Consumer

Highlights Markets expressed disappointment over last week’s FOMC meeting, … : Equities sold off, Treasury yields slid, and the curve flattened. … but we didn’t think there was all that much to get excited about, … : Data dependence remains the Fed’s mantra, and it was never likely that the FOMC would signal that policy through September has been pre-programmed. … though the specter of escalating trade tensions was a bummer: We have followed our repeated exogenous-shock caveat with an acknowledgement of the gravity of trade barriers. Our geopolitical strategists don’t expect a resolution any time soon, though, and White House tweets are here to stay. Marginally easier monetary policy is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the economy: A reduction in the fed funds rate from 2.5% to 2% isn’t likely to turbo-charge housing or corporate investment, but we do expect that the major central banks’ easing bias will support risk assets. Feature The FOMC delivered the result we expected at the conclusion of its meeting last week: a 25-basis-point cut and a dovish adjustment to its balance sheet runoff plans. Markets acted as if they’d been blindsided. Apparently it really isn’t what you say, it’s how you say it. Or maybe, as our colleague Martin Barnes has long contended, press conferences and all the other assorted communications strategies do more harm than good. We have nearly reached the point of Fed fatigue ourselves, but there’s no ignoring the elephant in the room. The Fed is squarely in the center of every investor’s mind and may well remain there for the rest of what was shaping up as a slow-news month before the latest tariff move. American and Chinese negotiators have called it quits until September; lawmakers have left the building in London and Brussels; the ECB’s Governing Council will be idle until mid-September; and the winnowing of the Democratic field is so far off that even Bill de Blasio remains a presidential candidate. We devote this week’s report to an examination of increased accommodation’s implications for financial markets and the U.S. economy. What did the FOMC do on Wednesday? Chart 1An Adjustment, Not A New Direction The FOMC cut the fed funds rate by 25 basis points, to a range of 2-2.25%, and terminated its modest balance sheet reduction effort two months ahead of time. It studiously kept its options open with regard to future policy rate adjustments, with Chair Powell describing the cut as a “mid-cycle adjustment,” rather than a transition to full-on policy easing. The mid-cycle reference kiboshed hopes that the cut was meant to bring the curtain down on the tightening cycle that began at the end of 2015 (Chart 1). The hawkish surprise concerning the future direction of the fed funds rate overwhelmed the modestly dovish news that the Fed is immediately ending small-scale quantitative tightening. How did markets take the developments? Not so well, especially over the two hours of Wednesday afternoon trading following the decision. The S&P 500 sold off by close to 2% during the press conference, the dollar surged against the euro, and the yield curve flattened as long-dated Treasuries surged while the 2-year note sold off sharply. Equities recovered their losses in Thursday morning’s trading, though bonds and the dollar held much of their gains, before the latest salvo in the U.S.-China dispute sent investors in all markets scurrying for cover. Overall, financial markets were disappointed that they didn’t get a clearer signal that additional accommodation is on the way. Did markets overreact? In retrospect, it looks like they’d gotten their hopes up too high. The Fed wants to avoid surprises by keeping markets apprised of future developments, but it’s hard to envision it deliberately boxing itself in. It wants to preserve the flexibility to act as it sees fit, so data dependence remains the order of the day, just as it has for the last several years. We continue to take the Fed at its word that policy is not on a pre-set course. Markets seemed to be looking for a little more solicitousness from the Fed. Central bankers will presumably always attempt to guard their discretion, but the monetary policy path is far from clear, given elevated economic uncertainty. Between the stop-and-start trade hostilities with China and the Whack-a-Mole emergence of tariff threats against long-standing allies and trade partners, global manufacturing is reeling and corporate managers have every reason to hold back on capex. The differences of opinion within BCA reflect the lack of an obvious economic direction. Dissention within the Fed – Boston’s Rosengren and Kansas City’s George voted against last week’s cut, while Minneapolis’ Kashkari surely wanted it to be larger – shows that the way forward is not so clear-cut. So is it a good thing or a bad thing that the Fed cut rates? We view easier policy as a market positive over the one-year timeframe that drives most investors. There will come a point of diminishing returns, when risk assets no longer respond to incremental accommodation, but we don’t think we’re there yet. Equity multiples have room to expand before they become silly and the ECB is apparently preparing a new round of asset purchases. Given that it’s exhausted the supply of Eurozone sovereigns, it will have to proceed to evicting incumbent holders from their positions somewhat further out the risk curve, prodding them to venture out still further to redeploy the proceeds, putting downward pressure on spreads globally. How will a lower fed funds rate impact the economy? How much time do you have? The textbook answer is that a lower fed funds rate directly reduces the cost of financing big-ticket consumer purchases and corporate initiatives while indirectly nudging households and corporate managers to make them by boosting their confidence. Unconventional measures like asset purchases (QE) push investors further out the risk curve, lifting the prices of risky assets, lowering lending spreads and increasing asset holders’ wealth. They also promote a broader sense of well-being (the CNBC screen is framed in green, print headlines are cheerful, and jobs are increasingly easier to find), fueling confidence that helps reinforce the direct effects of easier policy. As Chair Powell put it in January, “Our policy works through changing financial conditions[,] … it’s … the essence of what we do.” The logic behind the textbook answer is undeniably sound, and it’s displayed in the simple six-channel model in Figure 1. People respond to incentives, and when the cost of consumption and investment falls, they are likely to save less and consume and invest more (Interest Rates/Substitution Effect). Increasing numbers of observers are becoming restless, however, as events on the ground don’t seem to jibe with the theory. Ten years of a negative real fed funds rate has failed to generate much oomph, and markets sputtered on cue once it tiptoed into positive territory (Chart 2), coinciding with the current global economic softness. Chart 2Real Rates Are Still Low Relative To History Martin Barnes, our resident grumpy economist, scoffs at how little extraordinary accommodation has been able to achieve. (Don’t get him started on the communication strategies.) Even after adjusting for how a half-century of Scotland and Montreal weather has colored his perspective, he has a point. “Do you really want to buy equities and riskier bonds in an economy that needs this much help just to grow at 2%?” he might ask. For the time being, yes, we still do. Although the channels promoting economic activity are not functioning as reliably as they have in the past, the channels boosting asset prices – Portfolio Balance, Confidence/Risk Taking, and Interest Rates/Substitution – are still A-Okay (Figure 1). The initial reaction to the FOMC meeting suggests that it will be very hard for the Fed to surprise dovishly in a relative sense, blocking the Currency channel for the time being. The Credit channel is still hindered by post-crisis regulations from Basel to Capitol Hill, at least in terms of the official banking system. Trade tensions have roiled net exports via retaliatory tariffs and suppressed global aggregate demand.1 Shouldn’t housing be at the forefront of any pickup in activity? Chart 3Lower Rates Haven't Helped Much Yet Housing is the classic proxy for tracing the effects of easier policy on the domestic economy, since nearly all of its end consumers finance their purchases, and its domestic concentration insulates it from trade effects. It has failed to respond much to the monetary policy shifts that have brought 30-year fixed mortgage rates down nearly 100 basis points year to date (Chart 3). Fed skeptics suggest that the muted response is evidence of the declining efficacy of easy policy, though we have been inclined to read the data as an indication that homebuilders aren’t building enough starter and move-up homes to bring homeownership within reach of first-time homebuyers and median-income households. Housing should exhibit a high sensitivity to changes in monetary policy, but an abundance of other debt burdens and a lack of affordable supply may be holding it back.   One should have expected that the housing pickup would be muted, and slower to take hold in this expansion, given the severity of the recession and its mortgage-lending roots. Adjusted for inflation, private residential investment, which has declined slightly for four straight quarters, is just over two-thirds of its 2005 peak (Chart 4, middle panel). In the past, residential investment has been more sensitive to the level of the fed funds rate than its direction. Since 1961, the Fed has hiked rates in as many quarters as it has cut them, and the difference in annualized growth has been relatively modest: 2.8% when the Fed has been cutting rates, and 1.6% when it’s been raising them. Chart 4Residential Investment Responds To The Monetary Policy Backdrop... Per our equilibrium fed funds rate framework, we deem monetary policy to be accommodative when the fed funds rate is below our estimate of equilibrium, and restrictive when the funds rate exceeds it (Chart 4, top panel). Despite the fact that the Fed has hiked as often as it has cut since 1961, we estimate that policy has been easy for two-thirds of the time, and the difference in residential investment growth in the two policy states has been dramatic: 6.8% when policy is easy and -6.6% when policy is tight (Chart 4, bottom panel). With the Fed keeping policy easy for longer, housing will have the wind at its back, though it isn’t much more than a breeze at the moment. The same goes for construction employment, which has grown more rapidly under accommodative monetary policy (2.1% versus 0.7% when policy is tight), but has merely treaded water over the last 11 years of easy policy (Chart 5). Chart 5... And So Does Construction Employment The bottom line is that the jury is still out on housing activity. Low mortgage rates will help renters buy homes (and fill them with furniture and appliances), and put more cash in the pockets of homeowners who refinance their existing loans, but the market remains soft. Though it can’t be captured by the aggregate data, it does seem possible that median-income households may be burdened by too much student loan, automobile and/or credit card debt to save the required down payment.2 Disparities between households may well be holding the economy back, but they have a silver lining if they encourage the Fed to pursue accommodative policies for longer than it otherwise would. Will rate cuts give the economy a tangible lift? We don’t know for sure, but no one else does, either. We are convinced that easier monetary conditions will help the economy at the margin. Ten years into the expansion, though, it is not clear if the economy has pent-up demand that easier conditions will help release. Externally, worsening trade tensions could exacerbate the global manufacturing slowdown, further squeezing global aggregate demand, and exporting recession pressures to the U.S. Our mandate is not to forecast the economy in itself, though. We and our clients are investors, not government officials or public-policy professors, and we focus on the economy only to the extent that it impacts financial markets. In the near term, incremental accommodation should boost risk asset prices, provided that trade tensions don’t ratchet up enough to undermine investor, consumer and business confidence. Animal spirits matter, and if they shift decisively from greed and toward fear, they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that sweeps monetary policy efforts before them. Ex-a significantly negative exogenous event, we remain constructive on the U.S. economy, and continue to look for a global revival outside of the U.S. Investment Implications The incremental information received this week – an FOMC meeting that mostly went off as we expected, a modest escalation in U.S. pressure on China in line with our geopolitical strategists’ warnings that a final deal is not at hand, mixed global manufacturing PMIs, a surge in U.S. consumer confidence, a straight-down-the-middle employment situation report, and an upward inflection in S&P 500 earnings growth that has 2Q EPS now tracking to a 2.7% year-over-year gain – did not change our perspective. We see U.S. economic growth decelerating from its 2018 pace, but remaining above trend, and an absence of imbalances that would make the economy more vulnerable. We have made our peace with recurring flare-ups of hostilities between the U.S. and China, and trade tensions will only change our investment outlook if they worsen materially. The Fed is not magic, but it is doing the best it can to keep the expansion going for the purpose of spreading its gains as broadly as possible, and the easing bias among major central banks is gathering force. On balance, the new information received last week didn’t do anything to change our overall take. We remain constructive, and think investment portfolios should as well. We recognize that the climate is uncertain, and that we should accordingly dial back our conviction. Part of the reason the agency mortgage REITs appeal to us at this juncture is that they offer the opportunity to reduce equity beta and enhance a balanced portfolio’s capacity to absorb shocks. We watched the flattening in the yield curve with dismay, but we continue to expect that incremental monetary accommodation will promote a steeper curve. Easier monetary conditions promote growth, boosting the real component of interest rates, and can stoke inflation pressures when an economy is operating at or above capacity, as the U.S. has been for over a year. We remain vigilant, but our base-case constructive take is unchanged.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As we were preparing to go to press on Thursday, the U.S. announced the imposition of new tariff levies on the subset of Chinese imports that hadn’t yet been subjected to tariffs. The move supported our geopolitical strategists’ view that the trade war is unlikely to be settled soon. 2 Andriotis, AnnaMaria; Brown, Ken; and Shifflett, Shane, “Families Go Deep in Debt to Stay in the Middle Class,” Wall Street Journal, August 1, 2019.

