by decomposing the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on the interaction between the level of rates and their direction, as follows (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2): Phase I begins with the first rate hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above our estimate of the equilibrium rate (shown as a dashed line in Charts I-1 and I-2). Phase II represents the latter stages of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in a deliberate effort to cool an overheating economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate breaks below its equilibrium level until it bottoms. Chart I-1Stylized Fed Rate Cycle Chart I-2Fed Funds Rate And Equilibrium The tough part is estimating the neutral level of the fed funds rate. It is a theoretical concept - the level that is consistent with an economy at full employment with no upward or downward pressure on inflation or growth. The Fed lifts the fed funds rate above neutral when it wishes to dampen the economy and temper inflationary pressure. Economic theory ties the equilibrium interest rate to the pace of expansion of the supply side of the economy, or potential GDP growth. Our approach is to combine the CBO's estimate of potential GDP growth with a smoothed version of the actual fed funds rate, to account for the fact that the equilibrium rate periodically deviates from potential growth. The historical track record of this framework is compelling. The latest update of our analysis of equity returns during the four phases was published by BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Service.1 The level of the fed funds rate relative to its equilibrium has mattered much more than the direction of rates for historical S&P 500 price returns (Table I-1 and I-2). Price returns during Phases I and IV (when the fed funds rate is below equilibrium) trounce returns during Phases II and III (when the funds rate is in restrictive territory). This is especially the case after adjusting returns for inflation. Table I-1Tight Policy Is Hazardous To Stocks' Health, ... Table I-2...Especially In Real Terms Further breaking down the historical returns into 12-month forward EPS estimates and 12-month forward multiples, it turns out that multiples usually contract when the Fed is tightening. However, during Phase I this is more than offset by the increase in forward earnings estimates, such that equity investors enjoy positive returns until rates move into restrictive territory in Phase II. Our sense is that we are still in Phase I, implying that it is too early to expect more than a correction in risk assets based solely on the U.S. monetary policy cycle. The fed funds rate has been rising, but so too has the equilibrium rate according on our measure. Powell's latest comments suggest that the Fed agrees. That said, it is a cliche to say that this cycle has been different in many ways. Nobody knows exactly where the neutral rate is today. This means that we must be on watch for signs that the fed funds rate has already crossed into restrictive territory. We looked at the behavior of a raft of monetary and credit indicators around the time that the fed funds rate broke above the estimated neutral rate in the past. None of them have been reliable across all business cycles since the 1970s, but the best ones are shown in Chart I-3: Growth in M1 generally begins to decelerate as the fed funds rate approaches neutral and falls into negative territory shortly thereafter. Bank liquidity is defined as short-term assets as a percent of total bank credit. It usually peaks just before rates become restrictive, and begins to fall quickly as the fed funds rate surpasses the equilibrium level. We interpret bank liquidity as a proxy for banks' willingness to provide funding liquidity that enables institutional investors to take positions. The peak level of bank liquidity differs across tightening cycles, but it is never a good sign when it begins to trend lower. Consumer credit growth has a somewhat spotty track record as an indicator of monetary restraint, but it has often peaked around the time that the Fed enters Phase II. The BCA Fed Monitor is an indicator designed to gauge the pressure on the Fed to adjust policy one way or the other. It generally peaks in "tight money required" territory just before, or coincident with, the shift from Phase I to Phase II. A shift of the Monitor into "easy money required" territory would suggest that policy has become outright restrictive, and that a peak in the fed funds rate is approaching. Chart I-3BCA R-Star Indicator And Its Components Combining the four into one indicator removes some of the noise of the individual series. The BCA "R-Star" Indicator is shown in the top panel of Chart I-3. A dip in this indicator below the zero line would warn that we have entered Phase II and that the equity bull market is out of time. Chart I-4 shows the BCA R-Star indicator again, along with the S&P 500, EPS growth and profit margins. It is shaded for periods when the R-Star indicator is below zero. The lead time has varied across the economic cycles and it is far from a perfect predictor. Nonetheless, when the indicator is negative it has generally been associated with falling stock prices, decelerating profit growth and eroding profit margins. The indicator has edged lower this year, but is not yet in the danger zone. Chart I-4BCA R-Star Indicator And The U.S. Profit Cycle Finally, we are of course watching the yield curve. Its recent steepening suggests that U.S. growth justifies higher bond yields and that policy has not yet become outright restrictive. Global Growth Divergence Continues... We do not see compelling evidence from the flow of U.S. economic data that higher rates are derailing the expansion, although there are a couple of worrying signs, suggesting that growth has peaked. The backdrop is quite supportive for consumer spending: tax cuts, robust employment gains, rising wages and elevated confidence. The fact that the household saving rate is relatively high means that consumers have the wherewithal to boost the pace of spending if they wish. Motor vehicle sales have moderated, but this is to be expected when the economic cycle is advanced. The replacement cycle for U.S. business investment still has further to run. The average age of the non-residential housing stock is the highest since 1963. Both capex intention surveys and the recent easing in lending standards for commercial and industrial loans suggest that U.S. capital expenditures will be well supported, although there has been some softness in the former recently (Chart I-5). Chart I-5U.S. Capex Outlook Is Bright That said, the soft U.S. housing data are a concern, especially because a peak in residential investment as a share of GDP has been a good (albeit quite early) leading indicator of recessions. It is difficult to fully explain why housing is losing altitude given all the tailwinds supporting demand, including solid household formation (see last month's Overview). Mortgage rates have increased but affordability is still favorable. It could be that the supply side, rather than demand, is the problem: tight lending standards, zoning restrictions and the high cost of building. Still, a continued housing downtrend relative to GDP would be a challenge to our view that there will be no recession in 2019. While the U.S. economy is enjoying strong momentum, the same cannot be said for the rest of the global economy. A raft of items has weighed on CEO confidence outside of the U.S., including trade wars, a strong dollar, rising oil prices, emerging market turbulence, the return of Italian debt woes and the continuing slowdown in the Chinese economy. The global PMI is beginning to erode from a high level (Chart I-6). The softening in world activity appears to be concentrated in capital spending. Growth in capital goods imports for an aggregate of 20 countries continues to decelerate, along with industrial production for capital goods and machinery & electrical equipment in the major advanced economies. Chart I-6Global Capex Is Softening Meanwhile, our favorite global leading indicators are flashing red (Chart I-7). BCA's Global LEI has broken below the boom/bust line and its diffusion index suggests further downside. The Global ZEW and the BCA Boom/Bust indicator are holding just below zero. The global credit impulse is also still pointing down. Chart I-7Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red Among the advanced economies, Europe and Japan are most vulnerable to the slowdown in global trade and capital spending. Industrial production growth has already stalled in both economies and their respective LEIs are heading south fast (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Global Divergence ...Affecting Relative Earnings Trends It is thus not surprising that corporate EPS growth has peaked in the Eurozone and Japan. The macro data that drive our top-down EPS growth models suggest that the profit situation is going to deteriorate quickly in the coming quarters. The peak in industrial production growth suggests that the corporate top line will lose more steam. Meanwhile, nominal GDP growth has decelerated sharply in both economies, in absolute terms and relative to the aggregate wage bill (Chart I-9). These trends suggest that profit margins are coming under significant downward pressure. Even when we build in a modest growth pickup and slight rebound in margins in 2019, EPS growth falls close to zero by year-end according to our model (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Diverging Macro Trends... Chart I-10...Implies Different EPS Outlook The earnings situation is completely different in the U.S. It is still early in Q3 earnings season, but company reports have been upbeat so far. The macro variables that feed into our top-down U.S. EPS model point to both continuing margin expansion and robust top line growth (Chart I-9). Nominal GDP growth has surged to more than 5% on a year-ago basis, while the expansion in the economy's wage bill has been steady at under 5%. It is also very impressive that industrial production growth continues to accelerate, bucking the global trend. We assume that U.S. GDP growth moderates from this year's hectic pace in 2019, but stays well above-trend because of the lingering fiscal tailwind. Impressively, the indicators we are following suggest that S&P 500 profit margins still have some upside potential, at least in the next quarter or two (Chart I-11). Nonetheless, we make the conservative assumption that margins will narrow somewhat in 2019. Plugging this macro scenario into our model, it suggests that EPS growth will decelerate to a still-solid 10% pace by the end of 2019. The impact on corporate profits from the rise in bond yields so far will be minimal. It is only now that the yield on the average corporate bond has reached the average coupon on outstanding debt. This means that it will require further increases in yields from here to have any meaningful impact on corporate interest expense. Chart I-11U.S. Margin Indicators Still Upbeat The U.S. economic and earnings backdrop is robust enough that we would be tempted to upgrade our risk asset allocation back to overweight if the S&P 500 moves even lower in the near term. Nonetheless, a number of key risks keep us at benchmark for now. (1) U.S. Foreign Policy The U.S. mid-term election is less than two weeks away as we go to press. Our geopolitical team places the odds of a Democratic House takeover at 65%, and the odds of a Senate takeover at 40%. Investors should expect a knee-jerk equity selloff if the Democrats manage to grab both parts of Congress. However, any damage to risk assets should be fleeting because the Democrats would not be able to unravel any of President Trump's main economic policies. Voters are not demanding budget discipline from either party, despite the surging federal deficit (Chart I-12). We highlighted in a recent Special Report that we foresee little political backlash against fiscal profligacy because of the shift-to-the-left by the median voter.2 The Trump tax cuts are here to stay. Chart I-12No Political Backlash To Big Deficits In fact, our geopolitical team argues that the odds would increase for an infrastructure plan and even of an immigration deal, if President Trump comes to the middle ground on some of his demands.3 The implication is that fiscal policy will remain highly stimulative in 2019, before the initial thrust begins to wear off in 2020. The Administration's foreign policy, however, remains a key risk for equities. Our high conviction view is that President Trump will continue pursuing unorthodox foreign and trade policies regardless of the midterm outcome. The just-announced 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports confirms our alarmist view on trade tensions. President Trump has threatened to lift the tariff to 25% by the end of the year in order to pile even more pressure on Beijing. This would represent a significant escalation in the trade war, one that we do not expect Chinese policymakers to simply roll over and accept. The risk is that the Chinese government not only hikes tariffs on U.S. exports, but also retaliates against U.S. firms with operations in China. Even more dangerously, a trade war with China could escalate into a military conflict in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, the U.S. embargo on Iranian oil exports will officially begin on November 4, just two days before the midterm election. We expect President Trump to turn the screws on Iranian exports in ways that President Obama did not. Once the election is out of the way, President Trump will refocus on his "maximum pressure" tactic, which he believes led to a breakthrough with North Korea. Unfortunately for the markets, we do not expect that this tactic will work as smoothly with Iran and China. (2) Rising Probability Of An Oil Shock The Administration's pressure on Iran adds to the already high risk of an oil price spike above US$100 per barrel in early 2019. While oil demand growth is slowing somewhat, exports from two of OPEC's largest producers - Iran and Venezuela - are falling precipitously. Global oil inventories are drawing down, while spare capacity is perilously low, leaving little in the way of readily available backup supply to deal with an unplanned production outage. The confluence of these factors is setting the global oil market up for a supply shock according to our energy experts (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Increasing Risk Of An Oil Spike It is important to differentiate between a steady demand-driven rise in the price of oil and a rapid supply-driven oil price spike. The former can be bond-bearish by forcing inflation expectations higher at a time when strong economic growth is also pushing up real bond yields. Nonetheless, equity prices could continue rising in this scenario as the robust economic backdrop outweighs the impact of higher yields. In contrast, an oil price spike that is driven by supply restrictions might initially be negative for bond prices, but ultimately would produce a deflationary impulse by depressing real economic activity. It could even be the catalyst for a recession. A supply-driven oil spike would be outright bearish for risk assets and may prove to be the trigger for a shift from benchmark to underweight for global stocks and corporate bonds. The risk facing corporates in the next economic downturn is one of the topics covered in this month's Special Report, beginning on page 21. The report looks at the structural changes to the economy and financial markets that have occurred because of the Great Recession and financial crisis. (3) EM Pain Is Not Over In the absence of policy stimulus in China, the prospect of continuing Fed tightening means that it is too early to bottom-fish in emerging markets. Emerging Asia is at the epicenter of the global trade and capital spending slowdown. The sharp deceleration in Taiwanese and Korean export growth rates suggests that growth in world industrial production and forward earnings estimates are not yet near a bottom (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Asian Exports Softening... Softening Chinese domestic demand is adding to the gloom. Chart I-15 shows that efforts by the Chinese authorities to curtail corporate debt have been bearing fruit. In response to the regulatory and administrative tightening, smaller financial institutions are not building up the working capital required to expand their loan book. As a result, the Chinese credit impulse remains weak and shows no sign of a bottom, despite the uptick in the latest reading on M3 growth. Chinese policy stimulus is underwhelming, confirming the view we expressed in the September BCA Overview. Xi