Chart Of The WeekEM Profits Contraction Today we are publishing a review of domestic demand conditions in each of the 22 emerging economies we cover. Domestic demand growth is either sluggish, decelerating or contracting in the overwhelming majority of countries. This is in addition to the export contraction currently taking place in many EMs. Consistently, EM overall EPS and small-cap EPS growth rates have fallen to zero in local currency terms (Chart Of The Week). In U.S. dollar terms, overall EM EPS are contracting. The recent dollar weakness versus EM currencies has allowed some EM central banks to cut rates. However, we expect the greenback to strengthen, as we elaborated in last week's report, and that will prevent central banks in high-yielding EMs from easing monetary policy further. Hence, a domestic demand revival in EM is not imminent. We reiterate our negative stance on EM currencies and risk assets. China: Consumer Is Mixed; Capex Is Weak Chart I-1 Chart I-2 India: Domestic Demand Is Decelerating Chart I-3 Chart I-4 Indonesia: Domestic Demand Is Very Weak Chart I-5 Chart I-6 Malaysia: Is The Downturn Late? Chart I-7 Chart I-8 Singapore: Domestic Demand Is Contracting Chart I-9 Chart I-10 Thailand: Stable Domestic Demand Growth Chart I-11 Chart I-12 Philippines: From Boom To Bust? Chart I-13 Chart I-14 Korea: Exports Recession Will Dampen Domestic Demand Chart I-15 Chart I-16 Taiwan: Moderate Domestic Demand Growth Chart I-17 Chart I-18 Vietnam: Robust Domestic Demand Chart I-19 Chart I-20 Brazil: The Economy Needs Stimulus Chart II-1 Chart II-2 Chart II-3 Chart II-4 Mexico: Heading Into A Mild Recession? Chart II-5 Chart II-6 Chile: Heading Into A Recession? Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Chart II-9 Argentina: As Bad As It Gets? Chart II-10 Chart II-11 Chart II-12 Chart II-13​​​​​​ Colombia: Entering Another Downtrend Chart II-14 Chart II-15 Chart II-16 Peru: External Sector Drives Credit Cycle Chart II-17 Chart II-18 South Africa: More Downside Ahead? Chart III-1 Chart III-3 Chart III-2   Turkey: As Bad As It Gets? Chart III-4 Chart III-5 Chart III-6 Chart III-7 Russia: Sluggish Economy Chart III-8 Chart III-9 Chart III-10 Central Europe: Strong Demand/Weak Manufacturing Chart III-11 Chart III-12   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights U.S. consumption remains robust despite the recent intensification of global growth headwinds. The G-20 meeting will not result in an escalation nor a major resolution of Sino-U.S. tensions. Kicking the can down the road is the most likely outcome. China’s reflationary efforts will intensify, impacting global growth in the second half of 2019. Fearful of collapsing inflation expectations, global central banks are easing policy, which is supporting global liquidity conditions and growth prospects. Bond yields have upside, especially inflation expectations. Equities have some short-term downside, but the cyclical peak still lies ahead. The equity rally will leave stocks vulnerable to the inevitable pick-up in interest rates later this cycle. Gold stocks may provide an attractive hedge for now. A spike in oil prices creates a major risk to our view. Stay overweight oil plays. Feature Global growth has clearly deteriorated this year, and bond yields around the world have cratered. German yields have plunged below -0.3% and U.S. yields briefly dipped below 2%. Even if the S&P 500 remains near all-time highs, the performance of cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones is corroborating the message from the bond market. Bonds and stocks are therefore not as much in disagreement as appears at first glance. To devise an appropriate strategy, now more than ever investors must decide whether or not a recession is on the near-term horizon. Answering yes to this question means bond prices will continue to rise, the dollar will rally further, stocks will weaken, and defensive stocks will keep outperforming cyclical ones. Answering no, one should sell bonds, sell the dollar, buy stocks, and overweight cyclical sectors. The weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy. We stand in the ‘no’ camp: We do not believe a recession is in the offing and, while the current growth slowdown has been painful, it is not the end of the business cycle. Logically, we are selling bonds, selling the dollar and maintaining a positive cyclical stance on stocks. We also expect international equities to outperform U.S. ones, and we are becoming particularly positive on gold stocks. Oil prices should also benefit from the upcoming improvement in global growth. Has The U.S. Economy Met Its Iceberg? Investors betting on a recession often point to the inversion of the 3-month/10-year yield curve and the performance of cyclical stocks. However, we must also remember Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that “markets have predicted nine of the five previous recessions.” In any case, these market moves tell us what we already know: growth has weakened. We must decide whether it will weaken further. A simple probit model based on the yield curve slope and the new orders component of the ISM Manufacturing Index shows that there is a 40% probability of recession over the next 12 months. We need to keep in mind that in 1966 and 1998, this model was flagging a similar message, yet no recession followed over the course of the next year (Chart I-1). This means we must go back and study the fundamentals of U.S. growth. Chart I-1The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer Chart I-2Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment On the purely domestic front, the U.S. economy is not showing major stresses. Last month, we argued that we are not seeing the key symptoms of tight monetary policy: Homebuilders remain confident, mortgage applications for purchases are near cyclical highs, homebuilder stocks have been outperforming the broad market for three quarters, and lumber prices are rebounding.1 Moreover, the previous fall in mortgage yields is already lifting existing home sales, and it is only a matter of time before residential investment follows (Chart I-2). Households remain in fine form. Real consumer spending is growing at a 2.8% pace, and despite rising economic uncertainty, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model expects real household spending to expand at a 3.9% rate in the second quarter (Chart I-3). This is key, as consumers’ spending and investment patterns drive the larger trends in the economy.2 Chart I-3Consumers Are Spending Chart I-4The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... Going forward, we expect consumption to stay the course. Despite its latest dip, consumer confidence remains elevated, household debt levels have fallen from 134% of disposable income in 2007 to 99% today, and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.9% of after-tax income, a multi-generational low. In this context, stronger household income growth should support spending. The May payrolls report is likely to have been an anomaly. Layoffs are still minimal, initial jobless claims continue to flirt near 50-year lows, the Conference Board’s Leading Credit index shows no stress, and the employment components of both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM are at elevated levels (Chart I-4). If these leading indicators of employment are correct, both the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers and salaries have upside (Chart I-5), especially as productivity growth is accelerating. Despite these positives, the weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy, and force the ISM non-manufacturing PMI to converge toward the manufacturing index. If global growth worsens, the dollar will strengthen, quality spreads will widen and stocks will weaken, resulting in tighter financial conditions. Since economic and trade uncertainty is still high, further deterioration in external conditions will cause U.S. capex to collapse. Employment would follow, confidence suffer and consumption fall. Global growth still holds the key to the future. Following The Chinese Impulse As the world’s foremost trading nation, Chinese activity lies at the center of the global growth equation. The China-U.S. trade war remains at the forefront of investors’ minds. The meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping over the next two days is important. It implies a thawing of Sino-U.S. trade negotiations. However, an overall truce is unlikely. An agreement to resume the talks is the most likely outcome. No additional tariffs will be levied on the remaining $300 billion of untaxed Chinese exports to the U.S., but the previous levies will not be meaningfully changed. Removing this $300 billion Damocles sword hanging over global growth is a positive at the margin. However, it also means that the can has been kicked down the road and that trade will remain a source of headline risk, at least until the end of the year. Chart I-6The Rubicon Has Been Crossed Trade uncertainty will nudge Chinese policymakers to ease policy further. In previous speeches, Premier Li Keqiang set the labor market as a line in the sand. If it were to deteriorate, the deleveraging campaign could be put on the backburner. Today, the employment component of the Chinese PMI is at its lowest level since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart I-6). This alone warrants more reflationary efforts by Beijing. Adding trade uncertainty to this mix guarantees additional credit and fiscal stimulus. More Chinese stimulus will be crucial for Chinese and global growth. Historically, it has taken approximatively nine months for previous credit and fiscal expansions to lift economic activity. We therefore expect that over the course of the summer, the imports component of the Chinese PMI should improve further, and the overall EM Manufacturing PMI should begin to rebound (Chart I-7, top and second panel). More generally, this summer should witness the bottom in global trade, as exemplified by Asian or European export growth (Chart I-7, third and fourth panel). The prospect for additional Chinese stimulus means that the associated pick-up in industrial activity should have longevity. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. We are already seeing one traditional signpost that Chinese stimulus is having an impact on growth. Within the real estate investment component of GDP, equipment purchases are growing at a 30% annual rate, a development that normally precedes a rebound in manufacturing activity (Chart I-8, top panel). We are also keeping an eye out for the growth of M1 relative to M2. When Chinese M1 outperforms M2, it implies that demand deposits are growing faster than savings deposits. The inference is that the money injected in the economy is not being saved, but is ready to be deployed. Historically, a rebounding Chinese M1 to M2 ratio accompanies improvements in global trade, commodities prices, and industrial production (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World Chart I-8China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact   To be sure, China is not worry free. Auto sales are still soft, global semiconductor shipments remain weak, and capex has yet to turn the corner. But the turnaround in credit and in the key indicators listed above suggests the slowdown is long in the tooth. In the second half of 2019, China will begin to add to global growth once again. Advanced Economies’ Central Banks: A Brave New World Chart I-9The Inflation Expectations Panic While China is important, it is not the only game in town. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. It seems they have stopped targeting realized inflation and are increasingly focused on inflation expectations. The collapse in inflation expectations is worrying central bankers (Chart I-9). Falling anticipated inflation can anchor actual inflation at lower levels than would have otherwise been the case. It also limits the downside to real rates when growth slows, and therefore, the capacity of monetary policy to support economic activity. Essentially, central banks fear that permanently depressed inflation expectations renders them impotent. The change in policy focus is evident for anyone to see. As recently as January 2019, 52% of global central banks were lifting interest rates. Now that inflation expectations are collapsing, other than the Norges Bank, none are doing so (Chart I-10). Instead, the opposite is happening and the RBA, RBNZ and RBI are cutting rates. Moreover, as investors are pricing in lower policy rates around the world, G-10 bond yields are collapsing, which is easing global liquidity conditions. Indeed, as Chart I-11 illustrates, when the share of economies with falling 2-year forward rates is as high as it is today, the BCA Global Leading Indicator rebounds three months later. Chart I-10Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere The European Central Bank stands at the vanguard of this fight. As we argued two months ago, deflationary pressures in Europe are intact and are likely to be a problem for years to come.3 The ECB is aware of this headwind and knows it needs to act pre-emptively. Four months ago, it announced a new TLRTO-III package to provide plentiful funding for stressed banks in the European periphery. On June 6th, ECB President Mario Draghi unveiled very generous financing terms for the TLTRO-III. Last week, at the ECB’s Sintra conference in Portugal, ECB Vice President Luis de Guindos professed that the ECB could cut rates if inflation expectations weaken. The following day, Draghi himself strongly hinted at an upcoming rate cut in Europe and a potential resumption of the ECB QE program. These measures are starting to ease financial conditions where Europe needs it most: Italy. An important contributor to the contraction in the European credit impulse over the past 21 months was the rapid tightening in Italian financial conditions that followed the surge in BTP yields from May 2018. Now that the ECB is becoming increasingly dovish, Italian yields have fallen to 2.1%, and are finally below the neutral rate of interest for Europe. BTP yields are again at accommodative levels. Chart I-11This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects With financial conditions in Europe easing and exports set to pick up in response to Chinese growth, European loan demand should regain some vigor. Meanwhile, the TLTRO-III measures, which are easing bank funding costs, should boost banks’ willingness to lend. The European credit impulse is therefore set to move back into positive territory this fall. European growth will rebound, and contribute to improving global growth conditions. The Fed’s Patience Is Running Out The Federal Reserve did not cut interest rates last week, but its intentions to do so next month were clear. First, the language of the statement changed drastically. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” Second, the fed funds rate projections from the Summary of Economic Projections were meaningfully revised down. In March, 17 FOMC participants expected the Fed to stay on hold for the remainder of 2019, while six foresaw hikes. Today, eight expect a steady fed funds rate, but seven are calling for two rate cuts this year. Only one member is still penciling in a hike. Moreover, nine out of 17 participants anticipate that rates will be lower in 2020 than today (Chart I-12). The FOMC’s unwillingness to push back very dovish market expectations signals an imminent interest rate cut. Like other advanced economy central banks, the Fed’s sudden dovish turn is aimed at reviving moribund inflation expectations (Chart I-13). In order to do so, the Fed will have to keep real interest rates at low levels, at least relative to real GDP growth. Even if the real policy rate goes up, so long as it increases more slowly than GDP growth, it will signify that money supply is growing faster than money demand.4 TIPS yields are anticipating these dynamics and will likely remain soft relative to nominal interest rates. Chart I-13...As Inflation Expectations Plunge Since the Fed intends to conduct easy monetary policy until inflation expectations have normalized to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, our liquidity gauges will become more supportive of economic activity and asset prices over the coming two to three quarters: Our BCA Monetary indicator has not only clearly hooked up, it is now above the zero line, in expansionary territory (see Section III, page 41). Excess money growth, defined as money-of-zero-maturity over loan growth, is once again accelerating. This cycle, global growth variables such as our Global Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, or worldwide export prices have all reliably followed this variable (Chart I-14). After collapsing through 2018, our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is rebounding sharply, and the imminent end of the Fed’s balance sheet runoff will only solidify this progress. This indicator gauges how cheap and plentiful high-powered money is for global markets. Its recovery suggests that commodities, globally-traded goods prices, and economic activity are all set to improve (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Excess Money Has Turned Up Chart I-15Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up...   The dollar is losing momentum and should soon fall, which will reinforce the improvement in global liquidity conditions. A trough in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is often followed by a weakening dollar (Chart I-16). Moreover, the Greenback’s strength has been turbocharged by exceptional repatriations of funds by U.S. economic agents (Chart I-17). The end of the repatriation holiday along with a more dovish Fed and the completion of the balance sheet runoff will likely weigh on the dollar. Once the Greenback depreciates, the cost of borrowing for foreign issuers of dollar-denominated debt will decline, along with the cost of liquidity, especially if the massive U.S. repatriation flows are staunched. This will further support global growth conditions. Chart I-16...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... Trade relations are unlikely to deteriorate further, China is likely to stimulate more aggressively; and easing central banks around the world, including the Fed, are responding to falling inflation expectations. This backdrop points to a rebound in global growth in the second half of the year. As a corollary, the deflationary patch currently engulfing the world should end soon after. As a result, this growing reflationary mindset should delay any recession until late 2021 if not 2022. However, as the business cycle extends further, greater inflationary pressures will build down the road and force the Fed to lift rates – even more than it would have done prior to this wave of easing. Chart I-17...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow Investment Implications Bonds BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy service relies on the Golden Rule of Treasury Investing. This simple rule states that when the Fed turns out to be more dovish than anticipated by interest rate markets 12 months prior, Treasurys outperform cash. If the Fed is more hawkish than was expected by market participants, Treasurys underperform (Chart I-18). Today, the Treasury market’s outperformance is already consistent with a Fed generating a very dovish surprise over the next 12 months. However, the interest rate market is already pricing in a 98% probability of two rates cuts this year, and the December 2020 fed funds rate futures imply a halving of the policy rate. The Fed is unlikely to clear these very tall dovish hurdles as global growth is set to rebound, the fed funds rate is not meaningfully above neutral and the household sector remains resilient. Chart I-18Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Reflecting elevated pessimism toward global growth, the performance of transport relative to utilities stocks is as oversold as it gets. The likely rebound in this ratio should push yields higher, especially as foreign private investors are already aggressively buying U.S. government securities (Chart I-19). As occurred in 1998, Treasury yields should rebound soon after the Fed begins cutting rates. Moreover, with all the major central banks focusing on keeping rates at accommodative levels, the selloff in bonds should be led by inflation breakevens, also as occurred in 1998 (Chart I-20), especially if the dollar weakens. Chart I-19Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Chart I-201998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting     Equities A global economic rebound should provide support for equities on a cyclical horizon. The tactical picture remains murky as the stock market may have become too optimistic that Osaka will deliver an all-encompassing deal. However, this short-term downside is likely to prove limited compared to the cyclical strength lying ahead. This is particularly true for global equities, where valuations are more attractive than in the U.S. Chart I-21Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Even if the S&P 500 isn’t the prime beneficiary of the recovery in global growth, it should nonetheless generate positive absolute returns on a cyclical horizon. As Chart I-21 illustrates, a pickup in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index often precedes a rally in U.S. stocks. Since the U.S. Financial Liquidity Index has done a superb job of forecasting the weakness in stocks over the past 18 months, it is likely to track the upcoming strength as well. A weaker dollar should provide an additional tailwind to boost profit growth, especially as U.S. productivity is accelerating. This view is problematic for long-term investors. The cheapness of stocks relative to bonds is the only reason why our long-term valuation index is not yet at nosebleed levels Chart I-22). If we are correct that the current global reflationary push will build greater inflationary pressures down the road and will ultimately result in even higher interest rates, this relative undervaluation of equities will vanish. The overall valuation index will then hit near-record highs, leaving the stock market vulnerable to a very sharp pullback. Long-term investors should use this rally to lighten their strategic exposure to stocks, especially when taking into account the risk that populism will force a retrenchment in corporate market power, an issue discussed in Section II. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” In this environment, gold stocks are particularly attractive. Central banks are targeting very accommodative policy settings, which will limit the upside for real rates. Moreover, generous liquidity conditions and a falling dollar should prove to be great friends to gold. These fundamentals are being amplified by a supportive technical backdrop, as gold prices have broken out and the gold A/D line keeps making new highs (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Chart I-23Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold   Structural forces reinforce these positives for gold. EM reserve managers are increasingly diversifying into gold, fearful of growing geopolitical tensions with the U.S. (Chart I-24). Meanwhile, G-10 central banks are not selling the yellow metal anymore. This positive demand backdrop is materializing as global gold producers have been focused on returning cash to shareholders instead of pouring funds into capex. This lack of investment will weigh on output growth going forward. Chart I-24EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold This emphasis on returning cash to shareholders makes gold stocks particularly attractive. Gold producers are trading at a large discount to the market and to gold itself as investors remain concerned by the historical lack of management discipline. However, boosting dividends, curtailing debt levels and only focusing on the most productive projects ultimately creates value for shareholders. A wave of consolidation will only amplify these tailwinds. Our overall investment recommendation is to overweight stocks over bonds on a cyclical horizon while building an overweight position in gold equities. Our inclination to buy gold stocks transcends our long-term concerns for equities, as rising long-term inflation should favor gold as well. The Key Risk: Iran The biggest risk to our view remains the growing stress in the Middle East. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team assigns a less than 40% chance that tensions between the U.S. and Iran will deteriorate into a full-fledged military conflict. The U.S.’s reluctance to respond with force to recent Iranian provocations may even argue that this probability could be too high. Nonetheless, if a military conflict were to happen, it would involve a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a bottleneck through which more than 20% of global oil production transits. In such a scenario, Brent prices could easily cross above US$150/bbl. Chart I-25Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline To mitigate this risk, we recommend overweighting oil plays in global portfolios. Not only would such an allocation benefit in the event of a blow-up in the Persian Gulf, oil is supported by positive supply/demand fundamentals and Brent should end the year $75/bbl. After five years of limited oil capex, Wood Mackenzie estimates that the supply of oil will be close to 5 million barrels per day smaller than would have otherwise been the case. Moreover, OPEC and Russia remain disciplined oil producers, which is limiting growth in crude output today. Meanwhile, in light of the global growth deceleration, demand for oil has proved surprisingly robust. Demand is likely to pick up further when global growth reaccelerates in the second half of the year. As a result, BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy currently expects additional inventory drawdowns that will only push oil prices higher in an environment of growing global reflation (Chart I-25). A falling dollar would accentuate these developments.   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 27, 2019 Next Report: July 25, 2019   II. The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient Productivity growth is experiencing a cyclical rebound, but remains structurally weak. The end of the deepening of globalization, statistical hurdles, and the possibility that today’s technological advances may not be as revolutionary as past ones all hamper productivity. On the back of rising market power and concentration, companies are increasing markups instead of production. This is depressing productivity and lowering the neutral rate of interest. For now, investors can generate alpha by focusing on consolidating industries. Growing market power cannot last forever and will meet a political wall. Structurally, this will hurt asset prices.   “We don’t have a free market; don’t kid yourself. (…) Businesspeople are enemies of free markets, not friends (…) businesspeople are all in favor of freedom for everybody else (…) but when it comes to their own business, they want to go to Washington to protect their businesses.” Milton Friedman, January 1991. Despite the explosion of applications of growing computing power, U.S. productivity growth has been lacking this cycle. This incapacity to do more with less has weighed on trend growth and on the neutral rate of interest, and has been a powerful force behind the low level of yields at home and abroad. In this report, we look at the different factors and theories advanced to explain the structural decline in productivity. Among them, a steady increase in corporate market power not only goes a long way in explaining the lack of productivity in the U.S., but also the high level of profit margins along with the depressed level of investment and real neutral rates. A Simple Cyclical Explanation The decline in productivity growth is both a structural and cyclical story. Historically, productivity growth has followed economic activity. When demand is strong, businesses can generate more revenue and therefore produce more. The historical correlation between U.S. nonfarm business productivity and the ISM manufacturing index illustrates this relationship (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity Chart II-2Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Since 2008, as households worked off their previous over-indebtedness, the U.S. private sector has experienced its longest deleveraging period since the Great Depression. This frugality has depressed demand and contributed to lower growth this cycle. Since productivity is measured as output generated by unit of input, weak demand growth has depressed productivity statistics. On this dimension, the brief deleveraging experience of the early 1990s is instructive: productivity picked up only after 1993, once the private sector began to accumulate debt faster than the pace of GDP growth (Chart II-2). The recent pick-up in productivity reflects these debt dynamics. Since 2009, the U.S. non-financial private sector has stopped deleveraging, removing one anchor on demand, allowing productivity to blossom. Moreover, the pick-up in capex from 2017 to present is also helping productivity by raising the capital-to-workers ratio. While this is a positive development for the U.S. economy, the decline in productivity nonetheless seems structural, as the five-year moving average of labor productivity growth remains near its early 1980s nadir (Chart II-3). Something else is at play. The Usual Suspects Three major forces are often used to explain why observed productivity growth is currently in decline: A slowdown in global trade penetration, the fact that statisticians do not have a good grasp on productivity growth in a service-based economy, and innovation that simply isn’t what it used to be. Slowdown In Global Trade Penetration Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo argued that due to competitive advantages, countries should always engage in trade to increase their economic welfare. This insight has laid the foundation of the argument that exchanges between nations maximizes the utilization of resources domestically and around the world. Rarely was this argument more relevant than over the past 40 years. On the heels of the supply-side revolution of the early 1980s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization took off. The share of the world's population participating in the global capitalist system rose from 30% in 1985 to nearly 100% today. The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development. Generating elevated productivity gains is simpler when a country’s capital stock is underdeveloped: each unit of investment grows the capital-to-labor ratio by a greater proportion. As a result, productivity – which reflects the capital-to-worker ratio – can grow quickly. As more poor countries have joined the global economy and benefitted from FDI and other capital inflows, their productivity has flourished. Consequently, even if productivity growth has been poor in advanced economies over the past 10 years, global productivity has remained high and has tracked the share of exports in global GDP (Chart II-4). Chart II-4The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth This globalization tailwind to global productivity growth is dissipating. First, following an investment boom where poor decisions were made, EM productivity growth has been declining. Second, with nearly 100% of the world’s labor supply already participating in the global economy, it is increasingly difficult to expand the share of global trade in global GDP and increase the benefit of cross-border specialization. Finally, the popular backlash in advanced economies against globalization could force global trade into reverse. As economic nationalism takes hold, cross-border investments could decline, moving the world economy further away from an optimal allocation of capital. These forces may explain why global productivity peaked earlier this decade. Productivity Is Mismeasured Recently deceased luminary Martin Feldstein argued that the structural decline in productivity is an illusion. As the argument goes, productivity is not weak; it is only underestimated. This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity. A parallel with the introduction of electricity in the late 19th century often comes to mind. Back then, U.S. statistical agencies found it difficult to disentangle price changes from quantity changes in the quickly growing revenues of electrical utilities. As a result, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics overestimated price changes in the early 20th century, which depressed the estimated output growth of utilities by a similar factor. Since productivity is measured as output per unit of labor, this also understated actual productivity growth – not just for utilities but for the economy as a whole. Ultimately, overall productivity growth was revised upward. Chart II-5Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth In today’s economy, this could be a larger problem, as 70% of output is generated in the service sector. Estimating productivity growth is much harder in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector, as there is no actual countable output to measure. Thus, distinguishing price increases from quantity or quality improvements is challenging. Adding to this difficulty, the service sector is one of the main beneficiaries of the increase in computational power currently disrupting industries around the world. The growing share of components of the consumer price index subject to hedonic adjustments highlight this challenge (Chart II-5). Estimating quality changes is hard and may bias the increase in prices in the economy. If prices are unreliably measured, so will output and productivity. Chart II-6A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity Pushing The Production Frontier Is Increasingly Hard Another school of thought simply accepts that productivity growth has declined in a structural fashion. It is far from clear that the current technological revolution is much more productivity-enhancing than the introduction of electricity 140 years ago, the development of the internal combustion engine in the late 19th century, the adoption of indoor plumbing, or the discovery of penicillin in 1928. It is easy to overestimate the economic impact of new technologies. At first, like their predecessors, the microprocessor and the internet created entirely new industries. But this is not the case anymore. For all its virtues, e-commerce is only a new method of selling goods and services. Cloud computing is mainly a way to outsource hardware spending. Social media’s main economic value has been to gather more information on consumers, allowing sellers to reach potential buyers in a more targeted way. Without creating entirely new industries, spending on new technologies often ends up cannibalizing spending on older technologies. For example, while Google captures 32.4% of global ad revenues, similar revenues for the print industry have fallen by 70% since their apex in 2000. If new technologies are not as accretive to production as the introduction of previous ones were, productivity growth remains constrained by the same old economic forces of capex, human capital growth and resource utilization. And as Chart II-6 shows, labor input, the utilization of capital and multifactor productivity have all weakened. Some key drivers help understand why productivity growth has downshifted structurally. Chart II-8Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Let’s look at human capital. It is much easier to grow human capital when very few people have a high-school diploma: just make a larger share of your population finish high school, or even better, complete a university degree. But once the share of university-educated citizens has risen, building human capital further becomes increasingly difficult. Chart II-7 illustrates this problem. Growth in educational achievement has been slowing since 1995 in both advanced and developing economies. This means that the growth of human capital is slowing. This is without even wading into whether or not the quality of education has remained constant. Human capital is also negatively impacted by demographic trends. Workers in their forties tend to be at the peak of their careers, with the highest accumulated job know-how. Problematically, these workers represent a shrinking share of the labor force, which is hurting productivity trends (Chart II-8). The capital stock too is experiencing its own headwinds. While Moore’s Law seems more or less intact, the decline in the cost of storing information is clearly decelerating (Chart II-9). Today, quality adjusted IT prices are contracting at a pace of 2.3% per annum, compared to annual declines of 14% at the turn of the millennium. Thus, even if nominal spending in IT investment had remained constant, real investment growth would have sharply decelerated (Chart II-10). But since nominal spending has decelerated greatly from its late 1990s pace, real investment in IT has fallen substantially. The growth of the capital stock is therefore lagging its previous pace, which is hurting productivity growth. Chart II-10The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation Chart II-11A Dearth Of New Businesses   The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development (Chart II-11). New businesses are a large source of productivity gains. Ultimately, 20% of productivity gains have come from small businesses becoming large ones. Think Apple in 1977 versus Apple today. A large decline in the pace of new business formation suggests that fewer seeds have been planted over the past 20 years to generate those enormous productivity explosions than was the case in the previous 50 years. The X Factor: Growing Market Concentration Chart II-12Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor The three aforementioned explanations for the decline in productivity are all appealing, but they generally leave investors looking for more. Why are companies investing less, especially when profit margins are near record highs? Why is inflation low? Why has the pace of new business formation collapsed? These are all somewhat paradoxical. This is where a growing body of works comes in. Our economy is moving away from the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Industry concentration has progressively risen, and few companies dominate their line of business and control both their selling prices and input costs. They behave as monopolies and monopsonies, all at once.1 This helps explain why selling prices have been able to rise relative to unit labor costs, raising margins in the process (Chart II-12). Let’s start by looking at the concept of market concentration. According to Grullon, Larkin and Michaely, sales of the median publicly traded firms, expressed in constant dollars, have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, while real GDP has only increased 70% (Chart II-13).2 The escalation in market concentration is also vividly demonstrated in Chart II-14. The top panel shows that since 1997, most U.S. industries have experienced sharp increases in their Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI),3 a measure of concentration. In fact, more than half of U.S. industries have experienced concentration increases of more than 40%, and as a corollary, more than 75% of industries have seen the number of firms decline by more than 40%. The last panel of the chart also highlights that this increase in concentration has been top-heavy, with a third of industries seeing the market share of their four biggest players rise by more than 40%. Rising market concentration is therefore a broad phenomenon – not one unique to the tech sector.     This rising market concentration has also happened on the employment front. In 1995, less than 24% of U.S. private sector employees worked for firms with 10,000 or more employees, versus nearly 28% today. This does not seem particularly dramatic. However, at the local level, the number of regions where employment is concentrated with one or two large employers has risen. Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum developed Map II-1, which shows that 75% of non-metropolitan areas now have high or extreme levels of employment concentration.4 Chart II-15The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains This growing market power of companies on employment can have a large impact on wages. Chart II-15 shows that real wages have lagged productivity since the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, Chart II-16 plots real wages on the y-axis versus the HHI of applications (top panel) and vacancies (bottom panel). This chart shows that for any given industry, if applicants in a geographical area do not have many options where to apply – i.e. a few dominant employers provide most of the jobs in the region – real wages lag the national average. The more concentrated vacancies as well as applications are with one employer, the greater the discount to national wages in that industry.5 This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity as well as the widening gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan household incomes. Growing market power and concentration do not only compress labor costs, they also result in higher prices for consumers. This seems paradoxical in a world of low inflation. But inflation could have been even lower if market concentration had remained at pre-2000s levels. In 2009, Matthew Weinberg showed that over the previous 22 years, horizontal mergers within an industry resulted in higher prices.6 In a 2014 meta-study conducted by Weinberg along with Orley Ashenfelter and Daniel Hosken, the authors showed that across 49 studies ranging across 21 industries, 36 showed that horizontal mergers resulted in higher prices for consumers.7 While today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins. In a low-inflation environment, the only way for companies to garner pricing power is to decrease competition, and M&As are the quickest way to achieve this goal. After examining nearly 50 merger and antitrust studies spanning more than 3,000 merger cases, John Kwoka found that, following mergers that augmented an industry’s concentration, prices increased in 95% of cases, and on average by 4.5%.8 In no industry is this effect more vividly demonstrated than in the healthcare field, an industry that has undergone a massive wave of consolidation – from hospitals, to pharmacies to drug manufacturers. As Chart II-17 illustrates, between 1980 and 2016, healthcare costs have increased at a much faster pace in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. However, life expectancy increased much less than in other advanced economies. In this context of growing market concentration, it is easy to see why, as De Loecker and Eeckhout have argued, markups have been rising steadily since the 1980s (Chart II-18, top panel) and have tracked M&A activity (Chart II-18, bottom panel).9 In essence, mergers and acquisitions have been the main tool used by firms to increase their concentration. Another tool at their disposal has been the increase in patents. The top panel of Chart II-19 shows that the total number of patent applications in the U.S. has increased by 3.6-fold since the 1980s, but most interestingly, the share of patents coming from large, dominant players within each industry has risen by 10% over the same timeframe (Chart II-19, bottom panel). To use Warren Buffet’s terminology, M&A and patents have been how firms build large “moats” to limit competition and protect their businesses. Chart II-18Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Chart II-19How To Build A Moat?   Why is this rise in market concentration affecting productivity? First, from an empirical perspective, rising markups and concentration tend to lead to lower levels of capex. A recent IMF study shows that the more concentrated industries become, the higher the corporate savings rate goes (Chart II-20, top panel).10 These elevated savings reflect wider markups, but also firms with markups in the top decile of the distribution display significantly lower investment rates (Chart II-20, bottom panel). If more of the U.S. output is generated by larger, more concentrated firms, this leads to a lower pace of increase in the capital stock, which hurts productivity.   Second, downward pressure on real wages is also linked to a drag on productivity. Monopolies and oligopolies are not incentivized to maximize output. In fact, for any market, a monopoly should lead to lower production than perfect competition would. Diagram II-I from De Loecker and Eeckhout shows that moving from perfect competition to a monopoly results in a steeper labor demand curve as the monopolist produces less. As a result, real wages move downward and the labor participation force declines. Does this sound familiar? The rise of market power might mean that in some way Martin Feldstein was right about productivity being mismeasured – just not the way he anticipated. In a June 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, Peter Berezin showed that labor-saving technologies like AI and robotics, which are increasingly being deployed today, could lead to lower wages (Chart II-21).11 For a given level of technology in the economy, productivity is positively linked to real wages but inversely linked to markups – especially if the technology is of the labor-saving kind. So, if markups rise on the back of firms’ growing market power, the ensuing labor savings will not be used to increase actual input. Rather, corporate savings will rise. Thus, while today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins.12 Unsurprisingly, return on assets and market concentration are positively correlated (Chart II-22).     Finally, market power and concentration weighing on capex, wages and productivity are fully consistent with higher returns of cash to shareholders and lower interest rates. The higher profits and lower capex liberate cash flows available to be redistributed to shareholders. Moreover, lower capex also depresses demand for savings in the economy, while weak wages depress middle-class incomes, which hurts aggregate demand. Additionally, higher corporate savings increases the wealth of the richest households, who have a high marginal propensity to save. This results in higher savings for the economy. With a greater supply of savings and lower demand for those savings, the neutral rate of interest has been depressed. Investment Implications First, in an environment of low inflation, investors should continue to favor businesses that can generate higher markups via pricing power. Equity investors should therefore continue to prefer industries where horizontal mergers are still increasing market concentration. Second, so long as the status quo continues, wages will have a natural cap, and so will the neutral rate of interest. This does not mean that wage growth cannot increase further on a cyclical basis, but it means that wages are unlikely to blossom as they did in the late 1960s, even within a very tight labor market. Without too-severe an inflation push from wages, the business cycle could remain intact even longer, keeping a window open for risk assets to rise further on a cyclical basis. Third, long-term investors need to keep a keen eye on the political sphere. A much more laissez-faire approach to regulation, a push toward self-regulation, and a much laxer enforcement of antitrust laws and merger rules were behind the rise in market power and concentration.13 The particularly sharp ascent of populism in Anglo-Saxon economies, where market power increased by the greatest extent, is not surprising. So far, populists have not blamed the corporate sector, but if the recent antitrust noise toward the Silicon Valley behemoths is any indication, the clock is ticking. On a structural basis, this could be very negative for asset prices. An end to this rise in market power would force profit margins to mean-revert toward their long-term trend, which is 4.7 percentage-points below current levels. This will require discounting much lower cash flows in the future. Additionally, by raising wages and capex, more competition would increase aggregate demand and lift real interest rates. Higher wages and aggregate demand could also structurally lift inflation. Thus, not only will investors need to discount lower cash flows, they will have to do so at higher discount rates. As a result, this cycle will likely witness both a generational peak in equity valuations as well as structural lows in bond yields. As we mentioned, these changes are political in nature. We will look forward to studying the political angle of this thesis to get a better handle on when these turning points will likely emerge. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Over the past two weeks, the ECB has made a dovish pivot, President Trump announced he would meet President Xi, and the Fed telegraphed a rate cut for July. In response, the S&P 500 made marginal new highs before softening anew. This lack of continuation after such an incredible alignment of stars shows that the bulls lack conviction. These dynamics increase the probability that the market sells off after the G-20 meeting, as we saw last December following the supposed truce in Buenos Aires. The short-term outlook remains dangerous. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) confirms this intuition. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if stong market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Cheaper valuations, a pick-up in global growth or an actual policy easing is required before stocks can resume their ascent. The cyclical outlook is brighter than the tactical one. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan continues to improve. However, it remains flat in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. In aggregate, the WTP currently suggests that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Hence, we expect global investors will continue to buy the dips. Our Monetary Indicator is moving deeper into stimulative territory, supporting our cyclically constructive equity view. The Fed and the ECB are set to cut rates while other global central banks have been opening the monetary spigots. This will support global monetary conditions. The BCA Composite Valuation Indicator, an amalgamation of 11 measures, is in overvalued territory, but it is not high enough to negate the positive message from our Monetary Indicator, especially as our Composite Technical Indicator remains above its 9-month moving average. These dynamics confirm that despite the near-term downside, equities have more cyclical upside. According to our model, 10-year Treasurys are now expensive. Moreover, our technical indicator is increasingly overbought while the CRB Raw Industrials is oversold, a combination that often heralds the end of bond rallies. Additionally, duration surveys show that investors have very elevated portfolio duration, and both the term premium and Fed expectations are very depressed. Considering this technical backdrop, BCA’s economic view implies minimal short-term downside for yields, but significant downside for Treasury prices over the upcoming year. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar remains very expensive. Additionally, after forming a negative divergence with prices, our Composite Technical Indicator is falling quickly. Being a momentum currency, the dollar could suffer significant downside if this indicator falls below zero. Monitor these developments closely. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Give Credit Where Credit Is Due," dated November 27, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Europe: Here I Am, Stuck In A Liquidity Trap," dated April 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4       Money demand is mostly driven by the level of activity and wealth. If the price of money – interest rates – is growing more slowly than money demand, the most likely cause is that money supply is increasing faster than money demand and policy is accommodative. 5       A monopsony is a firm that controls the price of its input because it is the dominant, if not unique, buyer of said input. 6       G. Grullon, Y. Larkin and R. Michaely, “Are Us Industries Becoming More Concentrated?,” April 2017. 7       The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is calculated by taking the market share of each firm in the industry, squaring them, and summing the result. Consider a hypothetical industry with four total firm where firm1, firm2, firm3 and firm4 has 40%, 30%, 15% and 15% of market share, respectively. Then HHI is 402+302+152+152 = 2,950. 8       J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 9     J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 10     M. Weinberg, “The Price Effects Of Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 433–447. 11     O. Ashenfelter, D. Hosken, M. Weinberg, "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages S67 - S100. 12    J. Kwoka, “Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: A Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Policy,” MIT Press, 2015. 13     J. De Loecker, J. Eeckhout, G. Unger, "The Rise Of Market Power And The Macroeconomic Implications," Mimeo 2018. 14     “Chapter 2: The Rise of Corporate Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Effects,” World Economic Outlook, April 2019. 15     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?"dated May 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16     Productivity can be written as: 17     J. Tepper, D. Hearn, “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Wiley, November 2018. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Special Report

Dear Client, Credit in China has expanded at an exponential pace, with the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio climbing from 143% to more than 250% over the last decade. The speed and scale of China’s debt surge dwarfs Japan and the U.S.’ respective credit binges in the 1980’s and 2000’s, each of which ultimately led to financial market meltdowns. Why should China’s experience be any different? Given that China has pursued a different economic model whereby the banking sector is largely state-sponsored and the currency is tightly managed by the central bank, the answer to this pressing question for global markets is the subject of spirited debate at BCA and within the investment community at large. Clients are already aware that my colleagues, Peter Berezin and Arthur Budaghyan, disagree on the macro and market ramifications of China’s decade-long credit boom. The aim of this report is to provide visibility on the root sources of the view divergence, not to reconcile the gaps. We hope these insights will help shape your own conviction about this important topic. Caroline Miller Global Strategy Feature   Caroline: Arthur, your cautious outlook towards emerging markets in general and China’s prospects in particular stems from your belief that China’s economy is dangerously addicted to credit as a growth driver. Please explain why you dismiss the more sanguine view that China’s elevated debt burden is a function of an equally unusually high household savings rate. Arthur: It is simple: When people use the word “savings,” they typically and intuitively refer to bank deposits or securities investments; but this is incorrect. Chart 1 (Arthur)No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = 'Savings' Money supply/deposits in the banking system have no relationship with the savings rate of a nation in general or households in particular (Chart 1). When households save, they do not change the amount of money supply and deposits. Hence, households’ decision to save neither alters liquidity in the banking system nor helps banks to originate loans. In fact, banks do not intermediate deposits into loans or savings into credit.1 The terms “savings” in economics does not denote an increase in the stock of money and deposits. The term “savings” in economics means the amount of goods and services produced but not consumed. When an economy produces a steel bar, it is registered as national “savings.” We cannot consume (say, eat or expense) a steel bar. Therefore, once a steel bar or any equipment is produced, economic statistics will count it as “savings.” Besides, the sole utilization of a steel bar is in capital goods and construction, and hence, it cannot be consumed. Once a steel bar is produced, both national savings and investment will rise. That is how the “savings” = “investment” identity is derived. Chart 2 (Arthur)Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones It would avoid confusion and help everyone if economists were to call it “excess production” not “excess savings.” Banks do not need “excess production” – i.e., national “savings” – to create loans. Critically, the enormous amount of bank deposits in China is not due to household “savings” but is originated by banks “out of thin air.” In fact, Chinese households are now more leveraged than U.S. ones (Chart 2). The surge of credit and money supply in China during the past 10 years has been due to animal spirits running wild among lenders and borrowers on the mainland, not its households’ “savings.” In short, the root of China’s credit bubble is not any different from Japan’s (in the 1980s), or the U.S.’ (in the 2000s) and so on. Peter: Yes, banks can create deposits “out of thin air,” as Arthur says. However, people must be willing to hold those deposits. The amount of deposits that households and businesses wish to hold reflects many things, including the interest rate paid on deposits and the overall wealth of the society. The interest rate is a function of savings. The more people save, the lower interest rates will be. And the lower interest rates are, the more demand for credit there will be (Chart 3). It’s like asking what determines how many apples are consumed. Is it how many apple trees farmers want to plant or how many apples people want to eat? The answer is both. Prices adjust so that supply equals demand. How about national wealth? To a large extent, wealth represents the accumulation of tangible capital – factories, plant and machinery, homes and office buildings: the sort of stuff that banks can use as collateral for lending. And what determines how much tangible capital a country possesses? The answer is past savings, of the exact sort Arthur is referring to: the excess of production over consumption. So this form of “economic” savings also plays an important indirect role in determining the level of bank deposits. Chart 4 (Peter)China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt I think the main problem with Arthur’s argument is that he is observing an accounting identity, which is that total bank assets (mostly loans) must equal liabilities (mostly deposits and capital) in equilibrium, without fully appreciating the economic forces – savings being one of them – that produce this equilibrium. In any case, the whole question of whether deposits create savings or savings create deposits misses the point. China’s fundamental problem is that it does not consume enough of what it produces. In the days when China had a massive current account surplus, it could export its excess savings abroad (Chart 4). It can’t do that anymore, so the government has consciously chosen to spur investment spending in order to prop up employment. Since a lot of investment spending is financed through credit, debt levels have risen. It really is just that simple.   Arthur: First, neither the stock nor the flow of credit and deposits has any relevance to (1) the economic term “savings;” (2) a country’s capital stock; or (3) national wealth, contrary to what Peter claims. China’s broad money supply (M2) now stands at 190 trillion yuan, equivalent to US$28 trillion (Chart 5, top panel). It is equal to the size of broad money supply in the U.S. and the euro area combined (US$14 trillion each). Yet, China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds the size of the U.S. Does the level of China’s wealth and capital stock justify it having broad money supply (US$28 trillion) equivalent to the U.S. and the euro area combined? Chart 5 (Arthur)“Helicopter” Money In China Second, are Chinese households and companies willing to hold all RMB deposits that banks have created “out of thin air”? The answer: not really. Without capital controls, a notable portion of these deposits would have rushed into the foreign exchange markets and caused currency depreciation. Another sign of growing reluctance to hold the yuan is that households have been swapping their RMB deposits for real assets (property) at astronomical valuations. There is a bubble in China but people are looking for reasons to justify why it is different this time. Caroline: OK, let’s get away from the term “savings,” and agree that China continues to generate a chronic surplus of production of goods and services relative to consumption, and that how China chooses to intermediate that surplus is the most market-relevant issue. Arthur, you have used the terms “money bubble” and “helicopter money” in relation to China. This implies that banks are unconstrained in their ability to make loans. Just because savings don’t equal deposits, and banks can create deposits when they make loans doesn’t mean there is no relationship between the flow of credit and the stock of deposits. Arthur: Money supply and deposits expand only when banks originate a loan or buy an asset from a non-bank. In short, both credit and money/deposits are created by commercial banks “out of thin air.” This is true for any country.2 Consider a loan transaction by a German commercial bank. When it grants a €100 loan to a borrower, two accounting entries occur on its balance sheet. On the assets side, the amount of loans, and therefore total assets, increases by €100. Simultaneously, on the liabilities side, this accounting entry creates €100 of new deposits “out of thin air” (Figure 1). Hence, new purchasing power of €100 has been created via a simple accounting entry, which otherwise would not exist. Critically, no one needed to save for this loan and money to be originated. The bank does not transfer someone else’s deposits to the borrower; it creates a new deposit when it lends. Banks also create deposits/money “out of thin air” when they buy securities from non-banks. In China, fiscal stimulus is largely financed by commercial banks – banks purchase more than 80% of government-issued bonds. This also leads to money creation. In short, when banks originate too much credit – as they have in China – they generate a money bubble. The money bubble is the mirror image of a credit bubble. Chinese banks have created 141 trillion yuan (US$21 trillion) of new money since 2009, compared with $8.25 trillion created in the U.S., euro area, and Japan combined over the same period (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is why I refer to it as “helicopter” money. Caroline: If banks need capital and liquidity to make loans, and deposits are one potential source of funds, don't these capital and liquidity constraints drive banks’ willingness and ability to lend, creating a link between the two variables? Arthur: Let me explain how mainland banks were able to circumvent those regulatory lending constraints. In 2009, they expanded their credit assets by about 30%. Even though a non-trivial portion of those loans were not paid back, banks did not recognize NPLs and instead booked large profits. By retaining a portion of those earnings, they boosted their equity, say, by 20%. As a result, the next year they were able to expand their credit assets by another 20% and so on. If banks lend and do not recognize bad loans, they can increase their equity and continue lending. With respect to liquidity, deposits are not liquidity for banks; excess reserves at the central bank are true liquidity for them. The reason why banks need to attract deposits is not to appropriate the deposits themselves, but to gain access to the excess reserves that come with them. When a person shifts her deposit from Bank A to Bank B, the former transfers a similar amount of excess reserves (liquidity) to the latter. When expanding their credit assets aggressively, banks can: (1) create more loans per one unit of excess reserves/liquidity, i.e., expand the money multiplier; and (2) borrow excess reserves/liquidity from the central bank or other banks. Chinese banks have used both channels to expand their balance sheets over the past 10 years (Chart 6). Chart 6 (Arthur)Broad Money Can Expand Without Growing Banks' Excess Reserves At The Central Bank Crucially, commercial banks create deposits, but they cannot create excess reserves (liquidity).3 The latter are issued only by central banks “out of thin air.” So, neither deposits nor excess reserves have any relevance to household or national “savings.” Caroline: Peter, Arthur argues that Chinese credit policy has been unconstrained by the traditional metrics of capital adequacy that prevail in capitalist, free-market economies. In other words, there is no connection between the availability of funds to lend via deposits in the banking system, and the pace of credit creation. Rather, the central bank has controlled the terms and volume of lending via regulation and fiat reserve provisioning. You’ve argued that credit creation has served the greater good of propping up employment via investment spending. Moreover, you posit that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. Our colleague, Martin Barnes, has analyzed national savings rates (as a proxy for over-production) relative to debt-GDP ratios in other countries. The relationship doesn’t look that strong elsewhere (Chart 7). Please elaborate on why you see credit growth as an inevitable policy response to the dearth of aggregate demand we observe in China? Peter: I would not say that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. For example, if most business investment is financed through retained earnings, you can have a lot of investment with little new debt. Debt can also result from activities not directly linked to the intermediation of savings. For instance, if you take out a mortgage to buy some land, your consumption and savings need not change, even though debt will be created. I think Arthur and I agree on this point. Thus, I am not saying that debt is always and everywhere the result of savings. I am simply pushing back against Arthur’s extremist position that debt never has anything to do with savings. Caroline: So what determines the level of debt in an economy in your view, Peter? Peter: In general, debt levels will rise if there are large imbalances between income and spending within society and/or if there are significant differences in the mix of assets people wish to hold. Think about the U.S. in the pre-financial crisis period. First, there was a surge in income inequality beginning in the early 1980s. For all intents and purposes, rich households with excess savings ended up lending their surplus income to poor households struggling to pay their bills. Overall savings did not rise, but debt levels still increased. That’s one reason why Martin’s chart doesn’t show a strong correlation between the aggregate savings rate and debt-to-GDP. Sometimes you need to look beneath the aggregate numbers to see the savings intermediation taking place. Unlike in the U.S., even poor Chinese households are net savers (Chart 8). Thus, the aggregate savings rate in China is very high4 (Chart 9). Much of these savings are funnelled to finance investment in the corporate and public sectors. This fuels debt growth. Chart 9 (Peter)Chinese Households Have More Savings Than The U.S., Europe And Japan Combined The second thing that happened in the U.S. starting in 2000 was a massive housing boom. If you bought a second home with credit, you ended up with one more asset (the house) but one more liability (the mortgage). The person who sold you the home ended up losing one asset (the house) but gaining another asset (a bigger bank deposit). The net result was both higher debt and higher bank deposits. Lending to finance asset purchases has also been a big source of debt growth in China, as it was in the U.S. before the crisis. The U.S. mortgage boom ended in tears, and so the question that we should be asking is whether the Chinese debt boom will end the same way. Arthur: We agreed not to use the term “savings,” yet Peter again refers to “savings” being funnelled into credit. As I explained above, banks do not funnel “savings” (i.e., “excess production”) into credit. China, Japan, and Germany have high “savings” rates because they produce a lot of steel, chemicals, autos, and machinery that literally cannot be consumed and, thus, are recorded as “savings.” The U.S. produces too many services that are consumed/expensed and, hence, not recorded as “savings.” That is why the U.S. has a lower “savings” rate. Chart 10 (Arthur)The Myth Of Deficient Demand In China Economic textbook discussions on “savings” and “investment” are relevant for a barter economy where banks do not exist. When this framework is applied to modern economies with banks, it generates a lot of confusion.5 Caroline: OK, so Peter argues that an imbalance between spending and income CAN be a marker for high debt levels. Arthur, please explain why you see no relationship between China’s chronic shortfall in demand and authorities’ explicit decision to support growth via credit creation. Arthur: First, China does not have deficient demand – consumer spending and capital expenditures have been growing at 10% and 9.4%, respectively, in real terms annually compounded for the past 10 years (Chart 10). The mainland economy has been suffering from excess production, not a lack of demand. China has invested a lot (Chart 11) and ended up with too much capacity to produce steel, cement, chemicals and other materials as well as machinery and industrial goods. So, China has an excess production of goods relative to firms’ and households’ underlying demand. In a market economy, these producers would become non-profitable, halt their investments, and shut down some capacity. Chart 11 (Arthur)China Has Been Over-Investing On An Unprecedented Scale In China, to keep the producers of these unwanted goods operating, the government has allowed and encouraged banks to originate loans creating new purchasing power literally “out of thin air” to purchase these goods. This has created a credit/money bubble. In a socialist system, banks do not ask debtors to repay loans and government officials are heavily involved in resource and capital allocation. China’s credit system and a growing chunk of its economy have been operating like a typical socialist system. Socialism leads to lower productivity growth for well-known reasons. With labor force growth set to turn negative, productivity is going to be the sole source of China’s potential growth rate. If the nation continues expanding this money/credit bubble to prop up zombie enterprises, its potential growth rate will fall considerably. As the potential growth rate drops, recurring stimulus will create nominal but not real growth. In short, the outcome will be stagflation. Caroline: The theoretical macro frameworks that you have both outlined make for interesting thought experiments, and spirited intellectual debate. However, investors are most concerned about the sustainability of China’s explosive credit growth, implications for the country’s growth rate, and the return on invested capital. Arthur, given your perspective on how Chinese credit policy has been designed and implemented, please outline the contours of how and when you see the music stopping, and the debt mountain crumbling. Arthur: Not every credit bubble will burst like the U.S. one did in 2008. For example, in the case of the Japanese credit bubble, there was no acute crisis. The bubble deflated gradually for about 20 years. In the cases of the U.S. (2008), Japan (1990), the euro area (2008-2014), Spain (2008-2014) and every other credit bubble, a common adjustment was a contraction in bank loans in nominal terms (Chart 12). Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (I) Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (II) Why do banks stop lending? The reason is that banks’ shareholders absorb the largest losses from credit booms. Given that banks are levered at least 20-to-1 at the peak of a typical credit boom, every $1 of non-performing loans leads to a $20 drop in their equity value. Bank shareholders halt the flow of credit to protect their wealth. Chart 13 (Arthur)China: Deleveraging Has Not Yet Begun In fact, credit in China is still growing at a double-digit rate, above nominal GDP growth (Chart 13). Hence, aggregate deleveraging in China has not yet begun. If banks do not curtail credit origination, the music will not stop. However, uninterrupted credit growth happens only in a socialist system where banks subsidize the economy at the expense of their shareholders. But even then, there is no free lunch. Credit origination by banks also expands the money supply as discussed above. An expanding money bubble will heighten devaluation pressure on the yuan in the long run. The enormous amount of money supply/deposits – the money bubble – in China is like “the sword of Damocles” hanging over the nation’s currency. Chinese households and businesses are becoming reluctant to hold this ballooning supply of local currency. Continuous “helicopter” money will only increase their desire to diversify their RMB deposits into foreign currencies and assets. Yet, there is an insufficient supply of foreign currency to accommodate this conversion. The nation’s current account surplus has almost vanished while the central bank carries US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve representing only 11% of the yuan deposits and cash in circulation (Chart 14). It is inconceivable that China can open its capital account in the foreseeable future. “Helicopter” money also discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, which reduces productivity growth. A combination of slowing productivity growth, and thus potential GDP, and strong money growth ultimately lead to stagflation – the dynamics endemic to socialist systems. Peter: Arthur’s answer implicitly assumes that private investment would increase if the government removed credit/fiscal stimulus. But where is the evidence for that? We had just established that the Chinese economy suffers from a lack of aggregate demand. Public-sector spending, to the extent that it increases employment and incomes, crowds in private-sector investment rather than crowding it out. Ask yourself what would have happened if China didn’t build that “bridge to nowhere.” Would those displaced construction workers have found more productive work elsewhere or would they have remained idle? The answer is almost certainly the latter. After all, the reason the Chinese government built the bridge in the first place was to increase employment in an economy that habitually struggles to consume enough of what is produces. Arthur talks about the “misallocation” of resources. But doesn’t an unemployed worker also represent a misallocation of resources? In my view, it certainly does – and one that is much more threatening to social stability than an underutilized bridge or road. If you understand the point above, you will also understand why Arthur’s comparison between Chinese banks and say, U.S. banks is misplaced. The Chinese government is the main shareholder in Chinese banks. The government cares more about social stability than anything else. There is no way it would let credit growth plunge. Moreover, as the main shareholder, the government has a strong incentive to raise the share price of Chinese banks. After all, it is difficult to have a reserve currency that rivals the U.S. dollar, as China aspires to have, if your largest banks trade like penny stocks. My guess is that the Chinese government will shut down a few small banks to “show” that it is concerned about moral hazard, but then turn around and allow the larger banks to sell their troubled loans to state-owned asset management companies on very favourable terms (similar to what happened in the early 2000s). Once investors get wind that this is about to happen, Chinese bank shares will rally like crazy. Caroline: Isn’t shuffling debt from one sector of the economy to another akin to a shell game? Wouldn’t rampant debt growth eventually cause investors to lose confidence in the currency? Peter: China has a problem with the composition of its debt, not with its total value. Debt is a problem when the borrower can’t or won’t repay the loan. Chart 15 (Peter)China Is On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers I completely agree that there is too much shadow bank lending in China. There is also too much borrowing by state-owned enterprises. Ideally, the Chinese government would move all this quasi-public spending onto its own balance sheet. It would significantly raise social spending to discourage precautionary household savings. It would also adopt generous pro-natal policies — free childcare, education, government paid parental leave, and the like. The fact that the Chinese working-age population is set to shrink by 400 million by the end of the century is a huge problem (Chart 15). If the central government borrowed and spent more, state-owned companies and local governments would not have to borrow or spend as much. Banks could then increase their holding of high-quality central government bonds. Debt sustainability is only a problem if the interest rate the government faces exceeds the growth rate of the economy.6 That is manifestly not the case in China (Chart 16). And why are interest rates so low in relation to growth? Because Chinese households save so much! We simply can’t ignore the role of savings in the discussion. Chart 16 (Peter)China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy As far as the currency is concerned, if debt growth rose so much that the economy overheated and inflation soared, then yes, the yuan would plunge. But that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about bringing debt growth to a level that generates just enough demand to achieve something resembling full employment. No one is calling for raising debt growth beyond that point. Curbing debt growth in a demand-deficient economy, as Arthur seems to be recommending, would cause unemployment to rise. Investors would then bet that the Chinese government would try to boost net exports by engineering a currency devaluation. Capital outflows would intensify. Far from creating the conditions for a weaker yuan, fiscal/credit stimulus obviates the need for a currency depreciation. Caroline: Peter, even if we accept your argument that the counterfactual of curbing credit growth in a demand-deficient economy would be a more deflationary outcome than sustaining the government-sponsored credit growth engine, how is building bridges to nowhere a positive sum for investors? Even if this strategy maintains social stability in the interests of the CCP’s regime preservation, won’t investors eventually recoil at the retreat to socialism that Arthur outlines, reducing the appeal of holding the yuan, even if, as you both seem to agree, no apocalyptic debt crisis is at hand? In other words, isn’t two times nothing still nothing? Peter: First of all, many of these infrastructure projects may turn out to be quite useful down the road, pardon the pun. Per capita vehicle ownership in China is only one one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 17). A sparsely used expressway today may be a clogged one tomorrow. Chart 17 (Peter)The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Would China really be better off if it had fewer infrastructure projects and more big screen TVs? An economy where people are always buying stuff they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like, is hardly a recipe for success. I am not sure what these references to socialism are supposed to accomplish. You want to see a real retreat to socialism? Try creating millions of unemployed workers with no jobs and no hope. All sorts of pundits decried Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as creeping socialism. The truth is that the New Deal took the wind out of the sails of the fledgling U.S. communist movement at the time. Arthur: I believe that Peter is confusing the structural and cyclical needs for stimulus. When an economy is in a recession – banks are shrinking their balance sheets and property prices are deflating – the authorities must undertake fiscal and credit stimulus. Chart 18 (Arthur)What Will Productivity Growth Look Like If Public Officials Allocate 55%-60% Of GDP? Credit and fiscal stimulus made sense in China in early 2009 when growth plunged. However, over the past 10 years, we have witnessed credit and property market booms of gigantic proportions. Does this economy warrant continuous stimulus? What will productivity growth look like if government bureaucrats continuously allocate 55-60% of GDP each year (Chart 18)? Caroline: Arthur and Peter, you can both argue with one another about the semantic economic definition of the term ‘savings’, the implications of chronic excess production (relative to consumption), and the root drivers of credit growth in China long past the expiry of every BCA client’s investment horizon. Clients benefit from understanding your distinct perspectives only to the extent that they inform your outlook for markets. Will each of you now please outline how you see high levels of credit in China’s economy impacting the following over a cyclical (6-12 month) and structural (3-5 year) horizon: Global growth Commodity prices China-geared financial assets Peter: Regardless of what one thinks about the root causes of China’s high debt levels, it seems certain to me that the Chinese are going to pick up the pace of credit/fiscal stimulus over the next six months in response to slowing growth and trade war uncertainties. If anything, the incentive to open the credit spigots this time around is greater than in the past because the Chinese government wants to have a fast-growing economy to gain leverage over trade negotiations with the U.S. Chart 19 (Peter)Stronger Chinese Credit Growth Bodes Well For Commodity Prices Chart 20 (Peter)The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Stronger Chinese growth will boost growth in the rest of the world. Commodity prices will rise (Chart 19). As a counter-cyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will likely peak over the next month or so and then weaken in the back half of 2019 and into 2020 (Chart 20). The combination of stronger Chinese growth, higher commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will be manna from heaven for emerging markets. If a trade truce between China and the U.S. is reached, investors should move quickly to overweight EM equities. European stocks should also benefit. Looking further out, China’s economy will slow in absolute terms. In relative terms, however, Chinese growth will remain near the top of the global rankings. China has one of the most educated workforces in the world (Chart 21). Assuming that output-per-hour reaches South Korean levels by the middle of the century, Chinese real GDP would need to expand by about 6% per year over the next decade (Chart 22). That’s a lot of growth – growth that will eventually help China outgrow its debt burden. Chart 22 (Peter)China Has More Catching Up To Do Keep in mind that credit growth of 1% when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 300% yields 3% of GDP in credit stimulus, compared with only 1% of stimulus when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. That does not mean that more debt is intrinsically a good thing, but it does mean that China will eventually be able to slow debt growth even if excess savings remains a problem. Structurally, Chinese and EM equities will likely outperform their developed market peers over a 3-to-5 year horizon. The P/E ratio for EM stocks is currently 4.7 percentage points below that of developed markets, which is below its long-term average (Chart 23). While EM EPS growth has lagged DM earnings growth over the past eight years, the long-term trend still favors EM (Chart 24). EM currencies will appreciate over this period, with the RMB leading the way. Chart 23 (Peter)EM Stocks: Valuations Are Attractive Chart 24 (Peter)Earnings Growth In EM Has Outpaced That Of DM Over The Long Haul Arthur: China is facing a historic choice between two scenarios. Medium- and long-term macro outcomes will impact markets differently in each case. Table 1 shows my cyclical and structural investment recommendations for each scenario. Table 1 (Arthur)Arthur’s Recommended Investment Strategy For China-Geared Financial Assets Allowing Markets to Play A Bigger Role = Lower credit growth (deleveraging), corporate restructuring, and weaker growth (Chart 25). This is bearish for growth and financial markets in the medium term but it will make Chinese stocks and the currency structural (long-term) buys. Credit/Money Boom Persists (Socialist Put) = Secular Stagnation, Inflation and Currency Depreciation: The structural outlook is downbeat but there are mini-cycles that investors could play (Chart 26). Cyclically, China-geared financial assets still remain at risk. However, lower asset prices and more stimulus in China could put a floor under asset prices later this year. Timing these mini-cycles is critical. A buy-and-hold strategy for Chinese assets will not be appropriate in this scenario. In short, capitalism is bad but socialism is worse. I hope China will pursue the first path. Caroline: Thank you both for clarifying your perspectives. Over a multi-year horizon, markets will render the ultimate judgement on whether China’s credit boom has represented a reckless misallocation of capital, or a rational policy response to an imbalance between domestic spending and income. In the meantime, we will monitor the complexion of Chinese stimulus and evidence of its global growth multiplier effect over the coming weeks and months. These will be the key variables to watch as we determine when and at what level to upgrade BCA’s cyclical outlook for China-geared assets. Can’t wait for that debate. Footnotes 1 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 2 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 3 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB,” dated November 23, 2016. 4 For a discussion on the reasons behind China’s high savings rate, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 5 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil,” dated March 22, 2018. 6 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019 and “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019.

Special Report

Dear Client, Credit in China has expanded at an exponential pace, with the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio climbing from 143% to more than 250% over the last decade. The speed and scale of China’s debt surge dwarfs Japan and the U.S.’ respective credit binges in the 1980’s and 2000’s, each of which ultimately led to financial market meltdowns. Why should China’s experience be any different? Given that China has pursued a different economic model whereby the banking sector is largely state-sponsored and the currency is tightly managed by the central bank, the answer to this pressing question for global markets is the subject of spirited debate at BCA and within the investment community at large. Clients are already aware that my colleagues, Peter Berezin and Arthur Budaghyan, disagree on the macro and market ramifications of China’s decade-long credit boom. The aim of this report is to provide visibility on the root sources of the view divergence, not to reconcile the gaps. We hope these insights will help shape your own conviction about this important topic. Caroline Miller Global Strategy Feature   Caroline: Arthur, your cautious outlook towards emerging markets in general and China’s prospects in particular stems from your belief that China’s economy is dangerously addicted to credit as a growth driver. Please explain why you dismiss the more sanguine view that China’s elevated debt burden is a function of an equally unusually high household savings rate. Arthur: It is simple: When people use the word “savings,” they typically and intuitively refer to bank deposits or securities investments; but this is incorrect. Chart 1 (Arthur)No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = 'Savings' Money supply/deposits in the banking system have no relationship with the savings rate of a nation in general or households in particular (Chart 1). When households save, they do not change the amount of money supply and deposits. Hence, households’ decision to save neither alters liquidity in the banking system nor helps banks to originate loans. In fact, banks do not intermediate deposits into loans or savings into credit.1 The terms “savings” in economics does not denote an increase in the stock of money and deposits. The term “savings” in economics means the amount of goods and services produced but not consumed. When an economy produces a steel bar, it is registered as national “savings.” We cannot consume (say, eat or expense) a steel bar. Therefore, once a steel bar or any equipment is produced, economic statistics will count it as “savings.” Besides, the sole utilization of a steel bar is in capital goods and construction, and hence, it cannot be consumed. Once a steel bar is produced, both national savings and investment will rise. That is how the “savings” = “investment” identity is derived. Chart 2 (Arthur)Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones It would avoid confusion and help everyone if economists were to call it “excess production” not “excess savings.” Banks do not need “excess production” – i.e., national “savings” – to create loans. Critically, the enormous amount of bank deposits in China is not due to household “savings” but is originated by banks “out of thin air.” In fact, Chinese households are now more leveraged than U.S. ones (Chart 2). The surge of credit and money supply in China during the past 10 years has been due to animal spirits running wild among lenders and borrowers on the mainland, not its households’ “savings.” In short, the root of China’s credit bubble is not any different from Japan’s (in the 1980s), or the U.S.’ (in the 2000s) and so on. Peter: Yes, banks can create deposits “out of thin air,” as Arthur says. However, people must be willing to hold those deposits. The amount of deposits that households and businesses wish to hold reflects many things, including the interest rate paid on deposits and the overall wealth of the society. The interest rate is a function of savings. The more people save, the lower interest rates will be. And the lower interest rates are, the more demand for credit there will be (Chart 3). It’s like asking what determines how many apples are consumed. Is it how many apple trees farmers want to plant or how many apples people want to eat? The answer is both. Prices adjust so that supply equals demand. How about national wealth? To a large extent, wealth represents the accumulation of tangible capital – factories, plant and machinery, homes and office buildings: the sort of stuff that banks can use as collateral for lending. And what determines how much tangible capital a country possesses? The answer is past savings, of the exact sort Arthur is referring to: the excess of production over consumption. So this form of “economic” savings also plays an important indirect role in determining the level of bank deposits. Chart 4 (Peter)China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt I think the main problem with Arthur’s argument is that he is observing an accounting identity, which is that total bank assets (mostly loans) must equal liabilities (mostly deposits and capital) in equilibrium, without fully appreciating the economic forces – savings being one of them – that produce this equilibrium. In any case, the whole question of whether deposits create savings or savings create deposits misses the point. China’s fundamental problem is that it does not consume enough of what it produces. In the days when China had a massive current account surplus, it could export its excess savings abroad (Chart 4). It can’t do that anymore, so the government has consciously chosen to spur investment spending in order to prop up employment. Since a lot of investment spending is financed through credit, debt levels have risen. It really is just that simple.   Arthur: First, neither the stock nor the flow of credit and deposits has any relevance to (1) the economic term “savings;” (2) a country’s capital stock; or (3) national wealth, contrary to what Peter claims. China’s broad money supply (M2) now stands at 190 trillion yuan, equivalent to US$28 trillion (Chart 5, top panel). It is equal to the size of broad money supply in the U.S. and the euro area combined (US$14 trillion each). Yet, China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds the size of the U.S. Does the level of China’s wealth and capital stock justify it having broad money supply (US$28 trillion) equivalent to the U.S. and the euro area combined? Chart 5 (Arthur)“Helicopter” Money In China Second, are Chinese households and companies willing to hold all RMB deposits that banks have created “out of thin air”? The answer: not really. Without capital controls, a notable portion of these deposits would have rushed into the foreign exchange markets and caused currency depreciation. Another sign of growing reluctance to hold the yuan is that households have been swapping their RMB deposits for real assets (property) at astronomical valuations. There is a bubble in China but people are looking for reasons to justify why it is different this time. Caroline: OK, let’s get away from the term “savings,” and agree that China continues to generate a chronic surplus of production of goods and services relative to consumption, and that how China chooses to intermediate that surplus is the most market-relevant issue. Arthur, you have used the terms “money bubble” and “helicopter money” in relation to China. This implies that banks are unconstrained in their ability to make loans. Just because savings don’t equal deposits, and banks can create deposits when they make loans doesn’t mean there is no relationship between the flow of credit and the stock of deposits. Arthur: Money supply and deposits expand only when banks originate a loan or buy an asset from a non-bank. In short, both credit and money/deposits are created by commercial banks “out of thin air.” This is true for any country.2 Consider a loan transaction by a German commercial bank. When it grants a €100 loan to a borrower, two accounting entries occur on its balance sheet. On the assets side, the amount of loans, and therefore total assets, increases by €100. Simultaneously, on the liabilities side, this accounting entry creates €100 of new deposits “out of thin air” (Figure 1). Hence, new purchasing power of €100 has been created via a simple accounting entry, which otherwise would not exist. Critically, no one needed to save for this loan and money to be originated. The bank does not transfer someone else’s deposits to the borrower; it creates a new deposit when it lends. Banks also create deposits/money “out of thin air” when they buy securities from non-banks. In China, fiscal stimulus is largely financed by commercial banks – banks purchase more than 80% of government-issued bonds. This also leads to money creation. In short, when banks originate too much credit – as they have in China – they generate a money bubble. The money bubble is the mirror image of a credit bubble. Chinese banks have created 141 trillion yuan (US$21 trillion) of new money since 2009, compared with $8.25 trillion created in the U.S., euro area, and Japan combined over the same period (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is why I refer to it as “helicopter” money. Caroline: If banks need capital and liquidity to make loans, and deposits are one potential source of funds, don't these capital and liquidity constraints drive banks’ willingness and ability to lend, creating a link between the two variables? Arthur: Let me explain how mainland banks were able to circumvent those regulatory lending constraints. In 2009, they expanded their credit assets by about 30%. Even though a non-trivial portion of those loans were not paid back, banks did not recognize NPLs and instead booked large profits. By retaining a portion of those earnings, they boosted their equity, say, by 20%. As a result, the next year they were able to expand their credit assets by another 20% and so on. If banks lend and do not recognize bad loans, they can increase their equity and continue lending. With respect to liquidity, deposits are not liquidity for banks; excess reserves at the central bank are true liquidity for them. The reason why banks need to attract deposits is not to appropriate the deposits themselves, but to gain access to the excess reserves that come with them. When a person shifts her deposit from Bank A to Bank B, the former transfers a similar amount of excess reserves (liquidity) to the latter. When expanding their credit assets aggressively, banks can: (1) create more loans per one unit of excess reserves/liquidity, i.e., expand the money multiplier; and (2) borrow excess reserves/liquidity from the central bank or other banks. Chinese banks have used both channels to expand their balance sheets over the past 10 years (Chart 6). Chart 6 (Arthur)Broad Money Can Expand Without Growing Banks' Excess Reserves At The Central Bank Crucially, commercial banks create deposits, but they cannot create excess reserves (liquidity).3 The latter are issued only by central banks “out of thin air.” So, neither deposits nor excess reserves have any relevance to household or national “savings.” Caroline: Peter, Arthur argues that Chinese credit policy has been unconstrained by the traditional metrics of capital adequacy that prevail in capitalist, free-market economies. In other words, there is no connection between the availability of funds to lend via deposits in the banking system, and the pace of credit creation. Rather, the central bank has controlled the terms and volume of lending via regulation and fiat reserve provisioning. You’ve argued that credit creation has served the greater good of propping up employment via investment spending. Moreover, you posit that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. Our colleague, Martin Barnes, has analyzed national savings rates (as a proxy for over-production) relative to debt-GDP ratios in other countries. The relationship doesn’t look that strong elsewhere (Chart 7). Please elaborate on why you see credit growth as an inevitable policy response to the dearth of aggregate demand we observe in China? Peter: I would not say that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. For example, if most business investment is financed through retained earnings, you can have a lot of investment with little new debt. Debt can also result from activities not directly linked to the intermediation of savings. For instance, if you take out a mortgage to buy some land, your consumption and savings need not change, even though debt will be created. I think Arthur and I agree on this point. Thus, I am not saying that debt is always and everywhere the result of savings. I am simply pushing back against Arthur’s extremist position that debt never has anything to do with savings. Caroline: So what determines the level of debt in an economy in your view, Peter? Peter: In general, debt levels will rise if there are large imbalances between income and spending within society and/or if there are significant differences in the mix of assets people wish to hold. Think about the U.S. in the pre-financial crisis period. First, there was a surge in income inequality beginning in the early 1980s. For all intents and purposes, rich households with excess savings ended up lending their surplus income to poor households struggling to pay their bills. Overall savings did not rise, but debt levels still increased. That’s one reason why Martin’s chart doesn’t show a strong correlation between the aggregate savings rate and debt-to-GDP. Sometimes you need to look beneath the aggregate numbers to see the savings intermediation taking place. Unlike in the U.S., even poor Chinese households are net savers (Chart 8). Thus, the aggregate savings rate in China is very high4 (Chart 9). Much of these savings are funnelled to finance investment in the corporate and public sectors. This fuels debt growth. Chart 9 (Peter)Chinese Households Have More Savings Than The U.S., Europe And Japan Combined The second thing that happened in the U.S. starting in 2000 was a massive housing boom. If you bought a second home with credit, you ended up with one more asset (the house) but one more liability (the mortgage). The person who sold you the home ended up losing one asset (the house) but gaining another asset (a bigger bank deposit). The net result was both higher debt and higher bank deposits. Lending to finance asset purchases has also been a big source of debt growth in China, as it was in the U.S. before the crisis. The U.S. mortgage boom ended in tears, and so the question that we should be asking is whether the Chinese debt boom will end the same way. Arthur: We agreed not to use the term “savings,” yet Peter again refers to “savings” being funnelled into credit. As I explained above, banks do not funnel “savings” (i.e., “excess production”) into credit. China, Japan, and Germany have high “savings” rates because they produce a lot of steel, chemicals, autos, and machinery that literally cannot be consumed and, thus, are recorded as “savings.” The U.S. produces too many services that are consumed/expensed and, hence, not recorded as “savings.” That is why the U.S. has a lower “savings” rate. Chart 10 (Arthur)The Myth Of Deficient Demand In China Economic textbook discussions on “savings” and “investment” are relevant for a barter economy where banks do not exist. When this framework is applied to modern economies with banks, it generates a lot of confusion.5 Caroline: OK, so Peter argues that an imbalance between spending and income CAN be a marker for high debt levels. Arthur, please explain why you see no relationship between China’s chronic shortfall in demand and authorities’ explicit decision to support growth via credit creation. Arthur: First, China does not have deficient demand – consumer spending and capital expenditures have been growing at 10% and 9.4%, respectively, in real terms annually compounded for the past 10 years (Chart 10). The mainland economy has been suffering from excess production, not a lack of demand. China has invested a lot (Chart 11) and ended up with too much capacity to produce steel, cement, chemicals and other materials as well as machinery and industrial goods. So, China has an excess production of goods relative to firms’ and households’ underlying demand. In a market economy, these producers would become non-profitable, halt their investments, and shut down some capacity. Chart 11 (Arthur)China Has Been Over-Investing On An Unprecedented Scale In China, to keep the producers of these unwanted goods operating, the government has allowed and encouraged banks to originate loans creating new purchasing power literally “out of thin air” to purchase these goods. This has created a credit/money bubble. In a socialist system, banks do not ask debtors to repay loans and government officials are heavily involved in resource and capital allocation. China’s credit system and a growing chunk of its economy have been operating like a typical socialist system. Socialism leads to lower productivity growth for well-known reasons. With labor force growth set to turn negative, productivity is going to be the sole source of China’s potential growth rate. If the nation continues expanding this money/credit bubble to prop up zombie enterprises, its potential growth rate will fall considerably. As the potential growth rate drops, recurring stimulus will create nominal but not real growth. In short, the outcome will be stagflation. Caroline: The theoretical macro frameworks that you have both outlined make for interesting thought experiments, and spirited intellectual debate. However, investors are most concerned about the sustainability of China’s explosive credit growth, implications for the country’s growth rate, and the return on invested capital. Arthur, given your perspective on how Chinese credit policy has been designed and implemented, please outline the contours of how and when you see the music stopping, and the debt mountain crumbling. Arthur: Not every credit bubble will burst like the U.S. one did in 2008. For example, in the case of the Japanese credit bubble, there was no acute crisis. The bubble deflated gradually for about 20 years. In the cases of the U.S. (2008), Japan (1990), the euro area (2008-2014), Spain (2008-2014) and every other credit bubble, a common adjustment was a contraction in bank loans in nominal terms (Chart 12). Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (I) Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (II) Why do banks stop lending? The reason is that banks’ shareholders absorb the largest losses from credit booms. Given that banks are levered at least 20-to-1 at the peak of a typical credit boom, every $1 of non-performing loans leads to a $20 drop in their equity value. Bank shareholders halt the flow of credit to protect their wealth. Chart 13 (Arthur)China: Deleveraging Has Not Yet Begun In fact, credit in China is still growing at a double-digit rate, above nominal GDP growth (Chart 13). Hence, aggregate deleveraging in China has not yet begun. If banks do not curtail credit origination, the music will not stop. However, uninterrupted credit growth happens only in a socialist system where banks subsidize the economy at the expense of their shareholders. But even then, there is no free lunch. Credit origination by banks also expands the money supply as discussed above. An expanding money bubble will heighten devaluation pressure on the yuan in the long run. The enormous amount of money supply/deposits – the money bubble – in China is like “the sword of Damocles” hanging over the nation’s currency. Chinese households and businesses are becoming reluctant to hold this ballooning supply of local currency. Continuous “helicopter” money will only increase their desire to diversify their RMB deposits into foreign currencies and assets. Yet, there is an insufficient supply of foreign currency to accommodate this conversion. The nation’s current account surplus has almost vanished while the central bank carries US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve representing only 11% of the yuan deposits and cash in circulation (Chart 14). It is inconceivable that China can open its capital account in the foreseeable future. “Helicopter” money also discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, which reduces productivity growth. A combination of slowing productivity growth, and thus potential GDP, and strong money growth ultimately lead to stagflation – the dynamics endemic to socialist systems. Peter: Arthur’s answer implicitly assumes that private investment would increase if the government removed credit/fiscal stimulus. But where is the evidence for that? We had just established that the Chinese economy suffers from a lack of aggregate demand. Public-sector spending, to the extent that it increases employment and incomes, crowds in private-sector investment rather than crowding it out. Ask yourself what would have happened if China didn’t build that “bridge to nowhere.” Would those displaced construction workers have found more productive work elsewhere or would they have remained idle? The answer is almost certainly the latter. After all, the reason the Chinese government built the bridge in the first place was to increase employment in an economy that habitually struggles to consume enough of what is produces. Arthur talks about the “misallocation” of resources. But doesn’t an unemployed worker also represent a misallocation of resources? In my view, it certainly does – and one that is much more threatening to social stability than an underutilized bridge or road. If you understand the point above, you will also understand why Arthur’s comparison between Chinese banks and say, U.S. banks is misplaced. The Chinese government is the main shareholder in Chinese banks. The government cares more about social stability than anything else. There is no way it would let credit growth plunge. Moreover, as the main shareholder, the government has a strong incentive to raise the share price of Chinese banks. After all, it is difficult to have a reserve currency that rivals the U.S. dollar, as China aspires to have, if your largest banks trade like penny stocks. My guess is that the Chinese government will shut down a few small banks to “show” that it is concerned about moral hazard, but then turn around and allow the larger banks to sell their troubled loans to state-owned asset management companies on very favourable terms (similar to what happened in the early 2000s). Once investors get wind that this is about to happen, Chinese bank shares will rally like crazy. Caroline: Isn’t shuffling debt from one sector of the economy to another akin to a shell game? Wouldn’t rampant debt growth eventually cause investors to lose confidence in the currency? Peter: China has a problem with the composition of its debt, not with its total value. Debt is a problem when the borrower can’t or won’t repay the loan. Chart 15 (Peter)China Is On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers I completely agree that there is too much shadow bank lending in China. There is also too much borrowing by state-owned enterprises. Ideally, the Chinese government would move all this quasi-public spending onto its own balance sheet. It would significantly raise social spending to discourage precautionary household savings. It would also adopt generous pro-natal policies — free childcare, education, government paid parental leave, and the like. The fact that the Chinese working-age population is set to shrink by 400 million by the end of the century is a huge problem (Chart 15). If the central government borrowed and spent more, state-owned companies and local governments would not have to borrow or spend as much. Banks could then increase their holding of high-quality central government bonds. Debt sustainability is only a problem if the interest rate the government faces exceeds the growth rate of the economy.6 That is manifestly not the case in China (Chart 16). And why are interest rates so low in relation to growth? Because Chinese households save so much! We simply can’t ignore the role of savings in the discussion. Chart 16 (Peter)China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy As far as the currency is concerned, if debt growth rose so much that the economy overheated and inflation soared, then yes, the yuan would plunge. But that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about bringing debt growth to a level that generates just enough demand to achieve something resembling full employment. No one is calling for raising debt growth beyond that point. Curbing debt growth in a demand-deficient economy, as Arthur seems to be recommending, would cause unemployment to rise. Investors would then bet that the Chinese government would try to boost net exports by engineering a currency devaluation. Capital outflows would intensify. Far from creating the conditions for a weaker yuan, fiscal/credit stimulus obviates the need for a currency depreciation. Caroline: Peter, even if we accept your argument that the counterfactual of curbing credit growth in a demand-deficient economy would be a more deflationary outcome than sustaining the government-sponsored credit growth engine, how is building bridges to nowhere a positive sum for investors? Even if this strategy maintains social stability in the interests of the CCP’s regime preservation, won’t investors eventually recoil at the retreat to socialism that Arthur outlines, reducing the appeal of holding the yuan, even if, as you both seem to agree, no apocalyptic debt crisis is at hand? In other words, isn’t two times nothing still nothing? Peter: First of all, many of these infrastructure projects may turn out to be quite useful down the road, pardon the pun. Per capita vehicle ownership in China is only one one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 17). A sparsely used expressway today may be a clogged one tomorrow. Chart 17 (Peter)The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Would China really be better off if it had fewer infrastructure projects and more big screen TVs? An economy where people are always buying stuff they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like, is hardly a recipe for success. I am not sure what these references to socialism are supposed to accomplish. You want to see a real retreat to socialism? Try creating millions of unemployed workers with no jobs and no hope. All sorts of pundits decried Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as creeping socialism. The truth is that the New Deal took the wind out of the sails of the fledgling U.S. communist movement at the time. Arthur: I believe that Peter is confusing the structural and cyclical needs for stimulus. When an economy is in a recession – banks are shrinking their balance sheets and property prices are deflating – the authorities must undertake fiscal and credit stimulus. Chart 18 (Arthur)What Will Productivity Growth Look Like If Public Officials Allocate 55%-60% Of GDP? Credit and fiscal stimulus made sense in China in early 2009 when growth plunged. However, over the past 10 years, we have witnessed credit and property market booms of gigantic proportions. Does this economy warrant continuous stimulus? What will productivity growth look like if government bureaucrats continuously allocate 55-60% of GDP each year (Chart 18)? Caroline: Arthur and Peter, you can both argue with one another about the semantic economic definition of the term ‘savings’, the implications of chronic excess production (relative to consumption), and the root drivers of credit growth in China long past the expiry of every BCA client’s investment horizon. Clients benefit from understanding your distinct perspectives only to the extent that they inform your outlook for markets. Will each of you now please outline how you see high levels of credit in China’s economy impacting the following over a cyclical (6-12 month) and structural (3-5 year) horizon: Global growth Commodity prices China-geared financial assets Peter: Regardless of what one thinks about the root causes of China’s high debt levels, it seems certain to me that the Chinese are going to pick up the pace of credit/fiscal stimulus over the next six months in response to slowing growth and trade war uncertainties. If anything, the incentive to open the credit spigots this time around is greater than in the past because the Chinese government wants to have a fast-growing economy to gain leverage over trade negotiations with the U.S. Chart 19 (Peter)Stronger Chinese Credit Growth Bodes Well For Commodity Prices Chart 20 (Peter)The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Stronger Chinese growth will boost growth in the rest of the world. Commodity prices will rise (Chart 19). As a counter-cyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will likely peak over the next month or so and then weaken in the back half of 2019 and into 2020 (Chart 20). The combination of stronger Chinese growth, higher commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will be manna from heaven for emerging markets. If a trade truce between China and the U.S. is reached, investors should move quickly to overweight EM equities. European stocks should also benefit. Looking further out, China’s economy will slow in absolute terms. In relative terms, however, Chinese growth will remain near the top of the global rankings. China has one of the most educated workforces in the world (Chart 21). Assuming that output-per-hour reaches South Korean levels by the middle of the century, Chinese real GDP would need to expand by about 6% per year over the next decade (Chart 22). That’s a lot of growth – growth that will eventually help China outgrow its debt burden. Chart 22 (Peter)China Has More Catching Up To Do Keep in mind that credit growth of 1% when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 300% yields 3% of GDP in credit stimulus, compared with only 1% of stimulus when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. That does not mean that more debt is intrinsically a good thing, but it does mean that China will eventually be able to slow debt growth even if excess savings remains a problem. Structurally, Chinese and EM equities will likely outperform their developed market peers over a 3-to-5 year horizon. The P/E ratio for EM stocks is currently 4.7 percentage points below that of developed markets, which is below its long-term average (Chart 23). While EM EPS growth has lagged DM earnings growth over the past eight years, the long-term trend still favors EM (Chart 24). EM currencies will appreciate over this period, with the RMB leading the way. Chart 23 (Peter)EM Stocks: Valuations Are Attractive Chart 24 (Peter)Earnings Growth In EM Has Outpaced That Of DM Over The Long Haul Arthur: China is facing a historic choice between two scenarios. Medium- and long-term macro outcomes will impact markets differently in each case. Table 1 shows my cyclical and structural investment recommendations for each scenario. Table 1 (Arthur)Arthur’s Recommended Investment Strategy For China-Geared Financial Assets Allowing Markets to Play A Bigger Role = Lower credit growth (deleveraging), corporate restructuring, and weaker growth (Chart 25). This is bearish for growth and financial markets in the medium term but it will make Chinese stocks and the currency structural (long-term) buys. Credit/Money Boom Persists (Socialist Put) = Secular Stagnation, Inflation and Currency Depreciation: The structural outlook is downbeat but there are mini-cycles that investors could play (Chart 26). Cyclically, China-geared financial assets still remain at risk. However, lower asset prices and more stimulus in China could put a floor under asset prices later this year. Timing these mini-cycles is critical. A buy-and-hold strategy for Chinese assets will not be appropriate in this scenario. In short, capitalism is bad but socialism is worse. I hope China will pursue the first path. Caroline: Thank you both for clarifying your perspectives. Over a multi-year horizon, markets will render the ultimate judgement on whether China’s credit boom has represented a reckless misallocation of capital, or a rational policy response to an imbalance between domestic spending and income. In the meantime, we will monitor the complexion of Chinese stimulus and evidence of its global growth multiplier effect over the coming weeks and months. These will be the key variables to watch as we determine when and at what level to upgrade BCA’s cyclical outlook for China-geared assets. Can’t wait for that debate. Footnotes 1 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 2 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 3 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB,” dated November 23, 2016. 