Jinping has not yet abandoned his structural goals and shadow bank crackdown, which are weighing on overall credit expansion. Chart I-15...And No Growth Impulse From China Second, EM financial conditions continue to tighten (Chart I-15). Our currency strategists point out that many factors lie behind this deterioration in the EM financial conditions index, including the collapse in performance of carry trades, the dollar's ascent, and rising U.S. interest rates that are boosting the cost of servicing foreign currency EM debt. In turn, tighter EM financial conditions are contributing to the global manufacturing slowdown in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. EM Asia is particularly at risk to this loop, but Europe, Japan and commodity producers are also vulnerable. Some market commentators have argued that the Fed will soon have to back off its rate hike campaign in the face of global financial market stress. However, the FOMC's pain threshold is higher than at any time since the Great Recession because the domestic economy is showing signs of overheating. The correction in risk assets would have to get a lot worse before the Fed blinks. Meanwhile, the U.S. again passed on the chance to label China a currency manipulator. This opens the door to another downleg in the RMB, especially if the U.S./China trade war escalates. Additional RMB weakness would spell more trouble for EM assets. The implication is that any bounce in EM currencies or asset prices represents a selling opportunity for those investors not already short. Our EM strategists expect at least another 15% drop in share prices before the risk-reward profile of this asset class improves. (4) Italian Debt Crisis The main problem with the Italian economy is that the private sector saves too much and spends too little. A shrinking population has reduced the need for firms to invest in new capacity. Unlike Germany, Italy cannot export its savings to the rest of the world through a large trade surplus because it does not have a hypercompetitive economy. Nor can the Italian government risk running afoul of the bond vigilantes by emulating Japan's strategy of absorbing private-sector savings with large budget deficits. The implication is that Italy is stuck in a low-growth trap that is feeding political pressure to shed the EU's fiscal straight jacket. We believe that the populist government will be the first to blink, but it may require more bouts of financial stress to force capitulation. A 4% level on the 10 year BTP yield is a likely threshold for a compromise. Above that level, Italian banks become insolvent based on the market value of their holdings of Italian debt. In the meantime, rising global bond yields worsen Italy's tenuous financial situation, with possible contagion into global financial markets. Investment Conclusions: The U.S. bond market is waking up to the likelihood that U.S. short-term rates are going higher than previously expected, suggesting that recent investment themes will persist for a while longer. We continue to recommend a neutral stance on global equities (with a preference for developed over emerging markets), a below-benchmark duration bias, and an overweight allocation in cash. The bond market is only priced for the Fed to maintain its quarterly rate hike pace until June of next year (Chart I-16). Investors judge that some combination of tepid global economic momentum and tame U.S. core inflation temper the Fed's need or ability to take rates much higher. We disagree, based our own assessment of the U.S. economy and our out-of-consensus inflation view (see this month's Special Report). Rising volatility and/or a weaker global growth pulse are unlikely to prompt the Fed to bail out of its tightening campaign as quickly as it did in early 2016. Chart I-16Market Expectations For The Fed Still Too Complacent Meanwhile, our indicators suggest that the divergence between the red-hot U.S. economy and cooling global activity will continue, implying more upside potential for the U.S. dollar. We expect another 5-10% rise against most currencies, with the possible exception of the Canadian dollar. It is difficult to identify a "choke point" for bond yields in advance. A 10-year Treasury yield north of 3.7% might cause us to call the peak in yields and to become even more defensive on risk assets, but it will be critical to watch our monetary indicators. Indeed, we would be tempted to upgrade stocks back to overweight if the global selloff progresses much further, in the absence of negative reading from the monetary indicators or an inverted yield curve. The earnings backdrop will continue to be a tailwind for the U.S. equity market at least into early 2019. In contrast, profit growth in the Eurozone and Japan is set to disappoint market expectations. The U.S. equity market will therefore outperform, particularly in unhedged terms. Stay at benchmark on corporate bonds versus governments in the U.S. and Eurozone. Avoid emerging market assets and commodities. The main exception is oil, which is increasingly at risk of a spike above $100/bbl. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 25, 2018 Next Report: November 29, 2018 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Revisiting The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated September 3, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment," dated July 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com II. The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis The Great Recession and financial crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for years to come. The roots of the crisis are already well known. The first of a two-part series looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. First, the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) the Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. This reflects a low interest coverage ratio, poor market liquidity, the downward trend in credit quality and covenant erosion. Second, the shock of the Great Recession and its aftermath appears to have affected the relationship between economic slack and inflation. Firms have been extra reluctant to grant wage gains. However, we argue that the "shell shock" effect will wane. The fact that inflation has been depressed for so long may actually cultivate the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years. Investors should hold inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market, or by overweighting inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues. Third, the events of the last decade have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. They will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target in the major economies, despite signs of financial froth. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the current fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. Central bankers will have no trouble employing unorthodox policies again in the future, and will be willing to push the boundaries even further during the next recession. Expect aggressive manipulation of the long-end of the yield curve when the time arrives to ease policy. We may also observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies. Fourth, global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels, reflecting both structural and cyclical headwinds to demand growth. A dismal productivity performance is another culprit. Productivity growth is poised to recover to some extent, while some of the growth headwinds have reached an inflection point. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even fall back to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. The 10-year anniversary of the Lehman shock this autumn sparked an avalanche of analysis on the events and underlying causes of the Great Recession and financial crisis. It is a woeful story of greed, a classic bubble, inadequate regulation, new-fangled financial instruments, and a globalized financial system that spread the shock around the world. The crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for many years to come. The roots of the crisis are well known, so we will not spend any time going over well-trodden ground. Rather, this Special Report looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. In Part I, we cover the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. Part II will look at the debt overhang, systemic risk in the financial sector, asset correlations, the cult of equity and the rise of populism. While not an exhaustive list, we believe these are the key areas of structural change. (1) Corporate Bond Market: Leverage And Downgrade Risk The financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. An extraordinarily long period of extremely low interest rates was too much for corporate CEOs to pass up. However, because the durability of the economic recovery was so uncertain, it seemed more attractive to hand over the borrowed cash to shareholders than to use it to aggressively expand productive capacity. The ongoing equity bull market rewarded CEOs for the financial engineering, serving to create a self-reinforcing feedback loop. And so far, corporate bondholders have not policed this activity. The result is that the U.S. corporate bond market has grown in leaps and bounds since 2009 (Chart II-1A and Chart II-1B). The average duration of the Bloomberg Barclays index has also risen as firms locked in attractive financing rates. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the Eurozone. Chart II-1AU.S. BBB-Rated Share Rising... Chart II-1B...Same In The Eurozone Balance sheet health is obviously not the key driver of corporate bond relative returns at the moment. Nonetheless, investors will begin to worry about the growth outlook if interest rates continue to rise. The U.S. national accounts data suggest that interest coverage remains relatively healthy, but this includes large companies such as some of the FAANGs that have little debt and a lot of cash. The national accounts data are unrepresentative of the companies that are included in the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index, which are heavy debt issuers. To gain a clearer picture, we calculated a bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for a sample of U.S. companies that provides a sector and credit-quality composition that roughly matches the Bloomberg Barclay's index. The CHM is the composite of six critical financial ratios. Chart II-2 highlights that the investment-grade (IG) CHM has improved over the past two years due to the profitability sub-components. However, the debt/equity ratio has been in a steep uptrend. Interest coverage does not appear alarming by historical standards at the moment, but one can argue that it should be much higher given the extremely low average coupon on corporate bonds, and given that profit margins are extraordinarily high in the U.S. The rapid accumulation of debt has overwhelmed these other factors. Evidence of rising leverage is broadly based across sectors and ratings. Chart II-2U.S. IG Corporate Health Unfortunately, the profit tailwind won't last forever. At some point, earnings growth will stall and this cycle's debt accumulation will start to bite in the context of rising interest rates. To gauge the risk, we estimate the change in the interest coverage ratio over the next three years for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt.1 For our universe of Investment-grade U.S. companies, the interest coverage ratio would drop from a little over 7 to under 6, which is close to the lows of the Great Recession (denoted as "x" in Chart II-3). Of course, the decline in interest coverage will be much worse if the Fed steps too far and monetary tightening sparks a recession. The "o" in Chart II-3 denotes the combination of a 100 basis-point interest rate shock and a mild recession in which the S&P 500 suffers a 25% peak-to-trough decline in EPS. The overall interest coverage ratio plunges close to all-time lows at 4½. Chart II-3Interest Coverage To Plunge... These simulations imply that, for any given size of recession, the next economic downturn will have a larger negative impact on corporate health than in the past. Rating agencies have undertaken some downgrading related to shareholder-friendly activity, but downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning and the profit boom is over (Chart II-4). Banks will belatedly tighten lending standards, adding to funding pressure for the corporate sector. Chart II-4...And Ratings To Be Slashed Fallen Angels The potential for a large wave of fallen angels means that downgrade activity will be particularly painful for corporate bond investors. The surge in lower-quality issuance has led to a downward trend in the average credit rating and has significantly raised the size of the BBB-rated bonds relative to the IG index and relative to the broader universe of corporate bonds including high yield (Chart II-5, and Chart II-1A).2 The downward trend in credit quality predates Lehman, but events since the Great Recession have likely reinforced the trend. Chart II-5Lower Ratings And Longer Duration Studies show that bonds that get downgraded into junk status can perform well for a period thereafter, suggesting that investors holding a fallen angel should not necessarily sell immediately. Nonetheless, the process of transitioning from investment-grade to high-yield involves return underperformance as the spread widens. Poor market liquidity and covenant erosion will intensify pressure for corporate spreads to widen when the bear market arrives. Market turnover has decreased substantially since the pre-Lehman years, especially for IG (Chart II-6). The poor liquidity backdrop appears to be structural, reflecting regulation that has curtailed banks' market-making activity and prop trading, among other factors. Chart II-6Poor Market Liquidity The Eurozone corporate bond market has also seen rapid growth and a deterioration in the average credit rating. Liquidity is an issue there as well. That said, the Eurozone corporate sector is less advanced in the leverage cycle than the U.S. Interest coverage ratios will fall during the next recession, but this will be concentrated among foreign issuers - domestic issuers are much less at risk to rising interest rates and/or an economic downturn.3 Bottom Line: Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. Current spreads do not compensate for this risk. (2) Inflation Undershoot Breeds Overshoot Inflation in the U.S. and other developed economies has been sticky since the financial crisis. First, inflation did not fall as much in the recession and early years of the recovery as many had predicted, despite the worst economic contraction in the post-war period. Subsequently, central banks have had trouble raising inflation back to target. In the U.S., core PCE inflation has only recently returned to 2%. Several structural factors have been blamed, but continuing tepid wage growth in the face of a very tight labor market raises the possibility that the inflation-generating process has been fundamentally altered by the Great Recession. In other words, the relationship between slack in the labor market (or market for goods and services) and inflation has changed. In theory, inflation should rise when the economy's output is above its potential level or when the unemployment rate is below its full-employment level. Inflation should fall when the reverse is true. This means that the change (not the level) in inflation should be positively correlated with the level of the output gap or the labor market gap. Chart II-7 presents the change in U.S. core inflation with the output gap. Although inflation appears to have become less responsive to shifts in the output gap after 1990, it has been particularly insensitive in the post-Lehman period. Chart II-7The U.S. Phillips Curve: RIP? One reason may be that the business sector was shell-shocked by the Great Recession and financial crisis to such an extent that business leaders have been more reluctant to grant wage gains than in past cycles. Equally-unnerved workers felt lucky just to have a job, and have been less willing to demand raises. Dampened inflation expectations meant that low actual inflation became self-reinforcing. We have some sympathy with this view. Long-term inflation expectations have been sticky at levels that are inconsistent with the major central banks meeting their inflation targets over the long term. This suggests that people believe that central banks lack the tools necessary to overwhelm the deflationary forces. The lesson for investors and policymakers is that, while unorthodox monetary policies helped to limit the downside for inflation and inflation expectations during and just after the recession, these policies have had limited success in reversing even the modest decline that did occur. That said, readers should keep in mind a few important points: One should not expect inflation to rise much until economies break through their non-inflationary limits. The major advanced economies have only recently reached that point to varying degrees; Inflation lags the business cycle (Chart II-8). This is especially the case in long 'slow burn' economic expansions, as we have demonstrated in previous research; and The historical relationship between inflation and economic slack has been non-linear. As shown in Chart II-9, U.S. inflation has tended to accelerate quickly when unemployment drops below 4½%. Chart II-8U.S. Inflation Lags The Cycle Chart II-9A Kinked Phillips Curve Shell Shock Is Fading We believe that the "shell shock" effect of the Great Recession on inflation will wane over time. Indeed, my colleague Peter Berezin has made the case that the fact that inflation has been depressed for so long actually cultivates the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years.4 Central bankers have been alarmed by the economic and financial events of the last decade. They also cast a wary eye on Japan's inability to generate inflation even in the face of massive and prolonged monetary stimulus. Policymakers at the FOMC are determined to boost inflation and inflation expectations before the next economic downturn strikes. They are also willing to not only tolerate, but actively encourage, an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to ensure that long-term inflation expectations return "sustainably" to a level consistent with meeting the 2% target over the long term. In other words, the Fed is going to err on the side of too much stimulus rather than too little. This is an important legacy of the last recession (see below). Meanwhile, other structural explanations for low inflation are less powerful than many believe. For example, globalization has leveled off and rising tariff and non-tariff barriers will hinder important global supply chains. Our research also suggests that the rising industrial use of robots and the e-commerce effect on retail prices have had only a small depressing effect on U.S. inflation. Bottom Line: The Phillips curve relationship has probably not changed in a permanent way since Lehman went down. It is quite flat when the labor market is not far away from full employment, but the relationship is probably non-linear. As the unemployment rate drops further, the business sector will have no choice but to lift wages as labor becomes increasingly scarce. The kinked nature of the Phillips curve augments the odds that the Fed will eventually find itself behind the curve, and inflation will rise more than the market is expecting. The same arguments apply to the Bank of England and possibly even the European Central Bank. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk, but the precious metal is still quite expensive in real terms. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market or overweighting inflation-linked bonds over conventional issues. (3) Monetary Policy: Destined To Fight The Last War There are several reasons to believe that the shocking events of the crisis and its aftermath have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. Several factors suggest that they will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target: Inflation Persistence: As discussed above, there is a greater awareness that it is difficult to lift both actual inflation and inflation expectations once they have fallen. Some FOMC members believe that long-term inflation expectations are still too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% inflation target over the long term. A modest inflation overshoot in this cycle would be beneficial, according to this view, in the sense that it would boost inflation expectations and thereby raise the probability that the FOMC will indeed meet its goals over the long term. It might also encourage some discouraged workers to re-enter the labor market. Some policymakers also believe that the Fed is not taking much of a risk by pushing the economy hard, because the Phillips curve is so flat. Zero Bound: Low inflation expectations, among other factors, have combined to dramatically reduce the level of so-called r-star - the short-term rate of interest that is neither accommodative nor restrictive in terms of growth and inflation. R-star is thought to be rising now, at least for the U.S., but it is probably still low by historical standards across the major economies. This increases the risk that policy rates will again hit the lower bound during the next recession, making it difficult for central banks to engineer a real policy rate that is low enough to generate faster growth.5 Fighting the Last War: Memories of the crisis linger in the minds of policymakers. The global economy came dangerously close to a replay of the Great Depression, and policymakers want to ensure that it never happens again. Some monetary officials have argued that a risk-based approach means that it is better to take some inflation risks to limit the possibility of making a deflationary policy mistake down the road. Fears that the major economies are now more vulnerable to deflationary shocks seem destined to keep central banks too-easy-for-too-long. Central bankers will also be quicker and more aggressive in responding when negative shocks arrive in the future. This applies more to the U.S., the U.K. and Japan than the European Central Bank, but even for the latter there has been a clear change in the monetary committee's reaction function since Mario Draghi took over the reins. Financial Stability Concerns Policymakers are also more concerned about financial stability. Pre-crisis, the consensus among the monetary elite was that financial stability should play second fiddle to the inflation target. It was felt that central banks should focus on the latter, and pay attention to signs of financial froth only when they affect the inflation outlook. In practice, this meant paying only lip service to financial excess until it was too late. It was difficult to justify rate increases when inflation was not threatening. It was thought that macro-prudential regulation on its own was enough to contain financial excesses. Today, policymakers see financial stability as playing a key role in meeting the inflation target. It is abundantly clear that a burst bubble can be highly deflationary. Some policymakers still believe that aggressive macro-prudential policies can be effective in directly targeting financial excesses. However, others feel there is no substitute for higher interest rates; as ex-Governor Jeremy Stein stated, interest rates get "in all the cracks". Moreover, the Fed does not regulate the shadow banking sector. The Fed is thus balancing concerns over signs of financial froth against the zero-bound problem and fears of the next deflationary shock. We believe that the latter will dominate their policy choices, because it will still be difficult to justify rate hikes to the public when there is no obvious inflation problem. In the U.S., this implies that the economic risks are skewed toward a boom/bust scenario in which the FOMC is slow to respond to a fiscally-driven late cycle mini-boom. Inflation and inflation expectations react with a lag, but a subsequent acceleration in both forces the Fed to aggressively choke off growth. Policy Toolkit Central bankers will be quite willing to employ their new-found policy tools again in the next recession. The new toolbox includes asset purchases, aggressive forms of forward guidance, negative interest rates, and low-cost direct lending to banks and non-banks in some countries. Policymakers generally view these tools as being at least somewhat effective, although some have argued that the costs of using negative interest rates have outweighed the benefits in Europe and Japan. The debate on how to deal with the zero-bound problem in the U.S. has focused on lifting r-star, including raising the inflation target, adopting a price level target, policies to boost productivity, and traditional fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, ex-Fed Chair Yellen's comments at the Jackson Hole conference in 2016 underscored that it will be more of the same in the event that the zero bound is again reached - quantitative easing and forward guidance.6 No doubt, the major central banks will rely heavily on both of these tools in order to manipulate yields far out the curve. Forward guidance may be threshold-based. For example, policymakers could promise to keep the policy rate frozen until unemployment or inflation reaches a given level. Now that central bankers have crossed the line into unorthodox monetary policy and inflation did not surge, future policymakers will be willing to stretch the boundaries even further in the event of a recession. For example, they may consider price-level targeting, which would institutionalize inflation overshoots to make up for past inflation undershoots. It is also possible that we will observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies in the next recession. The combination of fiscal stimulus and a cap on bond yields would be highly stimulative in theory, in part by driving the currency lower. Japan has gone half way in this direction by implementing a yield curve control (YCC) policy. However, it has failed so far to provide any meaningful fiscal stimulus since the yield cap has been in place. It also appears likely that central bank balance sheets will not return to levels as a percent of GDP that existed before the crisis. An abundance of bank deposits at the central bank will help to satisfy a structural increase in the demand for cash-like risk-free assets. Maintaining a bloated balance sheet will also allow central banks to provide substantial amounts of reverse repos (RRPs) into the market, which should improve the functioning of money markets that have been impaired to some degree by regulation. We do not expect that a structural increase in central bank balance sheets will have any material lasting impact on asset prices or inflation. We believe that inflation will surprise on the upside, but not because central banks will continue to hold significant amounts of government bonds on their balance sheets over the medium term. Bottom Line: The implication is that the monetary authorities will have a greater tolerance for an overshoot of the inflation target than in the past. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. During the next recession, policymakers will rely heavily on quantitative easing and forward guidance to manipulate the yield curve (after the policy rate reaches the lower bound). (4) Bond Prices: Structural Factors Turning Less Bullish Perhaps the most dramatic and lasting impact of the GFC has been evident in the global bond market. Government yields fell to levels never before observed across the developed countries and have remained extremely depressed, even as the expansion matured and economic slack was gradually absorbed. Real government bond yields are still negative even at the medium and long parts of the curve in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart II-10). It is tempting to conclude that there has been a permanent shift down in global bond yields. Chart II-10Real Yields Still Depressed Equilibrium bond yields are tied to the supply side of the economy. Potential GDP growth is the sum of trend productivity growth and the pace of expansion of the labor force. Equilibrium bond yields may fall below the potential growth rate for extended periods to the extent that aggregate demand faces persistent headwinds. The headwinds in place over the past decade include fiscal austerity, demographics, household deleveraging, increased regulation and lingering problems in the banking sector that limited the expansion of credit, among others. These headwinds either affect the desire to save or the desire to invest, the interplay of which affects equilibrium bond yields. Some of these economic headwinds predate 2007, but the financial crisis reinforced the desire to save more and invest less. Space limitations prevent a full review of the forces that depressed bond yields, but a summary is contained in Appendix 1 and we encourage interested readers to see our 2017 Special Report for full details.7 The Great Supply-Side Shortfall Falling potential output growth in the major advanced economies also helped to drag down equilibrium bond yields. The pace of expansion in the global labor force has plunged from 1¾% in 2005, to under 1% today (Chart II-11). The labor force has peaked in absolute terms in the G7, and is already shrinking in China. Chart II-11Slower Labor Force Expansion... Productivity growth took a dramatic turn for the worst after 2007 (Chart II-12). The dismal productivity performance is not fully understood, but likely reflected the peaking in globalization, increased regulation and the dramatic decline in capital spending relative to GDP. The latter was reflected in a collapse in the growth rate of the global capital stock (Chart II-13). In the U.S., for which we have a longer history of data, growth in the capital stocks has lead shifts in productivity growth with a 3-year lag. Firms have also been slower to adopt new technologies over the past decade. Chart II-12...And Lower Productivity Chart II-13Productivity And Investment The resulting impact on the level of GDP today has been nothing short of remarkable. The current IMF estimate for the level of potential GDP in 2018 is 10% lower than was projected by the IMF in 2008 (Chart II-14). There has been a similar downgrading of capacity in Europe, Japan and the U.K. Actual GDP has closed the gap with potential GDP to varying degrees in the major countries, but at a much lower level than was projected a decade ago. Paul Krugman has dubbed this the "Great Shortfall". Chart II-14A Permanent Loss Of Output The Great Shortfall was even greater with respect to capital spending. For 2017, the IMF estimates that global investment was more than 20% below the level implied by the pre-crisis trend (Chart II-15). Reduced credit intermediation, from a combination of supply and demand factors, was a significant factor behind the structural loss of economic capacity according to the IMF study.8 Chart II-15Permanent Scars On Capital Spending By curtailing the business investment relative to GDP for a prolonged period, major economic slumps can have a permanent effect on an economy's long-term prospects. The loss of output since the financial crisis will never be regained. That said, bond yields in theory are related to the growth rate of productivity, not its level. The IMF report noted that there may even be some long-lasting effects on the growth rate of productivity. The crisis left lingering scars on future growth due to both reduced global labor force migration and fertility rates. The latter rose in the decade before the crisis in several advanced economies, only to decline afterward. Households postponed births in the face of the economic and financial upheaval. The IMF argues that not all of the decline in fertility rates will be reversed. An Inflection Point In Global Bond Yields On a positive note, the pickup in business capital spending in the major countries in recent years implies an acceleration in the growth rate of the capital stock and, thus, productivity. In the U.S., this relationship suggests that productivity growth could rise by a percentage point over the coming few years (Chart II-13). This should correspond to a roughly equivalent rise in equilibrium bond yields. Moreover, some of the other structural factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. For example, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool as people retire and begin to deplete their nest eggs. Household savings rates will trend sharply lower in the coming years. Again, we encourage readers to read the 2017 Special Report for a full account of the structural factors that are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. QE Reversal To Weigh On Bond Prices And let's not forget the unwinding of central bank balance sheets. The idea that central bank asset purchases on their own had a significant depressing effect on global bond yields is controversial. Some argue that the impact on yields occurred more via forward guidance; quantitative easing was a signal to markets that the central bank would stay on hold for an extended period, which pulled down yields far out the curve. This publication believes that QE had a meaningful impact on global bond yields on its own (Chart II-16). Nonetheless, either way, the Fed is now shrinking its balance sheet and the European Central Bank will soon end asset purchases. This means that the private sector this year is being forced to absorb a net increase in government bonds available to the private sector for the first time since 2014 (Chart II-17). Investors may demand juicier yields in order to boost their allocation to fixed-income assets. Chart II-16Reverse QE To Weigh On Bonds Chart II-17Private Investors Will Have To Buy More We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors still have an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2027 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-18). The implied path of real rates in the U.S. looks more reasonable, but there is still upside potential. Moreover, there is room for the inflation expectations component of nominal yields to shift up, as discussed above. Chart II-18Real Yields Still Too Low Another way of making this point is shown in Chart II-19. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is still very low by historical standards. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year/5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-19Market Expectations Still Low Bottom Line: Global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels due to a combination of cyclical and structural factors. The bond-bullish structural factors were reinforced by shifts in desired savings and business investment as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Some of these structural factors will linger in the coming years, but others are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even return close to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix 1: Key Factors Behind The Decline In Equilibrium Global Bond Yields The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. A key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. China became a major source of global savings after it joined the WTO, and its large trade surplus was recycled into the global pool of savings. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. The increase in ex-ante savings and reduction in ex-ante capital spending resulted in a substantial drop in equilibrium global interest rates. The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie. A positive labor supply shock should benefit global living standards in the long run, but the adjustment costs related to China's integration into the global economy imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. Moreover, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners. This represents a headwind to growth that requires lower interest rates all along the curve. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. 1 We make the simplifying assumptions that companies do not issue any more debt over the three years, and that EBIT is unchanged, in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. 2 The average credit rating for the U.S. is unavailable before 2000 in the Bloomberg Barclays index. However, other data sources confirm the long-term downward trend. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector," dated May 31, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Reports "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018 and "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The lower bound is zero in the U.S., but is in negative territory for those central banks willing to impose negative rates on the banking sector. 6 For more background on the zero bound debate, the usefulness of a large central bank balance sheet and ways to lift r-star, please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Herding Cats At the Fed," dated October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," dated April 27, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8 The Global Economic Recovery 10 Years After the 2008 Financial Meltdown. IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2018. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our proprietary equity indicators remained bearish in October and valuation is still stretched, suggesting that it is too early to buy stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S. and Japan are both heading down. The Eurozone WTP has flattened-off recently, but is certainly not bullish. The WTP indicators track flows, and this provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a sell signal. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, underlining the idea that caution is warranted. Our Monetary Indicator continues to hover in negative territory for stocks, but interestingly it is not deteriorating even as the Fed tightening campaign endures and bond yields have risen. Our Technical Equity Indicator appears poised to break down, but as of the end of October it was not giving a sell signal. The Speculation Indicator is still elevated, but the Composite Sentiment Indicator is in the middle of the range. It does not appear that the latest equity selloff was driven mainly by an unwinding of frothy market sentiment. Nonetheless, value has not improved enough to justify bottom-feeding on its own. On balance, our indicators continue to suggest that the underlying supports of the U.S. equity bull market are eroding. The U.S. earnings backdrop is still providing support overall, although there was a tick down in October in the U.S. net earnings revisions ratio and in positive-minus-negative earnings surprises. The backdrop for Treasurys has not changed, despite October's painful selloff. Valuation (still slightly cheap) and technicals (oversold by almost 2 standard deviations) imply that the countertrend pullback near month-end will continue into November. Beyond a near-term correction, though, complacency about inflation and the Fed's ability to hike rates to at least the level of the FOMC voters' median projection points to looming capital losses. The dollar is quite expensive on a purchasing power parity basis, and its long-term outlook is not constructive, but policy and growth divergences with other major economies will likely keep the wind at its back in the near term. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Asset allocation: overweight industrial commodities versus equities... ...and neutral equities versus bonds. The euro: neutral for a broad basket but stay long JPY/EUR. The pound: long-term upside, but a better entry point awaits for those who can fine tune. Italian assets: buy when the 10-year BTP yield moves closer to 3 percent. Feature Some people ascribe this year's market action to economics, others ascribe it to geopolitics, but we put it down to mathematics (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekEquities Are In 'No Man's Land' As my colleague Peter Berezin recently pointed out, economies and markets can undergo disruptive 'phase transitions' analogous to when water transitions to ice. For water, a 4 degree drop in temperature from 6 degrees to 2 degrees produces no discernible effect, but the same 4 degree drop from 2 degrees to minus 2 degrees produces major disruption, as roads freeze over, pipes burst, and so forth.1 Similarly, as economic or financial stresses build, nothing discernible happens until a phase transition is reached, at which point everything goes haywire. Our thesis is that markets may be near such a phase transition. To explain why, we first need to correct the great misunderstanding of finance, the misunderstanding of risk. The Evolutionary Basis Of Investment Risk One of the major breakthroughs in behavioural finance was the discovery that we care deeply about the asymmetry of an investment's potential returns. Rationally, this asymmetry shouldn't matter if the expected value of the gains equals or exceeds the expected value of the losses. But it does matter, and the reason is that we significantly overestimate the probabilities of extreme tail-events (Chart I-2). Chart I-2We Overestimate The Probability Of Tail-Events Evolutionary biologists argue that this bias originated tens of thousands of years ago, when our distant ancestors had to survive daily 'fight or flight' threats. Faced with constant mortal danger, there was no time for measured analysis. Survival depended on a quick processing of choices into simple chunks: no risk, low risk, high risk. Thereby, our brains evolved to process a one in thousand and, say, a one in hundred chance of danger simply into the 'low risk' chunk, meaning that the 0.1 percent risk is overestimated to 1 percent - or whatever we define as low risk. Fast forward to today's financial markets, and our brains still overestimate extreme tail-events. It follows that for investments whose return distributions are asymmetric, the more extreme tail dominates the perception of its risk. Put simply, investors assess the risk of an investment in terms of its most extreme potential loss versus its most extreme potential gain in a short space of time (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Investors Assess Risk As The Most Extreme Potential Loss Versus Gain Why in a short space of time? The answer is that while most professional investors have long-term objectives, they must report mark-to-market performances every quarter or half-year. Unfortunately, a fund manager who delivers a deep short-term loss is in grave danger of being fired - the modern day equivalent of our distant ancestors' daily fight for survival. And it is nominal losses that matter because even in a period of deflation, any decline in the price level is unlikely to boost real returns over a period of a few months. Correcting The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance So the great misunderstanding of finance is to equate risk with volatility. Risky assets, such as equities, are risky not because they are volatile in the conventional (root mean squared) sense. After all, nobody worries if the price goes up sharply! Also, it is a great misunderstanding to think that equities do not provide diversification benefits. They clearly do - witness the protection that equities provided to bondholders in the bond bloodbath that followed President Trump's surprise victory in 2016 (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Equities Protected Bondholders In The Post Trump Victory Bond Bloodbath The real reason that risky assets are risky is because they have the propensity to experience much larger short-term losses than short-term gains - captured in the saying: equities climb up the stairs on the way up, but they jump out of the window on the way down. But here's the key point. At very low bond yields, bond returns develop the same (or worse) asymmetry as equity returns. Given the lower bound to yields, bond prices have no more stairs to climb... only a window to jump out of! (Chart I-5) The upshot is that equities lose their excess riskiness versus bonds, meaning that their valuations experience a phase transition sharply upwards. The corollary is that when bond yields normalise, equities regain their excess riskiness versus bonds - and their valuations must suffer a phase transition sharply downwards. Chart I-5At A 2% Bond Yield, Bond Returns Have the Same Negative Asymmetry As Equity Returns According to our empirical and theoretical analysis, this phase transition sharply downwards is most pronounced when the global (10-year) bond yield rises through 2 percent. In rule of thumb terms, this is when the sum of the yields on the T-bond, German bund and JGB breaches and remains above 4 percent (Chart I-6). At such a phase transition, it would be prudent to de-risk portfolios and sit aside, at least for a while. Chart I-6When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB = 4%, The Global 10-Year Yield = 2% Just below this level, a sum in the 3-4 percent range defines a kind of 'no man's land' in which equities drift sideways, perfectly explaining the behaviour of the market through the past year. With the sum now at 3.75 percent, the current message is to remain at neutral allocation to equities versus bonds. Instead, our main asset allocation recommendation is a relative value position: long industrial commodities versus equities - and the position has already gained 4 percent in the past two weeks. The Main Risk For European Institutions Is Existential Sticking with this week's theme of risk, the main risk confronting Europe's major institutions such as the ECB, the EU Council, and the EU Commission is an existential risk. This is because the very existence of the pan-European project relies on the ongoing (largely) unanimous support of a collection of sovereign European nations. As these sponsoring nations often have conflicting claims and interests, Europe's major institutions have intentionally designed themselves as rules-based organisations. Adherence to the rules is essential to avoid the bias, exceptionalism, and moral hazard that could tear apart the pan-European project. And this simple unifying principle explains the current stance of the ECB towards monetary policy, the stance of the EU Council towards Brexit, and the stance of the EU Commission towards the Italian budget. For the ECB, its main policy tools - interest rates, forward guidance on interest rates, and asset purchases - are calibrated to deliver its single objective: aggregate euro area CPI inflation 'below but close to 2 percent'. After a recent wobble in euro area growth, the 6-month credit impulse has ticked up (Chart I-7). Hence, it would be hard for the ECB to conclude that the convergence of inflation to its medium-term target has been blown off course (Chart I-8) - so we expect no major changes to the ECB's forward guidance. Leaving our overall stance to the EUR as neutral, with a preferred long exposure to JPY/EUR. Chart I-7The Euro Area 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Ticked Up Chart I-8Euro Area Inflation Has Been Drifting Up To Target Turning to the EU Council's strategy for Brexit, it will be unyielding on the indivisibility of the EU's four freedoms: goods, services, capital, and people. To do otherwise would be to undermine the strength and integrity of one of the EU's greatest achievements: the largest single market in the world. To give the U.K. special favours would risk giving it an unfair competitive advantage, as well as setting a dangerous precedent for other EU countries that wanted out. Hence, to avoid a hard North/South or East/West border for Ireland, the U.K.'s only option will be to remain indefinitely in a customs union with the EU. Once this is recognised and accepted by the U.K. parliament, the pound will rally.2 Finally, relating to the Italian budget, the EU Commission will adhere to the broad principle of its fiscal rules - again, because it cannot set a dangerous precedent for others. However, there may be some 'give' on the 2019 deficit in return for some 'take' on the 2020 and 2021 deficits. Ultimately, we expect de-escalation and compromise in this battle - but we recommend remaining neutral towards Italian assets until the 10-year BTP yield moves closer to 3 percent (Chart I-9). Chart i-9Remain Neutral Italian Assets Until The 10-Year BTP Yield Moves Closer To 3% Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today' October 19, 2018 available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Understanding Brexit, Scandinavian Markets, And Semiconductors' October 18, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that the sharp sell-off in the Portuguese stock market is technically exhausted and ripe for a countertrend move. We prefer to express this as a market neutral pair-trade: long Portugal/short Hungary. Set the profit target at 6% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Overweight Large Caps Over Small Caps The days in the sun are over for small cap stocks. Similar to the double top formation in the early 1980s, small cap stocks have hit a wall and are giving in to their larger brethren. There are high odds that the small over large multi-year ascendancy is over and a reversion, at least, to the historical time trend mean is in order. In this week's Weekly Report, we highlight four reasons why we are maintaining our large cap over small cap preference. First, small caps are severely debt saddled, a capitalization that we think is fraught with danger as the default rate has nowhere to go but higher. Second, small and medium businesses have a higher dependency on bank credit as opposed to the bond market access that mega caps enjoy; most bank credit is floating rate debt meaning rising interest rates have a relatively greater real-time impact on small cap cash flows. Third, relative wage costs are flashing red for small caps, signaling that the gulf in margins versus large caps will widen. Fourth, small caps are high(er) beta stocks and when volatility spikes they underperform large caps. Bottom Line: Stick with a large cap bias and see Monday's Weekly Report for more details.