4 For a discussion on the reasons behind China’s high savings rate, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 5 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil,” dated March 22, 2018. 6 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019 and “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores   Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Treasury yields have tumbled despite a solid U.S. economy: The 10-year Treasury bond yielded just under 3% when we started beating the below-benchmark-duration drum last summer; now it’s hovering around 2.3%. The golden rule of bond investing argues against positioning for further declines, … : The returns to duration strategies hinge on the difference between actual and expected moves in the fed funds rate. With the money market looking for two cuts over the next twelve months, the fed funds rate is more likely to surprise to the upside than the downside. … but could a lack of borrowing keep yields low?: If debt-fueled spending has gone out of fashion in the U.S., global savings could overwhelm investment, and rates might have to fall further to bring them back into balance. Feature The ride has gotten bumpier as the trade tensions between the U.S. and China have heated up, but our recommendations have held up well since last summer. Equal-weighting equities, underweighting bonds and overweighting cash helped preserve capital during the fourth-quarter selloff, while our early and late January upgrades of equities (while downgrading cash) and spread product (while further downgrading Treasuries), respectively, have proven to be beneficial.1 On a total return basis, the S&P 500 is up over 12% since our upgrade, and the Barclays Bloomberg Corporate and High Yield Indexes have generated excess returns over Treasuries of around 175 and 75 basis points (“bps”), respectively, despite ceding much of their previous leads.2 Even the TIPS ETF (TIP) has held its own with the equivalent-duration nominal-Treasury ETF (IEF). The below-benchmark duration call has eroded some of the overall outperformance, however, and there has been some debate within BCA about whether or not we should change the view. We still do not believe the monetary policy outlook merits a duration-view change. We remain constructive on the outlook for global growth, despite the escalation in tensions between U.S. and Chinese trade negotiators, and therefore do not see a fundamental reason to expect lower real rates. The idea that soft credit growth could hold rates down is interesting, but one would have to believe the spendthrift U.S. leopard really has changed its spots to position a portfolio in line with it. Fed Policy Chart 1Caution: Falling Rate Expectations As of Thursday’s close, the money market was pricing in a 100% chance of a 25-bps rate cut by Thanksgiving, a 100% chance of a 50-bps rate cut by this time next year, and a 45% chance of a third cut by Thanksgiving 2020 (Chart 1, bottom panel). The FOMC has paused its rate-hiking campaign, to be sure, but the idea that it will soon embark on a rate-cutting campaign seems like a stretch. The minutes from the FOMC’s April 30th-May 1st meeting, released last week, painted a picture of a fundamentally solid economy. The balance between hawks and doves remained roughly equal, with “a few participants” calling for a coming need to firm policy, given the swiftness with which inflation pressures can build in a tight labor market, while “a few other participants” noted that the unemployment rate is not the be-all and end-all measure of resource utilization. From an investment strategy perspective, we think our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule provides the best insight. Below-benchmark-duration positioning will outperform if the Fed cuts less (or hikes more) over the next twelve months than markets expect; above-benchmark-duration will win if the Fed cuts more (or hikes less) than markets expect. Some strategists within BCA have raised the possibility that market expectations could force the Fed’s hand. The reason that the Fed is especially loath to disappoint markets in what might be called the forward-guidance era of central banking, but we think there’s an important distinction between taking care not to surprise markets and surrendering one’s free will to them, as parents of young children can attest. Bottom Line: We think the money markets are significantly overestimating the possibility that the Fed will soon cut the fed funds rate, increasing the potential returns from below-benchmark-duration positioning. The Rates Checklist Table 1Rates View Checklist We developed our rates checklist3 to provide a list of real-time measures that bear on our rates view. Of the eleven items on the list, only three have met our threshold for reassessing our bearish rates call at any point over the last eight months, so we have stayed the course (Table 1). The checked boxes indicate that the evidence has been moving against us, though we would argue that the stingy 10-year Treasury yield has gotten overly carried away with discounting that evidence (Chart 1, top panel).  Policy Perceptions The spread between our monetary policy expectations and the markets’ remains wide, so the prospective returns from our Fed call remain ample, and the first box remains unchecked. Thanks to last week’s two-day, 11-bps decline in the 10-year Treasury yield, we have again checked the inverted yield curve box, which first inverted for five days near the end of March, and has inverted for four days so far in May. Our empirical study of the inverted curve’s recession-signaling properties used month-end closes for the 10-year Treasury yield and the 3-month Treasury Bill rate, and found that an inverted curve had called the seven recessions that have occurred over the last 50 years with just one false positive (Chart 2). Now that the curve has inverted over a couple of daily stretches, clients have asked us just what constitutes bona fide inversion. Chart 2Accurate Yield Curve Signals Tend To Last Per the curve’s moves over the last 50 years, we would say inversion doesn’t issue an actionable signal until it persists for at least a few months (Table 2). 1998’s false alarm encompassed just seven days between late September and early October, and covered just one month end. The intuition behind the inverted yield curve’s predictive power is that the bond market sniffs out economic weakness before the Fed officially changes course. Recognizing that the Fed will have to begin cutting rates soon, bond investors buy longer-maturity instruments to reap the biggest rewards. Investors shouldn’t overreact to tentative inversions of the yield curve. Table 2Yield Curve Inversions We have argued that the next recession will not occur until the Fed has hiked the fed funds rate to a level above the equilibrium fed funds rate. Since we cannot observe the equilibrium rate in real time, we have looked to interest-rate-sensitive segments of the economy to gauge if higher rates are beginning to bite. Housing is on the front line of interest-rate sensitivity, and it remains quite affordable relative to history, suggesting that monetary policy has not yet become restrictive. Every time the inverted curve preceded a recession, the affordability index was below its long-run mean or rapidly making its way there (mid-1973); when the yield curve briefly inverted in September 1998, homes remained more affordable than average (Chart 3). Chart 3If Higher Rates Aren't Squeezing The Economy, The Yield Curve May Be Crying Wolf Inflation We concede that realized inflation measures (Chart 4), and inflation expectations as proxied by the difference in TIPS and nominal Treasury yields (Chart 5), have lost momentum since last summer. Washington’s unexpected grant of six-month waivers for importing Iranian oil caused crude prices to plunge, taking headline inflation measures and inflation expectations down with them (Chart 6). Given our Commodity And Energy Strategy team’s view that oil prices will extend their rebound across the rest of this year and into next, we expect that they will again move higher. Chart 4Consumer Price Indexes, ... chart 5... And Inflation Breakevens, ... Chart 6... Are Joined At The Hip With Oil Prices The Labor Market And Imbalances At Home And Abroad The labor market remains tight, so none of the labor market indicators argue for easier monetary policy and lower rates across the term structure. As far as the instability indicators go, there is as yet no sign of unsustainable activity in the economy’s key cyclical sectors. The Fed has stopped emphasizing the idea that financial sector imbalances alone might justify tighter policy, but anecdotal reports about lending standards suggest that potential vulnerabilities remain. There has not yet been an outbreak of major international distress that could deter the Fed from tightening policy, but worsening trade tensions and continued dollar strength would seem to make it slightly more likely. Bottom Line: We have checked a few boxes on our rates checklist, but the available evidence does not support adopting a more constructive view on rates. Hey, Big Spender The American consumer has long been a punching bag for Austrian School adherents and other moralists. As much as they scorn American households for living beyond their means, U.S. consumption has long played a symbiotic role in the global economy. As the engine powering the world’s largest economy, it makes an essential contribution to global aggregate demand, and provides an outlet for export powerhouses like China and Germany. An economy can only run a current account surplus provided that there are other economies running current account deficits capable of offsetting it. Measured inflation and inflation expectations were beginning to get some traction before oil collapsed upon the issuance of Iranian import waivers. In a recent blog post, former BCA Editor-in-Chief Francis Scotland posited that interest rates may not go anywhere as long as American households embrace their nascent post-crisis frugality. Using U.S. household demand as a proxy for global aggregate demand, Francis argues that if households don’t borrow and spend the way they did throughout the pre-crisis postwar era, global aggregate demand will suffer unless another profligate spender emerges to pick up the slack. Add China to the mix, and global savings could swamp global investment. Against that backdrop, savings and investment would only realign if rates fell. Newly frugal U.S. households may be helping to cap interest rates, but it’s too early to declare the end of the Debt Supercycle. Broadening the scope to include all public- and private-sector U.S. borrowing, the nominal 10-year Treasury yield has taken some cues from growth in aggregate borrowing (Chart 7). The relationship with real yields is not as strong (Chart 8), but if borrowing has some relationship to inflation, as under the guns-and-butter fiscal policy of the late sixties, nominal yields might well be a better measure. We can easily go along with the supply-and-demand intuition behind the observed relationship: when there’s stronger demand for credit, rates have to rise to entice savings and discourage investment to bring them back into balance, and vice versa. Chart 7Nominal Treasury Yields Have Been Tightly Linked With The Pace Of Loan Growth, ... Chart 8... And Real Yields Have Broadly Followed The Pattern As Well Government borrowing filled the void left by retrenching households and corporations in the immediate aftermath of the crisis. Household and corporate loan demand has been choppy since, however, and growth in aggregate borrowing has bumped around its mid-1950s lows throughout the expansion. We are not ready to declare that Americans have turned over a new, parsimonious leaf. The federal budget deficit soared following the passage of the stimulus package, and the CBO projects that it will continue to widen. Household debt growth is at its pre-crisis lows, but it has been accelerating ever since 2010 (Chart 9), and with debt service as a share of disposable income at its lowest level in at least 40 years, households have plenty of capacity to borrow. Chart 9Don't Count Consumers Out Just Yet Bottom Line: Interest rates have moved directionally with aggregate loan growth across the postwar era. Tepid loan demand growth may well keep a lid on rates, but we are not convinced that the Debt Supercycle has really breathed its last. Investment Implications Now that the 10-year Treasury yield has drifted back down to 2.3%, we believe the distribution of potential rate outcomes a year from now is skewed to the upside. We are thereby sticking with our recommendation that investors underweight Treasuries and maintain below-benchmark-duration positioning in all fixed-income portfolios. Even if there is not a clear catalyst on the immediate horizon for higher rates, we do not think that either the U.S. or the global economy is so fragile that investors should position for further rate declines. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the January 7 and January 28, 2019 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “What Now?” and “Double Breaker,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 All return data calculated as of the Thursday, May 23rd close. 3 Please see the September 17, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What Would It Take To Change Our Bearish Rates View?” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Even if higher tariffs are imposed tonight, there is a good chance that China and the U.S. will reach a temporary trade truce over the coming weeks. Contrary to President Trump’s assertion, U.S. companies and consumers have borne all of the costs of the tariffs. With the next U.S. presidential campaign less than one year away, the self-described “master negotiator” will actually need to prove that he can negotiate a trade deal. If trade talks do collapse, the Chinese will ramp up credit/fiscal stimulus “MMT style,” thus providing a cushion under global growth and risk assets. In fact, there is a very high probability that the Chinese will overreact to the risks to growth, much like they did in 2009 and 2016. Investors should remain overweight global equities for the next 12 months, while positioning for a modestly weaker U.S. dollar and somewhat higher global bond yields. Feature Tariff Man Strikes Again Hopes for a quick end to the trade war were dashed last Sunday. President Trump threatened to hike tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods and begin proceedings to tax the remaining $325 billion of imports currently not subject to tariffs. Although details remain sketchy, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer apparently informed the president that the Chinese were backtracking on prior commitments to change laws dealing with issues such as market access, forced technology transfers, and IP theft.1 This infuriated Trump. Trump’s announcement came just as Vice Premier Liu He and a 100-person Chinese trade delegation were set to depart for Washington. As BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken has noted, the relationship between the two sides was deteriorating even before Trump fired his latest salvo.2 The Chinese government was incensed by the U.S. request that Canada detain and extradite a senior official at Huawei, a top Chinese telecom firm. For its part, the Trump Administration was irked by China’s questionable enforcement of Iranian oil imports, the escalation of Chinese military drills around Taiwan, and the perception that China had not done enough to keep North Korea in check following the failed summit with Kim Jong-Un in Hanoi. It would be naïve to expect these ongoing geopolitical issues to fade anytime soon. The world is shifting from a unipolar to a multipolar one (Chart 1). In an environment where there are overlapping spheres of influence, geopolitical tensions will rise. Chart 1The Era Of Unipolarity Is Over That said, stocks still managed to advance during the first four decades of the post-war era even though the U.S. and the Soviet Union were at each other’s throats. What investors need today is some reassurance that the current trade spat will not degenerate into a full-out trade war that undermines global commerce. Ultimately, we think they will get this reassurance for the same reason that the Soviets and Americans never ended up lobbing missiles at each other: It would have been a lose-lose proposition to do so. Yet, the path from here to there will be a bumpy one. Investors should expect heightened volatility over the coming weeks. As It Turns Out, Trade Wars Are Neither Good Nor Easy To Win There was never any doubt that Wall Street would suffer from a trade war. What was less clear at the outset was the impact that higher tariffs would have on Main Street. Despite President Trump’s claim that the tariffs paid to the U.S. Treasury were “mostly borne by China,” the evidence suggests that close to 100% of the tariffs were, in fact, borne by U.S. companies and consumers. What investors need today is some reassurance that the current trade spat will not degenerate into a full-out trade war that undermines global commerce. A recent NBER paper compared the prices of Chinese imports that were subject to tariffs and similar goods that were not.3 Had Chinese producers been forced to bear the cost of the tariffs, one would have expected pre-tariff import prices to decline. In fact, they didn’t. The tariffs were simply absorbed by U.S. importers in the form of lower profit margins and by U.S. consumers in the form of higher selling prices. This does not mean that Chinese producers escaped unscathed. The paper showed that imports of tariffed goods dropped sharply as U.S. demand shifted away from China and towards domestically-produced goods and imports from other countries. Chart 2Support For Protectionism Rises When Unemployment Is High One might think that the decision to divert spending from Chinese goods to, say, Korean goods would be irrelevant for U.S. welfare. However, a simple thought experiment reveals that this is not the case. Suppose that a 10% tariff raises the price of an imported good from $100 to $110. If the consumer buys this good from China, the consumer will lose $10 while the U.S. government will gain $10, implying no loss in welfare. However, suppose the consumer buys the same good, tariff-free, from Korea for $105. Then the consumer loses $5 while the government gets no additional revenue, implying a net loss in national welfare of $5. Things get trickier when we consider the case where the consumer buys an identical domestically-produced good for say, $107, in order to avoid the tariff. If the economy is suffering from high unemployment, the additional demand will boost GDP by $107. The consumer who bought the domestically-produced good will be worse off by $7, but wages and profits will rise by $107, leaving a net gain of $100 for the economy. When unemployment is high, beggar-thy-neighbor policies make more sense. This is a key reason why support for protectionism tends to rise when unemployment increases (Chart 2). Today, however, the U.S. unemployment rate is at a 49-year low. To the extent that tariffs shift demand towards locally sourced goods, this is likely to require that workers and capital be diverted from other uses. When this occurs, there is no change in overall GDP. Within the context of the example above, all that would happen is that consumers would lose $7, reducing national welfare by the same amount. In fact, it is even worse than that. The example above does not include the impact on welfare from any resources that would need to be squandered from having to shift workers and capital equipment from sectors of the economy that lose from higher tariffs to those that gain from them. Nor does the example include the adverse impact on national welfare from any retaliatory policies. Ironically, while the evidence suggests that U.S. tariffs did not have much effect on Chinese import prices, it does appear that Chinese tariffs had an effect on U.S. export prices. Agricultural prices are highly sensitive to market conditions. Chart 3 shows that grain and soybean prices fell noticeably in 2018 on days when trade tensions intensified. This pattern has continued into the present. It is not surprising that Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, along with other senior Iowa politicians, penned a letter to President Trump imploring him to reach a trade deal in order to help the state’s farming communities.4 China’s Secret Weapon: MMT To be fair, the arguments above do not account for the strategic possibility that the threat of punitive tariffs forces the Chinese to open their markets and refrain from corporate espionage and IP theft. If Trump is able to wrangle these concessions from the Chinese, then he could remove the tariffs, creating an environment more favorable to American corporate interests. The problem is that China will resist conceding so much ground. True, a trade war would hurt Chinese exporters much more than it would hurt U.S. firms. However, China is no longer as dependent on trade as it once was. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for only 3.6% of GDP, down from 7.3% of GDP in 2006 (Chart 4). China also has plenty of tools to support the economy in the event of a trade war. Chief among these is credit/fiscal stimulus. As we discussed three weeks ago, investors are underestimating China’s ability to ramp up credit growth in order to support spending throughout the economy.5 High levels of household savings have kept interest rates below the growth rate of the economy (Chart 5). When GDP growth exceeds the interest rate at which the government can borrow, even a persistently large budget deficit will produce a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in the long run. Chart 4China Is No Longer As Dependent On Trade With The U.S. As It Once Was Chart 5China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy   The standard counterargument is that governments cannot control the interest rate at which they borrow. This means that they run the risk of experiencing a vicious circle where high debt levels cause bond yields to rise, making it more difficult for the government to service its debt. This could lead to even higher bond yields and, eventually, default. However, this argument applies only to countries that do not issue their own currencies. Since a sovereign government can always print cash to pay for the goods and services, it can never run out of money. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for only 3.6% of GDP, down from 7.3% of GDP in 2006. The main reason a sovereign central bank would wish to raise rates is to prevent the economy from overheating. If a rising fiscal deficit is the consequence of a decline in private-sector spending (which is something that would likely happen during a trade war), there is no risk of overheating, and hence, there is no need to raise interest rates. We are not big fans of Modern Monetary Theory, but at least on this point, the MMT crowd is right while most analysts are wrong. Investment Conclusions It is impossible to say with any confidence what the next few days will bring on the trade front. If the Trump Administration’s allegation that the Chinese backtracked on prior commitments turns out to be true, it is possible that some of them will be reinstated, thus allowing the negotiations to resume. This could prompt Trump to offer a “grace period” to the Chinese of one or two weeks later tonight before scheduled tariff hikes are set to occur. If tariffs do go up, what should investors do? The answer depends on how much stocks fall in response to the news. If global equities were to decline by more than five percent, our inclination would be to get more bullish. There are two reasons for this. First, the failure to reach a deal this week does not mean that the talks will irrevocably break down. The point of Trump’s tariffs was never to raise revenue. It was to force the Chinese into a trade agreement that served America’s interests. With less than a year to go before the presidential campaign kicks into high gear, the self-described “master negotiator” needs to prove to the American public that he can actually negotiate a trade deal. This means some sort of an agreement is more likely than not. Second, as noted above, China will respond aggressively with fresh stimulus if the U.S. slaps tariffs on its exports. This will help cushion global growth and risk assets. Infrastructure spending tends to be more commodity intensive than manufacturing production. Thus, even if the Chinese government exactly offsets the loss of manufacturing exports with additional infrastructure spending, the net effect on global growth will probably be positive. China will respond aggressively with fresh stimulus if the U.S. slaps tariffs on its exports. In reality, there is a very high probability that the Chinese will do more than that. As the 2009 and 2016 episodes illustrate, when faced with a clear downside shock to growth, the government calibrates the policy response based on the worst-case scenario. Not only would a bout of hyperstimulus provide downside protection to the Chinese economy against a growth shock, it would also give the government more negotiating leverage with Trump. After all, it is much easier to brush away threats of punitive tariffs if you have an economy that is humming along. Investors should remain overweight global equities for the next 12 months, while positioning for a modestly weaker U.S. dollar and somewhat higher global bond yields. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      David Lawder, Jeff Mason, and Michael Martina, “Exclusive: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources,” Reuters, May 8, 2019. 2      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “U.S. And China Get Cold Feet,” dated May 6, 2019. 3      Mary Amiti, Stephen J. Redding, and David E. Weinstein, “The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare,” NBER Working Paper No. 25672, (March 2019). 4      “Young, Ernst Lead Iowa Delegation in Letter Urging President Not to Impose Tariffs,” Joni Ernst United States Senator For Iowa, March 7, 2018. 5      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The March data brought the first signs of a stabilization in China’s “hard” economic data, albeit from a weak level. The April PMIs disappointed, but they remained in expansionary territory; this is in addition to a continued significant improvement in the trade-related subcomponents of the official survey. Chinese credit growth is unlikely to relapse over the coming year, despite recent investor concerns that Chinese policymakers may dial back their stimulus efforts. The pace of growth may moderate, but halting the uptrend in growth this year would constitute a major policy mistake that we do not expect. Chinese stocks may trend flat-to-down in the very near term as investors await a signed trade deal with the U.S. and further signs of a recovery in activity. Over the next 6-12 months, however, an overweight stance is warranted, barring a major relapse in our leading indicator. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, March’s data brought the very first (albeit modest) signs of stabilization in actual Chinese economic activity. While the April manufacturing PMIs released earlier this week disappointed, the trade related components of the official survey continued to improve meaningfully, which implies that an improvement in domestic demand is still early. This conclusion is not particularly surprising given that the first green shoots in the actual data are emerging from a depressed level of activity. Credit growth has only recently picked up, implying that actual activity will strengthen over the coming 6-12 months followed a signed trade deal and a continued (modest) uptrend in credit. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, the most significant recent development has been that Chinese stocks have sagged somewhat due to concerns that policymakers may meaningfully dial back their stimulus efforts over the coming year. In our view, recent statements from policymakers, as well as the fact that the recovery in activity is only now beginning, underscores that credit growth is unlikely to relapse over the coming year. It may not grow at the breakneck pace observed in the first quarter, but beyond the near-term jitters that this may introduce into the equity market, we do not see it as a threat to an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks over the coming 6-12 months. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1 highlights that March brought the first sign of a stabilization in actual Chinese economic activity. When measured on a smoothed basis, the Li Keqiang index itself weakened further in March, but total import growth moved sideways and nominal manufacturing output ticked higher. We noted in our last Macro & Market review that future changes in activity measures were now more likely to reflect actual changes in underlying economic circumstances given that the previously beneficial tariff front-running effect had probably washed out of the data. March’s data confirms this view, and underscores that activity will pickup in the second half of the year. Chart 1The First (Albeit Tentative) Sign Of Economic Stabilization Chart 2 shows that the uptrend in our leading indicator for Chinese economic activity is so far modest, but also that it is now at a 2-year high relative to its 12-month moving average. The indicator is being weighed-down by weak money growth (M2 and our definition of M3), even though monetary conditions remain easy and our measures of credit growth picked up sharply in Q1. We doubt that the trend in Chinese money and credit growth can sustainably decouple in a scenario where the latter is sustainably improving, as it would imply that all of the credit improvement was originating from non-bank financial institutions. As such, we expect money growth to catch up to credit growth in the coming months. The annual change in the PBOC’s pledged supplementary lending injection remained in negative territory in March, and both floor space started and sold decelerated modestly further. Construction and sales activity continue to diverge, with the latter still pointing to a further slowdown in the former. We will be updating our Chinese housing outlook in a Special Report next week. April’s Caixin and official manufacturing PMI disappointed, but this overshadowed a continued significant improvement in the new export orders and import components of the official PMI (Chart 3). In our view, this is consistent with a stabilization in the export outlook, but implies that Chinese domestically-oriented manufacturing activity is not yet booming. Nonetheless, a signed trade deal, improving importer/exporter sentiment, and an uptrend in credit growth still implies that activity will pick up meaningfully later in the year. Chart 2Our Leading Indicator Is Now Modestly Trending Higher Chart 3Trade-Related Components Of The Official PMI Continue To Rise   Over the past month, Taiwanese and domestic Chinese stocks have been the best performers within “Greater China”, relative to the MSCI Hong Kong index, the MSCI China index, and the Hang Seng China Enterprises index. The latter in particular has lagged other Chinese equity indexes since late-March (Chart 4), and may be due for a catch-up. Over the nearer-term, Chinese stocks, especially the domestic market, have sagged due to concerns that Chinese policymakers may meaningfully dial back their stimulus efforts over the coming year. We discussed this risk in our April 17thWeekly Report,1 and noted that while we expected credit growth to moderate somewhat, a more meaningful slowdown, particularly if coupled with signals from policymakers that a much slower pace of growth is desired, could pose a risk to our overweight equity stance. The April manufacturing PMIs disappointed, but the trade-related components of the official survey continued to improve meaningfully. In our view, recent statements from policymakers, particularly from PBOC Deputy Governor Liu Guoqiang,2 underscores that credit growth is unlikely to relapse over the coming year; it will simply not be growing at the breakneck pace observed in the first quarter. Beyond the near-term jitters that this may introduce into the equity market, we do not see it as a threat to an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 5 highlights that Chinese consumer stocks have been the clear winners since the beginning of the year, particularly in the domestic market. Consumer stocks, including staples, sold off substantially in 2H2018 as investors responded to shockingly weak consumer spending data. Stimulus measures targeted to Chinese households, along with a meaningful improvement in some measures of consumer spending, has helped restore investor confidence in consumer stocks (which had previously been viewed as a bullish “no-brainer” structural trade). Chart 4Is An H-Share Catchup##br## Looming? Chart 5Chinese Consumer Stocks Have Been On Fire   The sharp rise in the 7-day interbank repo rate in April fed concerns among equity investors that Chinese policymakers might be in the process of paring back their stimulus efforts. However, as Chart 6 shows, China’s 7-day repo rate is extraordinarily volatile, and is affected by a variety of seasonal and technical factors. The chart shows that a 1-month moving average of the 7-day repo rate is broadly in line with the level that has prevailed over the past 9 months. In addition, the 3-month repo rate (which we have argued has been a more informative predictor of China’s monetary policy stance) remains well on the low end of its range over the past year. In short, despite investor concerns, Chinese interbank repo rates are not signaling a change in China’s monetary policy stance. Tighter monetary policy is not in the cards for this year. After having risen noticeably in late-March, Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have fallen back to the low end of their trading range over the past 8 months. We continue to recommend that domestic investors hold a diversified portfolio of SOE corporate bonds, on the basis that actual bond defaults over the coming 6-12 months are likely to be materially lower than what investors are pricing in even though they are indeed likely to rise. Chart 7 shows that USD-HKD has eased somewhat over the past month from the top end of the band, and now trades closed at 7.845. This modest appreciation in HKD appears to have been catalyzed by a further reduction in the supply of interbank liquidity by the HKMA. While the appreciation in HKD is some modest good news for Hong Kong’s monetary authority, it remains reluctant to reduce liquidity in the system given how extremely weak loan growth is in Hong Kong. This implies that, barring a meaningful upturn in credit, a significant appreciation in HKD is not likely in the cards. Chart 6Interbank Repo Rates Are Not Trending Higher Chart 7A Modest Appreciation In HKD (Which Is Not Likely To Continue)   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “In The Wake Of An Upgrade: An Investment Strategy Post-Mortem,” dated April 17, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2      During a PBOC briefing on April 25, Deputy Governor Guoqiang noted that “no one can bear it if policy swings back and forth between tightening and loosening many times a year”. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Fed: Fed policymakers are sending a unified message that they want to keep rates on hold until they see a significant increase in inflation. However, our reading of their recent remarks suggests that they will be reluctant to actually cut rates unless GDP growth falls to below its estimated potential. Economy: If we strip out the volatile net exports, government and inventory components of growth, we see that economic activity slowed to below potential in the first quarter. However, the timeliest data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all suggest that Q1 will be the trough for the year. All in all, economic growth should be comfortably above potential in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Investment Strategy: Investors should keep portfolio duration low, avoiding the 5-year/7-year part of the Treasury curve. Investors should also overweight spread product versus Treasuries, with a focus on Baa and junk rated corporate bonds. Feature Since January, Federal Reserve policymakers have sent a strikingly unified message: Policy should remain “patient” in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations and demonstrate the symmetry of the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target. Take for example, two excerpts from recent speeches by Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Chicago Fed President Charles Evans. Rosengren:1 My own preference is for the Federal Reserve to adopt an inflation range that explicitly recognizes the challenge of the effective lower bound. We might be forced to accept below-2-percent inflation during recessions, but we would commit to achieving above-2-percent inflation in good times, so as to provide more policy space to counteract the next recession. Evans:2 I think the Fed must be willing to embrace inflation modestly above 2 percent 50 percent of the time. Indeed, I would communicate comfort with core inflation rates of 2-1/2 percent, as long as there is no obvious upward momentum and the path back toward 2 percent can be well managed. The consensus appears to be not only that higher inflation is necessary before the Fed lifts rates again, but also that the Fed should explicitly target an overshoot of its 2 percent target. With trailing 12-month core PCE inflation running at only 1.55% as of March, it will undoubtedly take some time before these inflation goals are met. We think the Fed’s commitment to keeping rates steady could waver if financial conditions ease sufficiently.3 But for now, with the market priced for 36 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months, the more pertinent question is: What will it take for the Fed to lower rates from current levels? Expecting A Rate Cut? Don’t Hold Your Breath Our Fed Monitor has an excellent track record calling turning points in monetary policy, and at present it is very close to zero, consistent with the Fed’s “on hold” stance (Chart 1). The Monitor is comprised of 44 indicators of economic growth, inflation and financial conditions. In other words, for the Monitor to recommend rate cuts going forward we will need to see some further deterioration in either economic growth, inflation or financial markets (Chart 2). This is roughly consistent with how Chicago Fed President Evans described his reaction function in his speech from two weeks ago: Chart 1"On Hold" Stance Justified Chart 2Fed Monitor Components If growth runs close to or somewhat above its potential and inflation builds momentum, then some further rate increases may be appropriate over time… In contrast, if activity softens more than expected or if inflation and inflation expectations run too low, then policy may have to be left on hold – or perhaps even loosened – to provide the appropriate accommodation to obtain our objectives. Our interpretation of the Fed’s reaction function is that it wants to maintain an accommodative monetary policy to ensure that inflation and inflation expectations move higher over time. However, it will consider monetary policy to be accommodative as long as GDP growth stays close to, or above, estimates of its potential rate. In other words, while the Fed is in no rush to tighten, we probably need to see a significant period of below-potential GDP growth before rate cuts are on the table. In his speech, Evans indicates that his personal estimate of potential GDP growth is 1.75%. The March Summary of Economic Projections shows that the central tendency of FOMC participant estimates is 1.8% - 2%. Our view is that U.S. growth will easily surpass this threshold in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Tracking U.S. Growth Markets were caught off guard last week when we learned that real GDP grew 3.17% in the first quarter, above consensus estimates and well above the 1.8% - 2% potential growth threshold. However, the headline Q1 figure was flattered by significant gains in a few volatile GDP components. Chart 3Underlying Growth Slowdown Much like how core measures of inflation strip out volatile food and energy prices to give us a better sense of the underlying trend, we can also look at Real Final Sales To Domestic Purchasers (FSDP) to get a better sense of the underlying trend in economic growth. FSDP includes only consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment. That is, it removes government spending, net exports and inventory investment from the overall number. Viewed this way, we see that the U.S. economy did experience a significant growth slowdown in the first quarter. Real FSDP grew only 1.45% in Q1, below the 1.8% - 2% potential growth threshold (Chart 3). Net Exports & Inventories Chart 4Net Exports & Inventories First quarter GDP was boosted by a +1.03% contribution from net exports and a +0.65% contribution from inventory investment, neither of which is likely to be repeated in Q2 (Chart 4). The top panel of Chart 4 shows just how unusual it is to see such a large contribution from net exports, an event that becomes even less likely when you factor in the dollar’s recent appreciation (Chart 4, panel 2). Turning to inventories, a significant build was long overdue given the backlog of orders seen during the past two years. But the ISM Manufacturing Index’s backlog of orders component has now fallen back to a neutral level (Chart 4, bottom panel). This suggests that firms are comfortable with their current inventory stockpiles, and that no aggressive inventory increases are likely during the next few quarters. Interestingly, while net exports and inventories will almost certainly pressure GDP growth lower in Q2, back toward the growth rate in FSDP, the latter has probably already troughed for the year. Recent data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all appear to have turned a corner. Consumer Spending Consumer spending added a meager +0.8% to GDP in Q1, but core retail sales growth has recovered sharply after having plunged near the end of last year (Chart 5). What’s more, with consumer sentiment close to one standard deviation above its historical mean – whether we look at expectations or current conditions surveys – consumers don’t seem inclined to retrench in the months ahead (Chart 6). Chart 5Consumer Spending Chart 6Buoyant Consumer Sentiment Nonresidential Investment Chart 7Nonresidential Investment We expected business investment to weaken in Q1, and its +0.4% growth contribution is low compared to recent readings. The decline was anticipated due to last year’s significant deterioration in global growth. Slower global growth necessarily causes firms to downgrade their profit expectations. Faced with lower expected profits, companies are much more inclined to curtail investment. However, considering the outlook heading into mid-year, we have already noticed signs of improvement in leading global growth indicators.4 More recently, we have even seen that improvement translate into stronger U.S. investment data. Core durable goods new orders grew +17% (annualized) in March, dragging the year-over-year rate up to +5.3% (Chart 7). Further, our BCA Composite New Orders Indicator – a weighted combination of ISM New Orders and NFIB Capital Spending Plans – has bounced during the past few months, returning close to its historical mean (Chart 7, panel 3). An average of Capital Spending Intentions from regional Fed surveys also remains close to one standard deviation above its historical average (Chart 7, bottom panel). Residential Investment Residential investment (aka Housing) has exerted a meaningful drag on GDP growth in each of the past five quarters, and it lowered GDP by -0.1% in Q1 (Chart 8). However, much like with consumer spending and nonresidential investment, the timely economic data suggest a turnaround is in the offing. Much like with consumer spending and nonresidential investment, the timely economic data suggest a turnaround is in the offing. Optimism has returned to housing since mortgage rates fell earlier this year. New home sales and mortgage purchase applications have jumped, and single-family housing starts are the only important housing-related data that haven’t yet rebounded. We expect that rebound to occur soon, as do homebuilders whose confidence has risen during the past few months. Homebuilder optimism surveys remain close to one standard deviation above their historical averages (Chart 9). Chart 8Residential Investment Chart 9Buoyant Homebuilder Confidence Bottom Line: Fed policymakers are sending a unified message that they want to keep rates on hold until they see a significant increase in inflation. However, our reading of their recent remarks suggests that they will be reluctant to actually cut rates unless GDP growth falls to below its estimated potential. Potential GDP growth is estimated to be in the 1.8% to 2% range. If we strip out the volatile net exports, government and inventory components of growth, we see that economic activity slowed to below potential in the first quarter. However, the timeliest data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all suggest that Q1 will be the trough for the year. All in all, economic growth should be comfortably above potential in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Investment Implications To translate the above views on the economy and the Fed’s reaction function into a portfolio strategy, we first return to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing.5The Golden Rule states that if the Fed delivers more (fewer) rate hikes than are currently discounted in the market over the next 12 months, then the Treasury index will earn negative (positive) excess returns versus cash during that investment horizon (Chart 10). At present, this means that investors should only expect positive excess returns from taking duration risk in the event that the Fed cuts rates by more than 36 basis points during the next 12 months. Given our view that rate cuts are unlikely, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 10The Golden Rule's Track Record If we further assume that market expectations will shift to price-in fewer rate cuts, or even possibly some rate hikes, then we would expect 5-year and 7-year yields to rise the most (Chart 11). Investors should avoid those maturities and focus their Treasury exposure on the short and long ends of the curve. These barbell over bullet trades have the advantage of being positive carry, so they will earn money even if rate hike expectations are unchanged.6  Chart 11Avoid The 5- And 7-Year Maturities Chart 12Investment Grade Spread Targets Finally, the combination of above-potential GDP growth and a patient Fed is positive for spread product. Investors should remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries in bond portfolios, focusing on Baa and junk rated corporate bonds. Spreads for those credit tiers remain wide compared to historical median levels for this phase of the cycle (Charts 12 &13).7 Chart 13High-Yield Spread Targets Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/speeches/2019/monetary-policymaking-in-todays-environment.aspx 2 https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/speeches/2019/risk-management-and-the-credibility-of-monetary-policy 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on how we calculate these spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification